Talk:Government-granted monopoly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Economics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Big Pharma are the New Monopolists:

Patents on drugs give a legally enforced monopoly to the drug companies. That is why the pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable sector.

Intellectual property protection[edit]

I think you missed the point here. IP systems are incentive systems and the incentive is the monopoly grant by the restriction of the free market. this causes inherent inefficiencies.

Your remarks regarding authors may be valid for creators (copyright has a natural law foundation) while for patent law there is only the "incentive reason".

content dispute on coercive monopoly[edit]

There appears to be a content dispute on the coercive monopoly article. If this subject is of interest to you, please reply to the straw poll at Talk:Coercive_monopoly. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

In this dispute note Ayn Rand's, Nathaniel Branden's, and Alan Greenpsan's explicit definition of coercive monopoly. Be aware of nature of their argumentation that proposes that a coercive monopoly can only be the result of government intervention. Please note the distinction between the definition of coercive monopoly, and the alleged causes of it. These essays are responses to the mainstream position that laissez-faire is the cause of coercive monopoly, coercive monopoly being explicitly defined as a monopoly that is immune from competition. RJII 16:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


Is the article biased against government granted monopolies? Mathiastck 09:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is in fact. It fails to mention the examples of how a government granted monopoly keeps prices down in many cases by regulating and fails to acknowledge than in many situations when deregulation has occured to encourage competition prices have only risen through tacit collusion. What was once a controlled monopoly is now an uncontrolled oligopoly. I will add though that this does not mean that they are always efficient, but there are benifits to them which are clearly not adressed in this article.

If you provide a proper citation, you may add it to the article. However I fail to see how what you mentioned is a universal “benefit”. charon (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)