How large should companies be allowed to get

When companies start worrying more about influencing politicians than they do about the competition, that's when they are too big.
 
dowie said:
The size of the company is irrelevant and not necessarily a problem. Creating a monopoly is a problem. It doesn't matter if a company is gigantic and has diversified interests covering many sectors, so long as there exist viable competitors within those sectors.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the definition of monopoly in fact and in law is somewhat skewed.

A large market share is not a monopoly, and is only of a concern if they are misuing their market presence (ie Apple and the Ipod/Itunes tie in that was in place until they'd got their market dominance).

Having a large market share is not a problem, provided barriers of entry are not raised artificially high through misuse of it.

A true monopoly is one that completely shuts out competitors, or where competitors are not permitted to exist on anything approaching a level playing field (such as the NHS and education in the UK)
 
 
It won't be long until we'll be going to work for serco, while working on serco equipment, maintained and operated by serco while we're eating our serco food.

Conspiracies :rolleyes:
 
Stolly said:
All those are US systems, i guess the person you are replying to said "we" meaning the UK. We don't have any of those systems.
Click to expand...

Obviously.

You do realise that RAF Fylingdales, which is run by Serco, which is the whole basis of this discussion, is part of the US systems? :confused:

I mean ultimately we do have (or rather, are protected by) those systems as part of NATO and as co-operator of these tied in stations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom