Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!ncis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!sugar!ficc!jeffd
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Dram Prices...
Summary: Dumping
Message-ID: <2761@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 17 Jan 89 11:20:40 GMT
References: <18814@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <6175@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> <2738@ficc.uu.net> <2759@ficc.uu.net>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls
Lines: 37

In article <2759@ficc.uu.net>, walker@ficc.uu.net (Walker Mangum) writes:
> In article <2738@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
> >     result of market forces.  Besides, even if it were, why gripe?
> >     Doesn't dumping reduce prices for consumers?
> 
> Only temporarily!  Remember, if it really is "dumping", the purpose is
> to remove competition from the marketplace.  If the dumping is then
> successful and competition is removed, the prevailing supplier then
> rules marketplace.  The consumer has no choice of supplier.  As a
> consumer, I would much prefer freedom of choice.  The problem here is
> that there are enough short-sighted consumers that don't realize that
> *they* are the real victims of dumping, so they go for the bait.  And
> bait it is!
> 
The lack of competition would only be temporary.  First, establishing
a complete monopoly, regardless of how low one sets prices, is virtually
impossible -- perhaps totally impossible -- without governmental
assistance.  Second, it one exploited the monopoly to rake it 
huge profits, those profits would quickly attract new competitors.

One prime example of a company realizing this took place earlier this
century, when one firm had a monopoly on aluminum -- and kept *lowering*
their price.  That discouraged competitors, and thus saved the firm
expenses on advertising and the like, thus perhaps increasing
*net* profits.

Jeff Daiell



INDEPENDENCE FOR TEXAS!


-- 

              "You should see me when I'm rested."

                              -- from "Brigadoon"