Talk:Contestable market

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] deletion of Greenspan article Antitrust

Greenspan's article was deleted with the reason that it was a "fringe view." If it's a fringe view then why is it mentioned in the article that "The theory of contestable markets has been used to argue for weaker application of anti-trust laws"? Because it's notable, that's why. That's what Greenspan is arguing in the essay. Regardless, Greenspan is hardly "fringe." He's the chairman of the US Federal Reserve. RJII 04:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The view that governments are the sole cause of barriers to entry is very fringe, belonging to the extreme wing of the Chicago school, regardless of who is saying it. Mainstream neo-classical economics recognises that predatory pricing, financial incumbency, network effects, advertising walls, collusive agreements etc. can create barriers to entry and the Chicago position is essentially a self serving definitional one - they simply assert that governments are the sole cause of barriers, saying that any apparent private barriers are simply the free market operating. I'll leave the link, but modify the description. Greenspans opinion, as described there, is highly unrepresentative of mainstream economic opinion on the subject. Psychobabble 00:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not the 60's anymore. Laissez-faire is not predominant but it's pretty mainstream. RJII 03:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you studied economics recently? I've just finished doing three years of it, including a subject on this sort of stuff, and I can assure you that his view is fringe. Psychobabble 01:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

University textbooks right? They're always behind the curve. It's hard to get the full story in college. Economists today are generally critical of antitrust. RJII 14:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the fact that two people with economics degrees disagree with you on what economists today "generally" think doesn't both you in the slightest. Rd232 ^talk 14:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd say you're two people who have been very sheltered. RJII 17:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Mmmm, shelter... arghlaghrl drool. ;) Rd232 ^talk 18:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong again. That subject actually didn't have a textbook, we used a supplied packet of journal articles and judicial decisions, most of which were from the 00s. Psychobabble 00:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rd232 deleting link to coercive monopoly

The link to coercive monopoly is being deleted by Rd232 without proper justification. He claims it is because a "dispute" is going on in that article. There is no such policy on Wikipedia. When is a dispute NOT going on in an article? It makes no sense to go around Wikipedia deleting links to an article just because disputes are going on in that article. I will continue replacing the link unless I'm made aware of some policy that forbids it. RJII 23:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. The coercive monopoly page is protected because of a dispute over a fundamental definitional issue. Linking from here requires being clear about the definition - especially as this page has been referenced several times in talking about that definition! This is common sense - it does not require policy. Rd232 07:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm clear about the definition. I don't know about you. RJII 15:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

So am I - but we (and others) disagree, which surely qualifies as a dispute. Rd232 15:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did not object to your addition of coercive monopoly as a see also in natural monopoly, because there is no definitional assertion involved with "see also". Rd232 09:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that a coercive monopoly is in stark contrast to a contestable one. If you dispute that let me know. RJII 15:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me know when you're done being childish. You know perfectly well what I objected to. Rd232 15:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"See also" implies that it's a link to a comparable article. I think it misleads the reader. "Coercive monopoly" is definitely not anywhere close to being comparable with a contestable one. RJII 16:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First paragraph cleanup

"Contestable markets refer to a market situation where there are very few, perhaps even only one, firm yet perfectly competitive market outcomes may still be observed (as opposed to expected monopolistic or oligopolostic outcomes)."

To me that was a pretty poor opening sentence for an encyclopedia entry. Using the plural and then 'refers to' is wrong. From what I understand talk of contestable markets is all about the idea that we can't decide on the competitiveness of a market simply by its structure (no. of firms e.t.c.), so saying that it is where there are very few firms is wrong. There may be very few firms but there may be many. Sjjb 14:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)