Amazon.com Widgets

Should the U.S. allow monopolies such as standard oil?

  • I know what you are thinking

    If I am holding a basketball tournament to find the best basketball team (a consumer finding the lowest price), I would like as many teams to join into the tournament as possible (more competition is good). Preventing teams from joining would be bad (barriers to entry). However, as the tournament progresses, teams will be eliminated (consumers choosing not to shop at expensive businesses). Eventually, there may be a winner (e.G. Wal-Mart). In most industries, the tournament never ends and there is not a winner because many teams are often equally matched and/or new teams continually enter the tournament.

  • Do not stop capitalism.

    The monopoly of standard oil is in the name. It creates standard oil, prices and jobs. To have greedy tax collectors split it up would be to stop capitalism. The monopoly was founded on hard word. They should though be required to sell some of it, but not much. The U.S. Oil is like a company. It should sell some of its shares, but not enough to lose control. It has the right to remain private. Although the government has the usual ability to sieze items for fair compensation, so that can be employed in extreme measures.

  • Yes, the U.S. Should allow monopolies such as standard oil to exist

    Some people may argue that monopoly has a detrimental effect on the society, but is not necessarily the case. When the monopoly exists (such as standard oil), citizens' choices are limited, therefore coerced to accept some choices that they may not desire. However, it is a well-known fact that the goal of any corporation is to maximize their profits by offering a world-class customer service. Therefore, the U.S. Should allow monopoly to exist for the better service of her people.

  • No It Most Certainly Should Not!

    To begin with, I do understand that the United States Government must sometimes offer aid and or council to certain businesses to stimulate our economy. However, in contrast, the United States Government's largest responsibility is to citizens of the United States of America, therefore while I support the argument that our government faces situations in which it "should" aid and or offer council to large cooperation's, the best interest of the citizens of the United States of America cannot, under any circumstances, be compromised. (What exactly is in the best interest of U.S. Citizens is a debate in itself though).

  • A Few opening words, competition, corporate greed, and fairness. I'll Start with the first one.

    Although monopolies can have a few (rare) good effects, we have seen firsthand what corporate greed and lack of competition can lead to. We must regulate and break up monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt did to the trusts. Their is little to prevent price gouging when their is a lack of competition or control. What you argue for would make it all to easy for corporation to become more powerful then they already are. Monopoly by definition means no competition. So, unsatisfied customers have nowhere else to take their business. Monopolies can treat their customers like scum and not lose any business. This is bad for everyone involved. We can see where lack of control leads to in countries like China. Corporations already have far to much power with Lobbyist's and many politicians in their back pocket. What you are arguing for is to give them even more control this cannot be tolerated.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.