True or False: Government regulation of a monopoly effectively corrects for the missallocation of...?
481988
Not really.  The government has to regulate correctly.  If they don't put the price ceiling where it would be in perfect competition or at least lower than monopoly price, then it doesn't really do anything.  Even then, there might be some dead weight.  I don't remember fully.
886010
A monopoly industry is characterised by ineffiencies because "a business can keep price above marginal cost and increase total revenue and profits as a result. Assuming that a monopolist and a competitive firm have the same costs, the welfare loss under monopoly is shown by a deadweight loss of consumer surplus compared to the competitive price and output." This can be seen in the diagram below:\n\nhttp://www.tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/competition/efficiency.htm
1090377
I don't believe any industries should be regulated by the government.\n\nThe reason is that by regulating anything, certain inequities are created by the government.  That flies in the face of its founding principles.\n\nBeyond that, it's very ineffective.\n\nTake TV for instance.  Television is regulated by the FCC.\n\nTo start your own station, you need to obtain a license from the FCC.\n\nAnd the fee for that license is huge.  Only a few can afford this license.\n\nWhat you get is a situation like network TV.\n\nThe airwaves are public property but only a few get to use them.\n\nLack of variety means the same boring old programs.\n\nFewer sources of information means that viewers only get a narrow point of views.\n\nWould more regulation fix that?  Let's compare it to a similar industry:\n\nA similar yet largely unregulated industry is the Internet.\n\nEveryone can use it and more importantly, everyone can create on it.\n\nLook how fast it has developed.\n\nThere are literally billions of sites there worldwide.  One can communicate globally instantly.\n\nThe cost is low because ISPs don't need to pay an insane amount of fees, so just about everyone can afford it not only as a tool to receive information, but to transmit and create information.\n\nI believe that not only is more regulation bad, but we need to start deregulating a lot more industries.\n\n\n*I know someone might mention identity theft, but theft is theft.  On the Internet or in the real world.  That doesn't call for new laws but correct application of existing ones.
720999
Personally, I don't think there should be any legislation against price gouging.\n\nIn most situations, people have alternatives and if enough indiviuals excersize those alternatives, the price gouger will have to come back in line quickly or go out of business.  If he doesn't, the exhorbitant prices should bring in more supply from indivuals wanting to get in on the the quick profits, thus satisfying demand and lowering prices as too many sellers get stuck with too much product (Econ 101, as I recall).\n\nNow some people will always patronize the price gouger.  Why?  In some cases stupidity.  In some cases, force of habit (I always get my gas at XYZ station).  In some cases convenience.  If I go to the price gouger, I shouldn't have to sit in line waiting to gas up.  If I'm in a hurry, it might be worth the extra cost to me.  In the example you gave, it's probably part conveninence (I get all my medicines and other stuff at the drug store chain and just pick up the toothpaste while I'm there).  Or, if it's like certain people I know, the just don't patronize the $1.00 stores (I guess they feel it's beneath them).\n\nOf course, there's always exceptions.  The rural gas station that's the only gas station within a reasonble driving distance enjoys a captive market (they have a virtual monopoly).  In such situations, monopolistic pricing may have to be controlled in some fashion, assuming the product is an essential product.
232336
Monopolists function by controlling an entire market.  There are many anti-monopoly laws, but they are not very effective.  Corporations are finding loopholes and ways around them all the time.
652911
The amount of choices produces competition between proveiders of product to the consumer.  This competition forces lower pricing which is why free markets are superior to state controlled market pricing.  Necessary?  No, but I would rather have the choice than a higher price.
1014148
Regulatory capture is a phenomenon in which a government regulatory agency becomes dominated by the interests of the industry that it oversees. In the United States, the most notorious historical examples are the Civil Aeronautics Board, which protected airlines from competition; the Interstate Commerce Commission, known as the "trucker's best friend," which restricted competition in transportation; and the Department of Agriculture, which implements policies that are alleged to favor the interests of large corporate farming concerns over those of consumers and family farmers. The term is central in a stream of research that is often referred to as the economics of regulation, which is critical of earlier conceptualizations of regulatory intervention by governments as being motivated to protect public goods. Two often cited articles are Laffont & Tirole (1991) and Levine & Forrence (1990).
472150
False in US the automobile is a good -- so it is governed by section 2 Of UCC(uniform commercial code) sale of goods. However, If there are some ambiguities as to the code the common law will govern.
264619
Surely that makes them have the monopoly on the business!  They should be investigated by the Mergers and Monopolies Commission!
432020
The biggest problem is Price fixing.  Naturally when two or more companies are competing for business this competition will drive down prices for their product or service.  This benefits the consumer.  If there is collusion between these companies they can set the prices without regard to competition.
426275
The only penalty there should be is the loss of customers. There are way to many laws on things that would fix themselves. By having a government that tells us what is right and wrong about everything the populace losses the ability to know the difference for themselves.
307621
If you mean, do they violate other people's copyrights,\nthe answer is yes.\nIf you mean, do they prevent competitors from succeeding,\nthe answer is yes.\nIf you mean, do they violate monopoly and anti-trust laws,\nthe answer is yes.\nIf you mean, do they steal from their customers, that's a\nmatter of debate.\nIf you mean, did they steal their company (from a previous\nowner), the answer is no.\nIf you mean something else, please clarify.
917866
I would say that it has forced the legal environment to be more adaptive to global market needs. Legal provisions have on the whole had shortfalls as they have been developed for local or regional application.
420427
Yes it is but not with the US Government in control. Efficiency has never been welcome on any government control ed or regulated business.  You see how they run a railroad don't you?
126115
Free market works best in perfect market. But perfect market is not what capitalists are interested in since as the market moves towards perfection there is less and less of profits to be made. When the market is perfect, according economic theory, the revenues are just enough to cover all costs plue a reward to the entrepreneur just large enough to keep him from quitting the venture. But that is not really large enough. So powerful capitalists and businesses would like to skew the rules in their favor to make the market as imperfect as possible, so that they reap super profits. In the context of the free market therefore role of law is to ensure that the rules of game is just and fair and thus prevent the market from straying too far from the 'perfect'.\nIndia's laws have to go a long way to catch up with her market economy. Most laws are outdated or are simply ill-equipped to deal with the market. Many laws are biased almost by design in favour of big business. This bias is all the more stark when it comes to implementation of the laws. Good laws are bad laws when badly implemented. Most of our market is therefore heavily skewed, unregulated or ill-regulated.
100181
No, it does not. American business has been through this before. \n\nThe Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., the grocery-store chain, stood astride the U.S. market in the 1920s and 1930s with a dominance that has likely never been duplicated. At its peak, A&P had five times the number of stores Wal-Mart has now (although much smaller ones), and at one point, it owned 80% of the supermarket business. Some of the antipredatory-pricing laws in use today were inspired by A&P's attempts to muscle its suppliers.\n\nThere is very little academic and statistical study of Wal-Mart's impact on the health of its suppliers and virtually nothing in the last decade, when Wal-Mart's size has increased by a factor of five. This while the retail industry has become much more concentrated. In large part, that's because it's nearly impossible to get meaningful data that would allow researchers to track the influence of Wal-Mart's business on companies over time. You'd need cooperation from the vendor companies or Wal-Mart or both--and neither Wal-Mart nor its suppliers are interested in sharing such intimate detail
303907
It depends if the company can make up the money that it lost then yes it would, if it can't then no it will not.