Originally posted by: Tom
By larger sense, I meant that a monopoly isn't sustainable outside of some kind of temporary restriction, a restriction of time, or place, that won't last.
And I didn't agree with dawhim, I said the opposite, I think you are reading his response as coming from me.
no, i'm reading you agreeing with him. 'right, that's what i said in the first place'
and of course the monopoly may be transient, but it is still a monopoly while it exists, able to set price where MR=MC. it may only be able to exist in the short run, it may be able to exist only in a small region (for example, at the corner of 24th and guadalupe in austin, there used to be only 1 pizza place. it had a monopoly on pizza at that corner. but, that corner isn't a relevant market because anyone can walk a little bit down the street and go to another pizza place, but if all the pizza shops in the area were owned by the same company, then maybe they'd have a monopoly on pizza. another good one is luxury car dealers. often, there will only be one company that owns the 1 or 2 mercedes dealers in an area. they have a monopoly on sales of mercedes to end users. that gives them a monopoly on mercedes. now, mercedes doesn't have a monopoly on luxury cars, so the dealer will attempt to price discriminate between buyers who won't switch to another car brand, and buyers who'll go to lexus or bmw if the merc becomes too pricey)
those are still monopolies.
a really good example is for railroad lines. lets say a railroad line runs from chicago to san francisco. on it's way there, it runs past farmer bob's. farmer bob needs about 1/2 car load per season. the railroad is the most efficient way to move the load, followed, distantly, by trucking, which has a much higher variable cost, but lower sunk costs. now, where is the railroad going to price farmer bob's load? where MR=MC, and no one is ever going to compete with them on it because the cost structures don't work out.