The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Monopolies should be illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,048 times Debate No: 25574
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




Monopolies should be illegal. For the purpose of this debate, monopolies are businesses that have no competition in their field.

First round is acceptance.


I accept. Many thanks.
Debate Round No. 1


Reason 1: Monopolies do not benefit the consumer.
If a company has a monopoly on a product, there is a pretty good chance that it is going to charge customers through the nose for it. The company, after all, has complete assurance that nobody can offer the product at a lower price, and people must either pay their fees, or not get the product. The company may be able to make the process of production more efficient and cheaper, but it is unlikely the company will be altruistic enough to pass those savings onto consumers unless it has an ulterior motive. All in all, the consumer does not benefit from a monopoly.

Reason 2: Monopolies do not benefit workers.
If a company obtains a monopoly, the jobs once held by its competitors vaporize. In a bad economy, it would not be a wise choice for the government to allow jobs to be lost in this fashion.

Reason 3: Monopolies allow the separation of the classes.
Some of the wealthiest people of all time were men that held monopolies (Rockefeller, Carnegie, and now Slim). These men controlled and control the flow of such great wealth that other people suffered. Monopolies would further aggravate this problem.

Conclusion: Monopolies do not benefit consumers, workers, or anyone in the middle and lower class. Monopolies should hence be unlawful and prohibited in all civilized countries.


Apple v Samsung.
Although Apple own the monopoly for the IPAD, it does not own the rights to the cheaper Samsung where the courts found that it was not abusing its monopoly power as Samsung originally asserted. Furthermore, it was found that, although the Samsung product looked and acted analogous to the IPDAD, it was not found to be the same product. Alas, while Apples argument was that they had the monopoly on the market with a patent to protect their idea, the courts found that yes Apple do have the monopoly for the industry, however, the samsung product was not the ipad and where free to produce and sell as per before.
Walmart v Food City
The superstition of unacceptable practice of predatory pricing e.g. financially stable companies pricing at a loss until weaker competitors exit the marketplace. In Reality, the accepted business practice is to actually create value for service or product, in essence competition benefits the consumer. Wal-Mart and Southwest Airlines, for example, can offer lower prices because of operating efficiency. As capacity is removed from an industry, pricing power is created and lowered for the consumer. Yes, there is a survival of the fittest connotation about it, but the consumer is the one who benefits.
Wal-Mart today is saving money for consumers everywhere. It has consistently advertised itself as doing so, of which they have a legal obligation to be honest about. Without Wal-mart America would be a very different place, furthermore, in certain rural areas of the USA it is the only life line for consumers (e.g. grundy, VA), if a lifeline is not a benefit, then what is. Moreover, it is only Wal-marts financial position within the market that allows it to take position in rural areas which supports community and instigates job growth, because without the financial backing the rural consumer would not benefit from its presence and it is highly unlikely that Joe blogs 24/7 food superstore would be able to maintain rural overheads in this economic downturn.
It is important to realize that partial price discrimination can cause some customers who are inappropriately pooled with high price customers to be excluded from the market. For example, a poor student in the U.S. might be excluded from purchasing an economics textbook at the U.S. price, which the student might have been able to purchase at the China price. Similarly, a wealthy student in China might have been willing to pay more. These are deadweight losses and decrease a monopolist's profits. As such, monopolists have substantial economic interest in improving their market information and market segmenting to provide the consumer with better prices and the products that are in demand or necessitated e.g. a good indicator of this was when wal-mart underwent market research and was able to deduce that pharmaceuticals were in demand.
It should therefore be accepted that without monopoly"s, we as consumers would not have the low prices we benefit from. Furthermore, as consumers we do benefit from the monopoly"s research capacity in order to bring the goods that are in demand or a necessity. Moreover, without the financial weight to support the overheads of rural trade e.g. low income, growth, coupled with overheads, the rural consumer in the US would be without a major source for services and food, etc. Whereby, if history serves us correctly, when the sources dry up, so does the community.

Apple is one of the best employer"s in the world:
Furthermore, a market insiders research into brand monopoly has found that market leaders have more attractive employment packages which surpass of employer benefits. So, why does Google and Apple continue to beat out all other employers? Simple: the brand! Companies that have appealing consumer brands generally also succeed in being perceived as attractive employers,"Universum Employer Branding specialist Kortney Kutsop said in a statement earlier this year. "People nowadays love to work for companies that produce their favorite products and services. Also, market success is an important factor: the company needs to be generally seen as innovative and best-in-class in whatever they do--that's the winning formula."
However, there is strong evidence to suggest that monopolies do indeed save jobs e.g. Wal-mart:
Rather than instigating competition growth in foreign and domestic expansion, Wal-mart has started to buy up failing companies of a similar nature, thereby saving jobs in the supermarket and service industry. By taking over existing stores rather than opening new ones, Wal-Mart avoids the community opposition that it faces in the U.S. Al Norman, the founder of Sprawl-Busters, who has been described by CBS"s "60 Minutes" as the guru of the anti-Wal-Mart movement says. "What Wal-Mart did in Mexico was very instructive. Mexico was a testing ground for the method of operation. They basically acquired existing stores. They moved into Mexico and that became the theme in other countries like the UK, Germany, and Japan. They would buy into an existing operation, rather then start from scratch."
Aforementioned, Grundy VA locals had struggled to find work, it wasent until the arrival of Wal-mart that locals were able to apply and obtain 230 jobs. The locals were so excited they even created a muci video to commemorate its opening: . The music is not my cup of tea but a it is a good indicator of the excitement, prosperity and future associated with what a monopoly can provide for its potential workers and community.
Another fine example of a monopoly holder is GM. Without GMs capacity to ensure jobs and generate economic growth and tax returns " if was not allowed to grow as did as an industry leader initially so as not to tread on joe blogs 24/7 car retail " it would not of had the benefit of being saved by the government in the economic downturn. Therefore, saving jobs.
So I do not accept that monopolies "vaporize" jobs, but contend that they generate work, sustain work and have a greater capacity to provide for better benfits within the work place e.g. pay, holiday, healthcare, etc. I would rather a similar source in a monopoly purchase a failing company and save jobs rather than have another abandoned building rotting away without the work. Actually, this leads onto an endearing situation, if not the monopoly, then who?
Here it should be apparent that it is only a minute margin at the very high end of these aforementioned conglomerates that earn the absurd amounts of money implied e.g. this would be the reason why not everybody in the Wal-Mart or Apples employee parking lot has a Rolls Royce. Although, the employee parking lot will undoubtedly be bigger than that of the figurative Joe Bloggs because Joe Bloggs would never be able to employ so many individuals.
However, it should be pointed out that for all the monopolies within the US the average wage among 270 odd million citizens remains around the $50.000 mark which if accurate portrays a healthy median class subdivide., so there is no evidence that owning a monopoly is indicative to class division. But actually conforms with the American ideology of captilism.
Debate Round No. 2


Apple owns the monopoly for the IPAD...

I fail to see how this supports your argument, so I won't refute it. All of this true.

Wal-Mart does not yet have a monopoly on stores. If it did, there would be no motivation for low prices, because people couldn't shop anywhere else, and their business would be ensured. And yes, Wal-Mart does save people money over competing stores because it pays its employees minimum wage. This, as I said, does not benefit the employees. In any case, Wal-Mart is not a monopoly, and I fail to see why you brought it into this argument.

Monopolies save jobs.
In that case, yes, a possible future monopoly saved some jobs. I won't dispute that. If businesses are not failing, however, monopolies would destroy jobs. I'll give you an example:

Imagine two companies, A and B.

A employs 50 workers to make tires, 3 secretaries, a plant manager, two janitors, an accountant, and a company lawyer.
B operates similarly.

If A buys B to get a monopoly on the market, some jobs will be lost. A does not need double the workers to operate. Perhaps it will retain the 50 tire people, but the secretaries, accountant, and lawyer will be superfluous. Three jobs would be lost. For a more realistic picture of a company, multiply that number by 1000. 3000 lost jobs are nothing to sneeze at.

GM is not a monopoly holder. It merely has majority market share in the United States. I do not know why you insist it is. I'll just ignore this. Somewhere in this paragraph you also say that a monopoly could purchase a failed business. This would not save jobs, because the near-monopolistic business would evidently be the cause of that business failing. If a family store is put out of business by Wal-Mart, the people operating the store will not have their jobs saved, but downgraded severely. That does not benefit the workers in the slightest. You are also correct when you say Wal-Mart has more employees than small businesses, but 1 efficient Wal-Mart with 300 employees is not better than 30 small business with 15 employees. If Wal-Mart were to take all of those businesses, 150 jobs would be lost, again a loss for the workers. Your link leads to a poverty map, which really doesn't conform to your argument.

Conclusion: You have given me no examples of monopolies working effectively, and instead shown favoritism toward dominant companies. You have hence not disproved or even argued against my resolution effectively.

And no offense, but you have certainly lost on spelling and grammar too.



Explanation for Apple v Samsung:
The courts have interested Apple has having the monopoly on the IPAD via a patent, it clearly states this numerous times within the transcripts: ,
The reason for this claim in the opening argument was to clearly illustrate AGAIN that the courts interpret a monopoly via a trademark, or patent. In this case it was a patent that established the monopoly on the IPAD. Therefore, there is a fine line between competitive companies and a monopoly.

Wal-Mart is a monopoly:
Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT ) is known for passing on its low-cost advantages to the customer. For example, the article points to a UBS Warburg report suggesting that food prices are 14% lower in markets where Wal-Mart competes. But as the authors note, there are several overwhelming negatives.
For one, the company has dominated its suppliers. Wal-Mart, which owns a hefty 30% of the U.S. consumer staples market and 15% to 20% of all music and video sales, plays a role in determining what gets sold. For example, the company has forced record companies to produce clean versions of explicit-label CDs or risk losing out on sales. And based on the complaints of a few customers, modern male magazines such as Maxim, Stuff, and FHM have been removed from store shelves.
And if you think that's a problem, Wal-Mart accounts for 28% of Dial's (NYSE: DL ) sales, 24% of Del Monte Foods' (NYSE: DLM ) sales, and 23% of Clorox's (NYSE: CLX ) sales. If Wal-Mart has too much power over these companies now, what will happen when Wal-Mart's share hits 50% at the end of this decade?
Among other negatives, the article points to the fact that Wal-Mart employees earn 20% less than those at unionized supermarkets. In addition, Wal-Mart's entry into new markets has forced the closure of existing stores: According to Business Week, "for every Wal-Mart supercenter that opens in the next five years, two other supermarkets will close." And this is done without creating new jobs.
Which brings me to the monopoly on pricing which you state without evidence is not true"
According to a Retail Forward report cited in the article, 30 supermarkets have "closed since Wal-Mart saturated Oklahoma City." Think about this: Wal-Mart is successful because it can offer lower prices than anybody else. But what if nobody else exists to compete?
In business classes, you hear stories of the unacceptable practice of predatory pricing -- financially stable companies pricing at a loss until weaker competitors exit the marketplace. Today, the accepted business practice is to actually create value. Wal-Mart and Southwest Airlines (NYSE: LUV ) , for example, can offer lower prices because of operating efficiency. As capacity is removed from an industry, pricing power is created.

GM is a monopoly:
I will try and keep this segment short as the original reason it was raised was for purely peripheral reasons. However, to ram home my point: GM has been convicted on several occasions for being a monopoly and manipulating the market e.g.

As I have responded to your attacks and provided evidence to the contrary, I wish to return to my original arguments.
1.Monopolies do not benefit the customer: Yes they do for the reasons I have already stated. One being they pass on cheaper prices, provide market research via their financial power which in turn brings what the customer wants e.g. prices, products, services, etc, and can reach the most remote parts of the country e.g. my video evidence of Wal-mart opening in Grundy VA.
2.Reason 2: Monopolies do not benefit workers: you have conceded yourself that yes they do. I will say no more on the matter and rest my case.
3.Reason 3: Monopolies allow the separation of the classes: As before, there is no evidence to suggest this. I again refer back to my original statements. In regards to my evidence, I cannot be there to take you through it step by step, but may I suggest following the instructions on the website. You will see that it states the median average household income several times. Try and click on a state.
You have failed to research the evidence I have given. You have failed to give or back any claims you make by failing to give evidence. Furthermore, you have ignored the majority of my arguments and gone onto to postulate on other matters. I have now defined my terms for your better understanding. You have also conceded that I was right. My spelling and grammar is not bad considering I do not turn 13 until next week. Additionally, it is premature to suggest I had lost in that department already considering I still had another post!
If you raise claims without evidence, they can be dismissed without evidence. On this occasion I have provided plenty regardless.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by harrytruman 2 years ago
They already are! Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts! Look them up.
Posted by dashton82 5 years ago
@Cody, lol, too true!
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
The government is a monopoly, sooooooooooo...
Posted by M4sterDeb8er 5 years ago
I know that. There is not an amendment, however, but a federal statute, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. Just because something is a law does not mean it should be in effect. Prohibition (That was an amendment, the 18th) was repealed after a few years because it was stupid. Someone may believe that monopolies are important for some reason, and I would like to discuss that.
Posted by adontimasu 5 years ago
Monopolies ARE illegal. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, there is a constitutional amendment specifically for monopolies.
No votes have been placed for this debate.