Monopolies should be illegal

Apple v Samsung. Although Apple own the monopoly for the IPAD, it does not own the rights to the cheaper Samsung where the courts found that it was not abusing its monopoly power as Samsung originally asserted. Furthermore, it was found that, although the Samsung product looked and acted analogous to the IPDAD, it was not found to be the same product. Alas, while Apples argument was that they had the monopoly on the market with a patent to protect their idea, the courts found that yes Apple do have the monopoly for the industry, however, the samsung product was not the ipad and where free to produce and sell as per before. Walmart v Food City The superstition of unacceptable practice of predatory pricing e.g. financially stable companies pricing at a loss until weaker competitors exit the marketplace. In Reality, the accepted business practice is to actually create value for service or product, in essence competition benefits the consumer. Wal-Mart and Southwest Airlines, for example, can offer lower prices because of operating efficiency. As capacity is removed from an industry, pricing power is created and lowered for the consumer. Yes, there is a survival of the fittest connotation about it, but the consumer is the one who benefits. Wal-Mart today is saving money for consumers everywhere. It has consistently advertised itself as doing so, of which they have a legal obligation to be honest about. Without Wal-mart America would be a very different place, furthermore, in certain rural areas of the USA it is the only life line for consumers (e.g. grundy, VA), if a lifeline is not a benefit, then what is. Moreover, it is only Wal-marts financial position within the market that allows it to take position in rural areas which supports community and instigates job growth, because without the financial backing the rural consumer would not benefit from its presence and it is highly unlikely that Joe blogs 24/7 food superstore would be able to maintain rural overheads in this economic downturn. It is important to realize that partial price discrimination can cause some customers who are inappropriately pooled with high price customers to be excluded from the market. For example, a poor student in the U.S. might be excluded from purchasing an economics textbook at the U.S. price, which the student might have been able to purchase at the China price. Similarly, a wealthy student in China might have been willing to pay more. These are deadweight losses and decrease a monopolist's profits. As such, monopolists have substantial economic interest in improving their market information and market segmenting to provide the consumer with better prices and the products that are in demand or necessitated e.g. a good indicator of this was when wal-mart underwent market research and was able to deduce that pharmaceuticals were in demand. It should therefore be accepted that without monopoly"s, we as consumers would not have the low prices we benefit from. Furthermore, as consumers we do benefit from the monopoly"s research capacity in order to bring the goods that are in demand or a necessity. Moreover, without the financial weight to support the overheads of rural trade e.g. low income, growth, coupled with overheads, the rural consumer in the US would be without a major source for services and food, etc. Whereby, if history serves us correctly, when the sources dry up, so does the community. Apple is one of the best employer"s in the world: http://www.glassdoor.com.... Furthermore, a market insiders research into brand monopoly has found that market leaders have more attractive employment packages which surpass of employer benefits. So, why does Google and Apple continue to beat out all other employers? Simple: the brand! Companies that have appealing consumer brands generally also succeed in being perceived as attractive employers,"Universum Employer Branding specialist Kortney Kutsop said in a statement earlier this year. "People nowadays love to work for companies that produce their favorite products and services. Also, market success is an important factor: the company needs to be generally seen as innovative and best-in-class in whatever they do--that's the winning formula." http://news.cnet.com.... However, there is strong evidence to suggest that monopolies do indeed save jobs e.g. Wal-mart: Rather than instigating competition growth in foreign and domestic expansion, Wal-mart has started to buy up failing companies of a similar nature, thereby saving jobs in the supermarket and service industry. By taking over existing stores rather than opening new ones, Wal-Mart avoids the community opposition that it faces in the U.S. Al Norman, the founder of Sprawl-Busters, who has been described by CBS"s "60 Minutes" as the guru of the anti-Wal-Mart movement says. "What Wal-Mart did in Mexico was very instructive. Mexico was a testing ground for the method of operation. They basically acquired existing stores. They moved into Mexico and that became the theme in other countries like the UK, Germany, and Japan. They would buy into an existing operation, rather then start from scratch." http://www.projectcensored.org... Aforementioned, Grundy VA locals had struggled to find work, it wasent until the arrival of Wal-mart that locals were able to apply and obtain 230 jobs. http://www2.tricities.com.... The locals were so excited they even created a muci video to commemorate its opening: http://www.youtube.com.... The music is not my cup of tea but a it is a good indicator of the excitement, prosperity and future associated with what a monopoly can provide for its potential workers and community. Another fine example of a monopoly holder is GM. Without GMs capacity to ensure jobs and generate economic growth and tax returns " if was not allowed to grow as did as an industry leader initially so as not to tread on joe blogs 24/7 car retail " it would not of had the benefit of being saved by the government in the economic downturn. Therefore, saving jobs. So I do not accept that monopolies "vaporize" jobs, but contend that they generate work, sustain work and have a greater capacity to provide for better benfits within the work place e.g. pay, holiday, healthcare, etc. I would rather a similar source in a monopoly purchase a failing company and save jobs rather than have another abandoned building rotting away without the work. Actually, this leads onto an endearing situation, if not the monopoly, then who? Here it should be apparent that it is only a minute margin at the very high end of these aforementioned conglomerates that earn the absurd amounts of money implied e.g. this would be the reason why not everybody in the Wal-Mart or Apples employee parking lot has a Rolls Royce. Although, the employee parking lot will undoubtedly be bigger than that of the figurative Joe Bloggs because Joe Bloggs would never be able to employ so many individuals. However, it should be pointed out that for all the monopolies within the US the average wage among 270 odd million citizens remains around the $50.000 mark which if accurate portrays a healthy median class subdivide. http://www.guardian.co.utk..., so there is no evidence that owning a monopoly is indicative to class division. But actually conforms with the American ideology of captilism.