This paper analyzes monopoly market structures through the case of Wonks, a hypothetical potato chip monopoly created by consolidating competing firms. It explores how monopolies exercise control over price and output, examines the price discrimination effects on households and suppliers, discusses the theoretical benefits to the monopolist versus harms to consumers, and evaluates the legal and regulatory frameworks—including the Sherman Act—designed to prevent and break up monopolistic practices. The analysis concludes that while monopolies maximize profit for producers, they reduce consumer welfare and choice.
In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise is the only supplier of a particular kind of product or service. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods. Monopoly refers to the process by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under perfect competition. This paper will discuss the benefits of the monopoly towards stakeholders involved, the changes that may occur in price and output of the product in this particular market structure, and the market structure that will most benefit a hypothetical potato chip monopoly called Wonks.
In 2008, two lawyers began purchasing competitive potato chip firms with the goal of forming a monopoly firm called "Wonks." After purchasing these firms, the two lawyers hired a management-consulting firm to estimate the long-run competitive equilibrium of this new monopoly. According to economics, a monopoly is a firm that produces a product for which there are no close substitutes and in which significant barriers exist to prevent new firms from entering the industry. By purchasing all firms involved with the potato chip industry, the two lawyers created a pure monopoly.
A pure monopoly allows the firm owners to control the whole industry. By seizing control of the market, the firm would now control their position on the market demand curve. They control everything from output quantity to price point, and their only limit to production would be the cost of production.
When a firm controls their position on the demand curve, the firm has overall power as to what and how much product is produced. By operating as a monopoly, there is no difference between the industry and the firm. Now that the firm is the industry, the firm ultimately decides all the decisions coming in and out of the business organization.
The result of this control can be price discrimination, which will impact households and suppliers of the product. Different suppliers may be charged a higher fee for the same product, which in turn will ultimately affect the consumer. Different households may pay more for the exact same product if they are purchasing it from a different area of the country or city where the manufacturer has negotiated a lower rate. The pricing burden ultimately falls on the consumer at the end of the purchasing chain.
Dealing with a monopolistic firm is not usually the most beneficial from a consumer and business owner standpoint. Monopolies have the power to control price point, which can affect the business or supplier and ultimately the consumer. By the two lawyers owning the Wonks monopoly, business owners are forced to have only one choice of manufacturer to purchase potato chip products from. This can impact the business owners' selling price if the original manufacturer is now increasing their price point based on the fact that they control and own all market shares.
This control of the market will affect the buyers' price and ultimately the consumers' purchase decision. By raising or lowering prices in the market, the manufacturer can change and alter the demand and total quantity of product produced.
The manufacturer Wonks would more than likely benefit by operating as a monopoly. As a monopoly, Wonks can now determine how much product they release to the market. By controlling production and the amount of product to be received by the consumer, they can impact the selling price. Since Wonks would not be in competition with any other manufacturers, they could increase their price as high as possible as long as the original cost of production is covered. They would not have to compete with competitors' pricing and would ultimately reap the benefits of profit once all price points are determined.
However, Wonks could be affected negatively if price points are set too high. By operating as a monopoly, Wonks has the control to set pricing. This decision as to where to set pricing can ultimately impact the demand curve. By setting price too high, the consumer may not see value in purchasing the product from the manufacturer. This can create a negative impact on market demand, resulting in a loss of revenue. By setting price too low, the manufacturer may need to sell much more product to compensate for production costs.
When dealing with monopolies in other fields besides food products, there may be no limit as to how high price points can be set. But for this particular industry, the manufacturer would more than likely increase price in a minimal fashion to still provide consumer demand for product sales.
"Imperfect vs. perfect competition and consumer preference for choice"
"Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and FTC enforcement against monopolies"
Some of the main reasons that government tries to prevent monopolies from forming is that by operating as a monopoly, the business has ultimate power of the market for their product. As a result of this power and majority stake, the government has documented cases of price discrimination and unfair trade practices. The Sherman Act, along with the Clayton Act, helped the Federal Trade Commission pass laws that made tying contracts illegal, limited mergers that would create monopolies, and banned price discrimination. By enforcing these acts and laws, the Federal Government has been able to maintain a firm hold on monopolies by preventing them in some instances before they ever occur. In other cases, these acts have helped to break up previously formed monopolies that held control of market shares.
By operating as a monopoly, Wonks is creating a market that cannot be interfered with by potential competitors. By holding the majority stake, any other competitor would need to meet and match the price point and quality of Wonks potato chips. From a consumer standpoint, it is preferable to have a variety of options and to be the one making the final decision on what to purchase. Consumers do not want to be influenced by a firm that controls all products and all pricing. It is clear why different government agencies have put a negative stamp on monopolies that are trying to form and have encouraged the breakup of already existing monopolies.
The evidence presented demonstrates that by Wonks operating as a monopoly, it benefits the firm only and is not operating for the benefit of the consumer. The monopolistic structure maximizes private profit while reducing consumer choice, increasing prices, and creating barriers to market entry. Regulatory frameworks like the Sherman Act exist precisely to address these market failures and protect consumer welfare and fair competition.
You’re 76% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.