A natural monopoly exists when a single firm can supply a good or service to an entire market at a lower price than could two or more firms. Generally it arises when there are economies of scale over the relevant range of output.
Monopoly is efficient because it promotes growth in market sectors by engaging products in a competitive environment. That's what a monopoly does NOT do. A monopoly (single supplier to a marketplace) can be either efficient or inefficient. An efficient monopoly is one where, free from competitive pressures, the supplier spends all its time making more, higher quality and better costing products. That's not what usually happens. An INefficient monopoly is one where the monopolist gets fat and happy, secure in his knowledge anyone who uses the product he sells has to get it from him, and curtails innovation (since everyone's buying the stuff anyway, why bother?), cheapens the product he's selling and raises the price beyond all justification.
The purchase enabled Carnegie to discover a more efficient production method
"Monopolistic Competition" is, unless I'm missing something, an oxymoron. "Monopoly" implies "no competitors," so who, precisely, is the monopoly supposed to be competing with? In an oligopoly, there are a few competitors, so there actually could be some competition; however, the term is generally used in a trust situation where the "competitors" more or less agree not to actually compete.
I don't know what you mean by generic Monopoly but you can get some Monopoly varieties for under $10. The original doesn't cost much more.
A natural monopoly exists when a single firm can supply a good or service to an entire market at a lower price than could two or more firms. Generally it arises when there are economies of scale over the relevant range of output.
Monopoly is efficient because it promotes growth in market sectors by engaging products in a competitive environment. That's what a monopoly does NOT do. A monopoly (single supplier to a marketplace) can be either efficient or inefficient. An efficient monopoly is one where, free from competitive pressures, the supplier spends all its time making more, higher quality and better costing products. That's not what usually happens. An INefficient monopoly is one where the monopolist gets fat and happy, secure in his knowledge anyone who uses the product he sells has to get it from him, and curtails innovation (since everyone's buying the stuff anyway, why bother?), cheapens the product he's selling and raises the price beyond all justification.
The purchase enabled Carnegie to discover a more efficient production method
The purchase enabled Carnegie to discover a more efficient production method
The cost of production makes a single producer more efficient than a large number of producers.
The Carbon Trust give advice to businesses on making their premises and equipment more energy efficient. This includes a scheme to offer interest free loans for appropriate equipment. They also fund research projects into more energy efficient technologies.
One can find more information on energy efficient lighting from the following sources: Earth Easy, Energy Star, Carbon Trust, Living Greener, NSW Environment and Heritage, Energy Saving Trust, to name a few.
two or more companies that combined with the purpose of raising prices and lowering output, giving the trustees the power to control competition and maximize profits at the public's expense. These trust agreements would result in a monopoly.
monopoly does.
two or more companies that combined with the purpose of raising prices and lowering output, giving the trustees the power to control competition and maximize profits at the public's expense. These trust agreements would result in a monopoly.
"Monopolistic Competition" is, unless I'm missing something, an oxymoron. "Monopoly" implies "no competitors," so who, precisely, is the monopoly supposed to be competing with? In an oligopoly, there are a few competitors, so there actually could be some competition; however, the term is generally used in a trust situation where the "competitors" more or less agree not to actually compete.
How could we/they/you use it in a more practical/efficient way?