Economics: Monopoly & Income Distribution?
926183
The first answer is yes.  \n\nIn perfect competition when price is greater than MC then the producer will still produce.  I don’t know what you mean by taxing.  The perfect competitor will sell as many units as it can produce before marginal cost exceeds demand.  So the answer is No if you mean are they collecting more consumer surplus.  \n\nA monopoly is able to raise the price above equilibrium.  Therefore it reduces the amount of goods it generates to equal the maximum profit point (the quantity where MC = MR). This is always less quantity than the equilibrium and therefore the price is higher per unit.  The reason it is the profit maximizing point is because it allows the company to capture some of the consumer surplus and therefore make more profit.  If there was more competition there would be firms fighting the monopoly and undercutting thier profit maximizing point, thereby reducing economic profit and giving more value to the consumers.  \n\nYour question is not totally clear but I believe that is what you are asking.
804607
Two principles that apply to every market are the supply and demand pricing dynamics and the product life cycle pricing dynamics.\n\nA project to demonstrate these principles that would be elegant is to choose two different markets and model the pricing in the market according to supply and demand and over time with respect to the product life cycle.\n\nMuch like a scientist investigating genetic eveolution, choose markets with relatively short product life cycles so that the time element is easily observed.\n\nFor example, the Apple ipod is a product that revolutionized the music industry by making downloading legal and cache.  The devices progressed from the first ipod, to the ipod mini to the ipod nano.  The backbone of the offering is iTunes, which changed the way we buy and listen to music.  Look at the pricing curves over time for the ipod models by looking at press releases and industry coverage of the ipod revolution.  You will see that the pressures of supply and demand drove the ipod pricing, while the product lifecycle drove the introduction of new models to keep the public buying and maintaining image and pricing.\n\nNext, look at the video game platform market.  In this market the product life cycle is very influential since new technology provides a more interesting user experience as the new models appear about every two years (product lifecycle).  The pricing of the platforms is below cost to attract gamers to buy the platform since the profit is derived from the game sales and royalties.\n\nTo go to a completely different market, look at hybrid cars.  The price of oil and fear of spiking oil prices, along with government incentives in tax credits and car-pool lane priviledges, drove demand of the flagship Toyota Prius into the stratosphere.  The cars are still difficult to find since the dealers are backlogged with orders from eager customers.  A bit of clever marketing and timing with the pressure on oil prices and the Global Warming crisis have continued to spur sales.  The more interesting story may be the Honda Civic hybrid that offers many of the same features as the prius, but hasn't enjoyed the attention from the press.  Look at the difference in the pricing as a result of the significant difference in demand.\n\nThat's a few ideas.  There are many more.  \n\nGood luck.\n\nj
368530
Good Question!\n\nMaybe we should get the monopolies committee to look into it :-D
408895
Sounds very complicated.  Probably an assumption that your costs and incomes will need to adjust for inflation and you need to determine what new prices you have to demand in order to maintain a profit.  The assumption, of course, would be how much inflation you could expect.  Feh.  Good luck on that.  Anyhow, sounds like a college homework problem...  Good luck on exams!
366545
Here's a synopsis of a college course in Econ 101. The answer is that "Supply and Demand" determines price in a free market.\n\nIn the very short term, which you were watching, there are thousands of traders like myself, witht heir fingers poised over the Buy button or Sell button to be hit when certain conditions are met. You are seeing the result of the those button pushers. When many people collectively Buy the same stock, the price goes up, and when many more people sell than there are buyers, the price goes down. \n\nThat's really all there is to it, at least, within the realm of your question.
817718
Be willing to accept a lower standard of living. The expansion of the economy is due in large part to dumping the gold standard and instituting the Federal Reserve. \n\nGo back and look at the history that caused these changes.\n\nAs for the income tax, how would you propose paying for public goods?
476775
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_elasticity_of_demand\n\nHave fun with econ.
581075
From the choices, it looks like A.  Decrease.\n\nWith lower margins (see monopoly versus perfect competition), the profits slim down over time and there's less room for individual growth even with the total size of the industry increasing.
367019
"balance of income" should not be controlled by the government - that is socialism (USSR, Cuba).  Each person in a free society may determine their own income level.  A couple of determining factors:  1) don't have sex/children that you can't afford;  2)get an education: 3) find an area that pays well - and get into it.
129679
If you figure 'em out completely, you'll be richer than Bill G.\n\nEconomic law proves that when individuals act without barriers to exchange they bring about states of affairs more desirable to themselves than if they act with barriers to exchange. When the "free market" reduces the price of a commodity, what's really happening is that individual suppliers are reducing the prices of their goods in order to maximize their profits in the face of competition. When the "free market" increases the quality of a good, what's happening is that suppliers are making better products, in order to maximize profit in the face of competition. When the "free market" bankrupts one supplier and makes another a millionaire, what is really happening is that individual consumers chose to spend their money on the latter supplier's product, in order to maximize the utility of their money.\n..\nLet us then consider more closely the nature of economic laws, and their limitations. Every cause has a tendency to produce some definite result if nothing occurs to hinder it. Thus gravitation tends to make things fall to the ground: but when a balloon is full of gas lighter than air, the pressure of the air will make it rise in spite of the tendency of gravitation to make it fall. The law of gravitation states how any two things attract one another. how they tend to move towards one another, and will 'move towards one another if nothing interferes to prevent them. The law of gravitation is therefore a statement of tendencies.\n...\nLast link takes a while to get to the point, but generally 3 different views.  Nothing like comparing free market to Marxism.
635030
What he could do is send mail to other companies. You can't really call it a monopoly if other companies haven't installed themselves there. They have to find it financially viable, a certain possible number of clients  \nwilling to have their service. He could run around and get more people to write other companies too.
278615
Economist always look at the bottom spectrum of the scale, which never includes people or their welfare. In a perfect world like the Romans had for Centuries even will collapse. They used War and slavery to build their empire. The Slave owners of the DEEP SOUTH, During the Confederacy used these same principles to build the DEEP SOUTH of America. The Republic of China, and the Communist are a mirror of this same type of Government. Same thing in India. World Markets can't compete with an in-slaved Government system, and I say it should be opposed. China right now is putting pressure on the U.S. Auto-makers with this labor situation. I think it was poor investment; because you gave all your bargaining power away, and are at their mercy now to what they will. I believe that with a free market, which includes the vote of the populous, and their concerns. The market will thrive, and you attain greater returns back into the market. That's my observation.
510743
First part:\nBecause we live in a society that is not equal, and we do not have equal economic distribution\n\nSecond:\n\nThe only thing we can do, is to work hard in stopping the rich being richer and the poorer being poorer.
353301
See p. 541 of Econometric Foundations by Mittelhammer, Judge and Miller.  Will be a bit tough to explain on Yahoo.  Actually, I don't like this book, but none of my other ones have this.
637750
Yes, for each country, you can make a selection of items whose relative share of the median weekly wage you then compute. If you do it a little broader than the coke can, you can get a more truthful picture of the situation (coke, stapple cerial/grain food per 2000 KJ, stapple meat source per 10000 KJ, six eggs, clean drinkable water per 10 L; depending on use, you might consider including housing, transportation costs, education expediture, etc.)\n\nComparing apples and oranges can lead rather bland results. As an example try comparing the following cases: 1) one matriachial country with a family-oriented organization (collective earning) and where the median wage being in the lower social class segment; with 2) an individualized, even singularized, post-industrial country, where the median wage lies in the upper middle class.\n\nWhat I'm getting at is, that life can be a very different experience, also in terms of well-being, happiness, values, goals in life, etc. - so different in fact, that using a relative prices comparison in some cases, without considering these issues, can be akin to raping the data to have it bear your child (sorry, rough picture! :).
577888
none, money from canada is monopoly money!
411870
Sure I do. Income tax is usually geared to help the wealthy, the people in power. If government income was to come from sales tax alone, and on everything except food it would much more fair for the poor. The more you buy, the more taxes you pay, what could be more fair?