Quote:
Reply from T.
Oh please this is to banal. MONO = 1, single of type etc.
Why was I almost certain that you'd reply in these terms?
Problem was that it should have been self-evident that I didn't mean "monopoly" in the way that you are defining it.
You are defining monopoly in the sense used in economic theory, and I stress the word theory, because in reality these economic models don't really exist, as per other economic models such as perfect competition.
Since I was referring to a local taxi market then it should have been self-evident that I wasn't referring to monopoly in the technical sense, and thus your reply is about as pointless as me pointing out that you should have written "
too banal" rather than "
to banal".
And that's why in the post to which you replied I defined the term monopoly to mean "exclusive market" which clearly doesn't necessarily equate to a single supplier - we all know that this doesn't exist in taxi markets, and indeed I used the term "collective monopoly" the other day which conveys what I mean more accurately but in any case you should have known what I meant.
Look up monopoly in any good dictionary and you'll see several definitions, and the first one listed in the Collins English dictionary is:
Exclusive control of the market supply of a product or service.Note that this doesn't refer to a single supplier, but merely to exclusivity, thus it fits a restricted taxi markets to a tee.
Given the breadth of definition that you afford to the word "cartel" (the EU, for example) your extremely narrow definition of monopoly demonstrates that you're either out of your depth on these matters or that blaming others for not noticing that it was April 1 the other day was somewhat ironic, because your best excuse for this contradiction is that you're still in wind-up mode
But coming back to monopoly, people often refer to Tesco having a local monopoly as regards groceries or Microsoft having a monopoly on PC operating systems. Of course, using your narrow definition this isn't correct, but everyone knows what is meant and effectively use the term to mean that the supplier in question dominates the relevant market.
Quote:
A CARTEL is a agreement between suppliers.
ergo, you can't HAVE AN AGREE WITH YOURSELF.
a MONOLPOLY has all the market, a single dominant supplier.
Again there's rather loose use of terminology here - you say monopoly is merely a single supplier, but then you use the term "dominant", which I think is generally meant to refer to the Microsoft/Tesco scenario - ie a large market presence but not technically a monopoly.
Quote:
a CARTEL requies 2 or more members.
OK, even assuming that a monopoly is a single supplier (eg T. holds all the taxi licences in Poole) then you're wrong, because the cartel terminology clearly alludes to the agreement between the taxi license holder and the LA, thus even with a single supplier there's a cartel because the agreement is with the licensing authority rather than another supplier.
Quote:
You really do make an ass of yourself.
Don't you mean donkey
Login
Register
FAQ
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
