Talk:Monopoly price

Please be Courteous: Do Not Remove valid Cited Sections, Only Add valid Cited Sentences - Reputable sources

Please have some knowledge of Economics (this is an Economics Concept) before making changes to this article. Please do not make an attempt to "correct" a cited section; especially if you are not using an accredited source: textbooks from an accredited University[2], or at least a "For Dummies" or "Teach Yourself..." books from reputable sources. I, other viable contributors, and the readers (looking for accredited and reliable information) will all appreciate if this courtesy is extended.

Thank you all in advance for your trustworthiness, and good actions. MGMontini (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mgmwki:. Hello, I reviewed the page history and didn't see anyone doing what you describe above, but I thought you might be referring to this edit and wanted to explain. I have no specialist knowledge of financial accounting, but I am pretty good at formatting Wikipedia articles. I try to make the articles match Wikipedia style as described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any specific questions about the changes, please let me know, but I want you to know that my goal is to make the article better by making it follow Wikipedia's style which has significantly fewer uses of capitalization, bolding and links than the article had. SchreiberBike talk 17:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike:. In fact, thank you for your efforts to help in regards to "grammer" and "Wikipedia style". It is appreciated. My reference comes from prior experience with some other articles - most recently the uncited (and sometimes incorrect) changes to cited sections in Factoring (finance). I've also seen this done before in some other writings, even though my writings have always been soundly cited with accredited sources, most of which are textbooks used by accredited universities. My reference here is to remind "contributors" of their responsibility to be courteous to readers and other contributors who use and want valid cited references that ensure the information is accurate, and is in accordance to accepted principles within the professional (financial) community. I have found that there are those who take the liberty to remove even properly cited sections (cites from college textbooks!) in order to put in (at times incorrect) uncited sentences. Though I understand and appreciate helpful changes, including additional information from cited reputable sources, I have found the opposite is done at times.

I put this in as a "reminder" that those who write information should be courteous enough to ensure the information comes from reputable sources they list in footnotes, and that they do not remove information obtained from reputable sources (that are cited) that will help the reader understand the subject in greater detail.MGMontini (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike:. Thanks once again for your edits. The only change I am going to make to your edits will be to solely reinstate the references to some of the wikipedia sections that explain price, demand and cost. I think, for the younger person who will view this, with less time in education, these references to the "Common Sense basics" that form the basis for understanding the underpinning of much economic thought and analysis (from the time of the "Merchantilists" and Adam Smith, all the way to the present).MGMontini (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Monopoly Price → Monopoly price – Lower case for a common noun. See examples at Category:Financial economics. SchreiberBike talk 17:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support move. Common names are not capitalised. Coreyemotela (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC).

• Support name change if it only involves changing "Monopoly Price" to "Monopoly price", while leaving the cited information the same. Please note this should not be combined with Price, since Monopoly price is a special case that requires special individual treatment (as is practiced in accredited universities that have Economics programs). Thank you.MGMontini (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I'd prefer Monopoly pricing to either (it could also be expanded to include anti-trust issues etc). Also, what exactly is the difference between this article and Markup rule? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:

I'm not sure where your question is coming from since you said, in the "Talk" on the "Markup rule":

"... not just limited to monopolies. Monopolistic competition and certain types of competition in oligopolistic markets also give the markup rule."

First of all, the Profit maximization rule for a duopoly (a 2-firm industry) is not the same as the maximization rule for a monopoly (a 1-firm industry). For a Monopoly, the "Markup rule" is

Max: P(Q_{Entire Ind}) * Q_{Entire Ind} - C(Q_{Entire Ind})

which gives what you've listed in the Markup rule (and I've used here in "Monopoly price"), as

P'(Q_{Entire Ind}) * Q_{Entire Ind} + P(Q_{Entire Ind}) = C'(Q_{Entire Ind}).

Of course, this is simply: Marginal Revenue = Marginal Cost (translation of the math) . However, for a duopoly, the profit maximization rule is different since each firm must consider the independent output decisions of the other firm (in the absence of a "Cartel"):

Max: P(Q_{Entire Ind}) * Q_firm - C(Q_firm)

where Q_{Entire Ind} = Q_firm + Q_{other firm}

which yields

P'(Q_{Entire Ind}) * Q_firm + P(Q_{Entire Ind}) = C'(Q_firm),

s.t., if both firms are acting in the exact same way, the other firm's maximization also is

P'(Q_{Entire Ind}) * Q_{other firm} + P(Q_{Entire Ind}) = C'(Q_{other firm}).

Therefore, since both firms follow the same strategy, the equilibrium for the duopoly is

P'(Q_{Entire Ind}) = (C'(Q_firm) - P(Q_{Entire Ind})) / Q_firm = (C'(Q_{other firm}) - P(Q_{Entire Ind})) / Q_{other firm}.

Even though the duopoly price is higher than each firm's Marginal Cost (as implied by P'(Q_{Entire Ind})<0) and each firm gets a positive "economic profit", both the duopoly price and the "economic profit" are lower than both the "Monopoly Price" and the "Monopoly profit"! The "Monopoly Price" must establish the fact that there is only 1 firm in the industry simply because the "Monopoly Price" must be larger than any oligopoly price! Yet, the Markup rule section does not establish this fact! In fact, by stating this is a general "Markup rule" that many firms use actually misstates the fact since only the Monopoly profit maximization mathematics are shown as part of the explanation of the "Markup rule". The statement "oligopolistic markets also give the markup rule" is actually incorrect when you consider the Monopoly Profit Maximization mathematics within the Markup rule section! The point is, the discussion you made in the "Markup rule" section clearly indicates that you feel a "Monopoly price" is different from the "Markup rule" (even though the mathematics presented contradicts your statement). Therefore the "Markup" on Marginal Cost within the Oligopoly involves (1) more than 1 firm unlike the Monopoly market (Monopoly is 1 firm only), (2) the "Markup" calculation is clearly significantly different from that in the 1-firm Monopoly market, (3) the need for the word "Monopoly" to establish its difference from the "Monopoly" market's solutions. For more of an explanation on the differences between "Monopoly", "Cartel" and "Oligopoly", see the relatively good and understandable discussion in www.khanacademy.org. If you feel you cannot read the basic Neo-Classical Micro-Economic Theory I've covered above, please recuse yourself from recommending or making any changes to these sections. These sections require a relatively comprehensive knowledge of established Neo-Classical theory, and failure to discuss this on that basis does no one a service; whether it is the writer or the reader who depends on information here not contradicting what they learn in a High School class or a College class.MGMontini (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dr. Dixon's comment on this article

Dr. Dixon has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This is pretty much a text-book account of monopoly. It is clear and well written. It is a pretty standard part of economics, the references are old but certainly perfectly adequate for wikepedia. The article could be improved if it discussed the sources of monopoly power, and also its limits (due to potentail competition).

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Dixon has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Dixon, Huw David & Kara, Engin, 2008. "Can we explain inflation persistence in a way that is consistent with the micro-evidence on nominal rigidity?," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2008/22, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't "Correct Grammar" if the technical discussion isn't fully understood!

@Editeur24:, Thank you for your change. Your change was actually correcting the erroneous "grammar correction"; which eliminated the technical point you made in your explanation which I wrote before erroneous "Correction" by MZaitlin ( and ShakespeareFan00 and ClueBot before MZaitlin).

@MZaitlin: needs to take more care in editing for "grammar reasons" without 'in-depth knowledge' of all of the technical aspects and details of the subject area.

Editeur24, the word "Monopoly" has a single specific meaning: a single firm that has complete control over the entire Market! If several firms have "Market Power", then the situation is an "Oligopoly" and not a "Monopoly". Hence, "Monopoly pricing" is both practically different from "Oligopoly Pricing" for firm managers, and thereby theoretically different in economics. These are technical terms, and should be used in accordance to their technical definition. Also, before you make corrections, please get together college/professional references to both explain your changes and to show that they are justified within accepted and know principles within the profession. Thank you. MGMontini (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@MZaitlin: I have references in footnotes throughout the article; including undergraduate college text-books and graduate level text-books used in PhD educational programs! This article contains accepted college level, and graduate level information on economic theory. I think your changes are acceptable; in that they are limited and do not change the esscence of the generally accepted economic thought. But like my discussion with Editeur24, please footnote professional references in your corrections (which is required in this encyclopedia). There is a reason for this! No one wants to be misled by reading what is not generally accepted in the profession, only to be sadly disappointed that what they read (though may even be an "interesting thought") is not readily accepted within the profession. If they use this in school, it may even effect their grade! Please check and footnote professional references before changes/comments. Thank you. MGMontini (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)