Merchant Archive
Thread: Monopolies Can and Have existed ... a Case study.
Little-Green-Guy wrote:
that is insane..and this a great "story" but 400+ million per day in credit sales....would require so much factory, resource gathering, not to mention - real life - work involved. No way this is a true "story". But it is entertaining, nonetheless.
However, Oligopolies do exist on every server
GenChaos wrote:You know, in the end there aren't that many resources you need to chase to be a good weaponsmith. I and a couple friends can easily supply myself with all the WS resources I need to last for a very long time. There is really no need for any guilded WS to require the assistance of any outside miners. All this proves is that no one on your server had the ability or motivation to compete against this guy.
/agree There was no monopoly there. Any other WS could go out and harvest their own resources. In RL resources could have been locked up but the game shifts resources specifically to prevent older players from having all the best spots.
-Indene-
Sigrun wrote:
Solitiri wrote:The ones I see as monopolies are those who have several accounts with all the crafting classes plus the surveryor and mayor. There are several of these out there. There are also groups who get together and do the same thing.I do not see a way to correct that issue with game mechanics. Not even a storage limit would correct that. Nor am I sure it should be corrected. If I were to make an analogy to the real world I would use Microsoft and Ma Bell as examples.I do see that if, as I mentioned in Doc's proposal thread, if you have a way to list everyone's products that are for sale on one search key, the prices will have to be competitive. The little guy will have the same advantage for sales this way as the big guy. It would not eliminate attempts at monopolies but it would not penalize the small business owner either.Why are they a monopoly? What are they preventing you or a group of you and your friends from doing to compete against them?Microsoft pWns the desktops. Period. If they choose to use that power to crush their competition and then increase their prices and give you an inferior product, THEN they'd be a monopoly (maybe they are, I'm not debating that). But those people in SWG aren't because they can't pWn EVERY resource spawn nor sell to EVERY character.
Microsoft does not own the desktop. Unix and Mac (now unix) have viable product and continue to sell product. Microsoft was/is amasingly successful thru providing products that the customer wanted.
Ma Bell was a great example of a real monopoly. There was no alternative to phone service. By government edict. Then technology struck and mobile,sat, and cell phones were born. Against the mighty goliath(sp) the cell phone industry competed by providing a new ability (something hard to do in SWG btw
) and they were very successful.By the way before the PC and Microsoft IBM was the leader in computer power. But even it was not a monopoly. There were several. All very expensive. Then a new kid arrived on the block. The PC. In just a few years the Industry leaders were relegated to only hi priced customers while average people who had never dreamed of working on a computer found computer knoledge a requirement and several no-names became household figures. Free market forces move even in RL against all that resist it.
-Indene-
From the dictionary (Mirriam webster)
Main Entry: mo·nop·o·ly
Pronunciation: m&-'nä-p(&-)lE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -lies
Etymology: Latin monopolium, from Greek monopOlion, from mon- + pOlein to sell
1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party
4 : one that has a monopoly
As you can see though stryker had many abilities that gave him strong business advantages he failed to meet even 1 of the listed definitions to be called a monopoly. Well except of his own personal business and fortune
But then all independent crafters/merchants would be by definition number 2 (exclusive possession or control) and all harvester owners that have no admins on their list. -Indene-
Solitiri wrote:
Solitiri wrote:The ones I see as monopolies are those who have several accounts with all the crafting classes plus the surveryor and mayor. There are several of these out there. There are also groups who get together and do the same thing.I do not see a way to correct that issue with game mechanics. Not even a storage limit would correct that. Nor am I sure it should be corrected. If I were to make an analogy to the real world I would use Microsoft and Ma Bell as examples.I do see that if, as I mentioned in Doc's proposal thread, if you have a way to list everyone's products that are for sale on one search key, the prices will have to be competitive. The little guy will have the same advantage for sales this way as the big guy. It would not eliminate attempts at monopolies but it would not penalize the small business owner either.Why are they a monopoly? What are they preventing you or a group of you and your friends from doing to compete against them?I did not say I was or was not being prevented from doing anything, sir. That does not mean it does not exist. I have seen this take place and a town shut down because of it. I do not care if you believe it, I know what has happened. An open mind is essential on a multi-server game such as this. Nor will I argue the definition of a "monopoly" with you. I will respectfully agree to disagree.Microsoft pWns the desktops. Period. If they choose to use that power to crush their competition and then increase their prices and give you an inferior product, THEN they'd be a monopoly (maybe they are, I'm not debating that). But those people in SWG aren't because they can't pWn EVERY resource spawn nor sell to EVERY character.I do not know what a "pwn" is, sorry. However, I do believe the resent lawsuits they participated in had a bearing on their practices. It is not important and was only an analogy. Again, I respectfully agree to disagree and will not post further on this thread.Good day to you.
Tell me if you are not willing to agree on the definitions of words how do you expect to communicate at all?
-Indene-
Exclusive possession of a market by a supplier of a product or service for which there is no substitute.
Nope stryker still had no monopoly. Bummer. Proofs that the case stucy is NOT a monopoly. Waiting for proof to the contrary
-Indene-
For further reading from encyclopedia Britania on line this is the full text:
Exclusive possession of a market by a supplier of a product or service for which there is no substitute.
In the absence of competition, the supplier usually restricts output and increases price in order to maximize profits. The concept of pure monopoly is useful for theoretical discussion but is rarely encountered in actuality. In situations where having more than one supplier is inefficient (e.g., for electricity, gas, or water), economists refer to “natural monopoly” (see public utility). For monopoly to exist there must be a barrier to the entry of competing firms. In the case of natural monopolies, the government creates that barrier. Either local government provides the service itself, or it awards a franchise to a private company and regulates it. In some cases the barrier is attributable to an effective patent. In other cases the barrier that eliminates competing firms is technological. Large-scale, integrated operations that increase efficiency and reduce production costs confer a benefit on firms that adopt them and may confer a benefit on consumers if the lower costs lead to lower product prices. In many cases the barrier is a result of anticompetitive behaviour on the part of the firm. Most free-enterprise economies have adopted laws to protect consumers from the abuse of monopoly power. The U.S. antitrust laws are the oldest examples of this type of monopoly-control legislation; public-utility law is an outgrowth of the English common law as it pertains to natural monopolies. Antitrust law prohibits mergers and acquisitions that lessen competition. The question asked is whether consumers will benefit from increased efficiency or be penalized with a lower output and a higher price. See also oligopoly.
further by links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
That should keep the reader busy for a while
only86 wrote:Hero!I'm surprised you didn't throw my name into the mix with monopolies!I am one of the only people on eclipse that has an absolute monopoly on 4 Different items..45 FR crafting stationsNobody else took the best resources in the game on that one day crafting changed and made them.. so >I can charge insane prices for themmainly 1mil eachWhich is Many times over what it costs to makeanywayNot sure if it has any relevance I didn't really read all the posts due to lack of timebut thought I'd throw it out.. it is a true monopoly
That is an interesting example of a corsive Monopoly. Not sure it really is a monopoly but here goes. The "government" allowed all crafters for a day to make special stuff then took the ability away. Any one who grabbed the oppertunity made BER 14 harvesters and kept them for themselves. and 45 FR stations and sell them for great profit. No new crafter (nor any that didnt jump on) can compete and the crafters that have the stuff are the only ones and when all except 1 are sold out that 1 will have a monopoly. Enforced by SWG. Before that moment no monopoply will exist and during that fateful day anyone with the skills could make the better items.
-Indene-
Message Edited by Indene on 08-13-2004 03:42 PM
dont know jack about your server buton ours there is easily 80% of production of weapons split btwn siyber/ enigma/DK/Beer/(cant remember this guys name ever
Sigrun wrote:
Little-Green-Guy wrote:
that is insane..and this a great "story" but 400+ million per day in credit sales....would require so much factory, resource gathering, not to mention - real life - work involved. No way this is a true "story". But it is entertaining, nonetheless.
However, Oligopolies do exist on every server
Name one on Naritus. But don't think to skate just by giving a name. Please also include evidence of the negative impact on the Naritus economy that should be very evident if such a thing were to exist.
Thanks.
) DK is retiring but i will be filling that gap to happily keep the oligopoly running smoothly when i finish the regrind in a few daysTry chef. They need a lot of friggin resources.
Hero_DarkJedi wrote:
GenChaos wrote:
You know, in the end there aren't that many resources you need to chase to be a good weaponsmith. I and a couple friends can easily supply myself with all the WS resources I need to last for a very long time. There is really no need for any guilded WS to require the assistance of any outside miners. All this proves is that no one on your server had the ability or motivation to compete against this guy.
Are you a weaponsmith?
Better question ... are you a "good" weaponsmith?
I do Ranged and Melee and I beleive I have/track about 48 different resources so I make "best of server" weapons ... you may not think 48 resources are that much, but I am unaware of any profession that tracks more then this.
Hero_DarkJedi wrote:
Ciirybeccaskyr wrote:
i can get 3mil of a spawn before i even have to think about contracting out aside form the one guy i work with on a regular basis. do you nkow how many guns 3mil of any of the resources will make? alot more then even a monoply would sell in 6 months on most servers. heck i made my first fortune on a stack of 40k of ilronium gas
Ok ... let's go with that number ... and remember ... the whole issue is about "new" crafters breaking into the market.
10 Lots ...
Gotta have a house ... 2 lots ... that leaves 8 ...
Gotta have 2 factories ... 2 more lots (arch = 4) ...6 left.
6Lots ... BER13 on a 75% brings in about 14k per day per harvie... 84k per day ... spawns last max of 7 days (except weird stuff like radioactive) ... that's about 600k ...IFall6 are on that one resource.
Reality? To a new smith, they don't have BER13's ...and they can't have all 6 on 1 resource ... more like 2-3 on hot ones and 1-2 on the rest.
But you have hitupon another factor that makes monopoliespossible ... BER13's.
You sir? 3million? Your using lot swaps to help run your business ... not something a "new crafter"that bought the game 30 daysor yesterday should have to do tobe able to break into the market.
You have basically helped re-enforce the argument about why game systems that "promote" monopoly powers arebad ...it's not just the power itself ... it's the game tatics you have to use to compete in that environment :-)
There is not a single "new" crafter that can become an instant player in the market. Even in your example, Stryker had to work his way up from the bottom. Your theory only looks at short run situations; which give a skewed picture of profits vs costs (including oppportunity costs). In the long-run,the noob crafter will get to a reasonable position in the market if they are committed to do so.
I believe that other posts have already sucessfully rebuffed your arguement, so I won't reiterate their words.
For anyone who is interested in the "actual" definition of a monopoly (btw 60% of market share is not in that definition 
). I got this out of Encarta..but it says the same thing in my Microecon book too. So apply it to both sides of the arguement to the SWG situation. I'm not arguing one way or the other..too tired now. But you guys hash it out. Oh and note the definition of ogliopoly..which is probably more pertinent to SWG. Have fun.
In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a market situation where there is only one provider of a product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide (and a lack of viable substitute goods), as well as high barriers to entry for potential competitors on the market.
Monopoly should be distinguished from monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of the product or service; it should also, strictly, be distinguished from the (similar) phenomenon of a cartel. In a monopoly a single firm is the sole provider of a product or service; in a cartel a centralized institution is set up to partially coordinate the actions of several independent providers (which is a form of oligopoly).
Forms of monopolyMonopolies are often distinguished based on the circumstances under which they arise; terminologies differ, but one of the most common is to distinguish natural monopoly (also known as de facto monopoly) from government-granted monopoly (also known as de jure monopoly or coercive monopoly).
A monopoly can arise because of the peculiar features of a particular market — such as when a monopolist controls a unique natural resource, a public transport line or technological achievement. A monopoly can also arise from "fair" competition, when a single provider of a good or a service is chosen extensively or exclusively by the marketplace. Such monopolies are termed de facto monopolies. However, there are not examples of perfect "de facto" monopolies: The most effective "de facto" monopoly in recent times has been the De Beers diamond trading company, which held slightly less than 90 percent of the world diamond market in the mid 1980's.
When a monopoly arises from laws which explicitly forbid competition (or effectively prevent it through heavy regulation and subsidy), it is described as a "de jure monopoly", or government-granted monopoly (sometimes called a coercive monopoly). The term state monopoly is sometimes used to describe a type of government-granted monopoly in which government, either directly or indirectly through legislation, exercises significant control over the monopolist's decisions, and typically include industries that import, manufacture, and/or distribute alcohol, money, stamps, drugs, munitions, and gambling. An example of a "de jure" monopoly is AT&T, which was granted monopoly power by the US government, only to be broken up in 1982 following a Sherman Antitrust suit.
The term "natural monopoly" is sometimes used to describe monopolies that come about because production conditions make a sole provider most efficient. Examples of a natural monopoly would be power distribution, water distribution or sewage transport to and from private households, as it is usually not practical for a single household to have more than one power line, water pipe or sewage pipe to the house.
The term is sometimes (loosely) used to describe companies such as Microsoft or Standard Oil, which do face market competition, but which command a large market share and use their size to compete in ways which are considered "unfair" — such as dumping products below cost to harm competitors, creating tying arrangements between their products, and other practices regulated under Antitrust law. However, since the products of the aforementioned companies do not fall into a unique category, but into a category of generalised or differentiated products, the suppliers are not engaged in monopolistic practises, but in practices known as "monopolistic competition".
Large corporations often attempt to monopolize markets through horizontal integration, in which a parent company controls consolidates control over several small, seemingly diverse companies (sometimes even using different branding to create the illusion of marketplace competition). A magazine publishing firm, for example, might publish many different magazines on many different subjects, but it would still be considered to engage in monopolistic practices if the intent of doing this was to control the entire magazine-reader market, and prevent the emergence of competitors.
An oligopoly is a market form in which a market is dominated by a small number of sellers (oligopolists). The word is derived from the Greek for "few sellers". Because there are few participants in this type of market, each oligopolist is aware of the actions of the others. Oligopolistic markets are characterised by interactivity. The decisions of one firm influence, and are influenced by, the decisions of other firms. Strategic planning by ologopolists always involves taking into account the likely responses of the other market participants.
Oligopsony is a market form in which a firm faces a small number of sellers of the inputs it needs to purchase. When an industry comprised of a few firms is viewed by those within the industry, it is referred to as oligopoly: when viewed by outsiders that wish to purchase the industry's products, it is referred to as oligopsony. Oligopoly refers to the market for output (ie.: product market) while oligopsony refers to the market for inputs (ie.: factor markets). A market with a few sellers (oligopoly) and a few buyers (oligopsony) is referred to as a bilateral ologopoly.
The terms monopoly (one seller), monopsony (one buyer), and bilateral monopoly have a similar relationship.
In industrialized countries oligopolies are found in many sectors of the economy, such as cars, consumer goods, and steel production. Unprecedented levels of competition, fueled by increasing globalisation has resulted in the emergence of oligopsony in many market sectors. For example, the aerospace industry. There are now only a small number of manufacturers of civil passenger aircraft. A further instance arises in a heavily regulated market such as wireless communications. Typically the state will license only two or three providers of cellular phone services.
Oligopolistic competition can give rise to a wide range of different outcomes. In some situations, the firms may collude to raise prices and restrict production in the same way as a monopoly. Where there is a formal agreement for such collusion, this is known as a cartel. There are legal restrictions on such collusion in most countries. There does not have to be a formal agreement for collusion to take place (although for the act to be illegal there must be a real communication between companies) - for example, in some industries, there may be an acknowledged market leader which informally sets prices to which other producers respond, known as price leadership.
In other situations, competition between sellers in an oligopoly can be fierce, with relatively low prices and high production. This could lead to an efficient outcome approaching perfect competition.