Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT
Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, the media have proclaimed - without any objective research evidence -that the former Soviet Republics and the Eastern European nations have been strapped by lack of market competition. Oligarchs, large influential families, had taken over the economy by exercising monopoly and thus controlling the price of the basic necessities of life. One article recently reported that the price of sugar would be raised by twenty-five percent in a former Soviet republic. The price was going to be raised by an MP (Member of Parliament) whose family had supposedly monopoly over the sale of sugar. The article sounded like indicting this oligarch family for taking advantage of the poor consumer. Monopoly has been invariably assigned an almost uniformly negative connotation. If a business maintains a "monopoly" in their respective fields, it is excluding other companies which deserve a fair chance to compete and to offer the best price to the consumer. This type of prejudice against all so-called "monopolies" is unwarranted, unfair, and even downright wrong. This paper implodes the myth surrounding the monstrosity of the monopoly dragon. Not all monopolies need to be feared and dismantled. A monopoly has many faces. Two major sorts of monopolies are objectively differentiated in this paper to de-mystify the maligned image of monopoly - which could very well be the true engine of the economy.
INTRODUCTION
Every since the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, one reads in the news now and then that the former Soviet Republics including most Eastern European nations have been devitalized by lack of competition in the marketplace. Oligarchs, large ruling families, had taken over the economy by exercising monopoly and thus controlling the price of the basic necessities of life.
For example, one article recently reported that the price of sugar in one of the former Soviet republics would be raised by twenty-five percent due to an increase of this commodity on the international market. The price was going to be raised by a MP (Member of Parliament) whose family had allegedly monopoly on the sale of sugar in his struggling country.
The article sounded like indicting this oligarch family for taking advantage of the poor consumer...