Sounds like desperation. > > Michael Perelman > > ^^^^^^ > CB: Like "Poor little monopoly corp" ... >
GM's hardly a monopoly (exceed as loosely defined as "big"). It's facing all sorts of competition from Toyota, etc. JD ^^^^^^ CB: Yes, "bigness" is part of this concept of monopoly. This is relative bigness, and, obviously adds to the company's ability to dominate in some economic arena. Are you familiar with the political economic tradition that considers that monopolization _increases_ , not decreases, competition in a number of ways ? It is termed monopoly competition and is more vicious than free competition. This tradition is specifically aware of the arguments you make against the use of the term "monopoly" to apply to a GM, but doesn't accept your conclusion, and thus continues to use the term "monopoly" as I do here. Or maybe you have a monopoly on the use of the term "monopoly". Here's one short statement of the idea of this nameless political economic tradition: 10. DOES MONOPOLY END COMPETITION? No. It reduces competition in the area covered by the monopoly, while accentuating it in other fields -- e.g., between monopoly capitalists and non-monopoly capitalists and between rival groups of monopolists in the same or different countries. ^^^^^ CB: So, the idea of monopoly here does not exclude the possibility of competition with foreign monopolies , like Toyota. ( Although I haven't investigated the extent to which Toyota and GM may be linked ) What is the nature of the competition between GM , Ford and Daimler-Chrysler ? Why are there only three/two U.S. based car companies left instead of 150 as at the beginning of the carmaking age ? "Monopoly" refers to the history of the car companies as well. GM is a winner, along with Ford, in the long term history of competition among U.S.based-owned car manufacturers. Most competitors have been eliminated. That is an illustration of monopoly growing out of competition as theorized by Marx. It is really not such an odd idea. "Imperialism cannot eliminate competition. 'In fact it is this combination of antagonistic principles, viz, competition and monopoly, that is the essence of imperialism, ...' "
