Replies

I don't know, I think this article is off-base. No one minded the monopoly problems we had in the past. For much of the 20th century, several car manufacturers dominated the automobile market in the U.S.A. There used to be dozens, all swallowed up by Ford, GM and Chrysler. There weren't many complaints. Now we again have dozens, although many have partnerships that dilute the offerings.

Same thing for telephone access, all swallowed up by AT&T, which was broken up into smaller Bells, which then merged and got monopolized again. But with cellular, we again have choices (although few).

We had few choices in Television content, with only a few choices you could count on your hand. Now we have many. How is that a monopoly?

As for drug prices, R&D is expensive and must be covered by initial pricing before protections expire and other companies are allowed to clone them without any R&D expense. The high pricing is not because of any monopoly, it is an expense to be covered as no one develops a product for free.

'As for drug prices, R&D is expensive and must be covered by initial pricing before protections expire and other companies are allowed to clone them without any R&D expense. The high pricing is not because of any monopoly, it is an expense to be covered as no one develops a product for free. '

Nothing is more monopolistic than having a protected market that prevents competition from oversea drug importations. .Gov effectively limits the importations of drugs to the benefit of drug companies.

The price stranglehold will eventually bring forth even more 'socialism' to the US if it isn't stopped.