Might want to go re-read that econ book. :)
OK, fine. But then, once a monopoly occurs, there is no longer a market in the sense that other sellersnned apply. At that point, the market is closed; there is one seller, and buyers are at their tender mercies.
That's not quite true. That means that one seller has the ability to dominate, to make changes. That doesn't mean there is *no* market, or *no* competition.
Intel had a monopoly on x86 chips for a long time, despite Cyrix and AMD (and others) attempts to break into that. They *did* compete, but Intel made the rules, set the prices.
Cause an effect: a market must exist for a monopoly to occur, but once that monopoly has indeed occurred, then the market is basically gone.
Depends on many factors.
Exploitation replaces the free market all you trickle-down types like to hallucinate about. In this case, you would probably agree that there is no free market in place here, now wouldn't you?
I wouldn't. You *do* have other options available, as hard as they might be. That doesn't decrease Microsoft's monopoly position - but it does mean that *you* don't *have* to buy their product(s).
No free market, no "free market forces". And no remedial economics needed, either...thank you.
I'd reconsider the remedial, were I you...
Addison