To clarify my question, please first consider these scenarios:
1. My brother and I share a business. We agree to sell cans of beans at a mutually agreed price. We don't prevent anyone else from producing, buying or selling anything.
2. As #1, but we're neighbors with separate businesses.
3. As #1, but we happen to be all the sellers of beans in North America.
4. As #1, w/ potable water instead of canned beans.
I don't see what is wrong or non-market in the above scenarios, for
(A) it is each buyer's free choice to buy at that price or not,
(B) it is each seller's free choice what price he offers HIS goods at,
(C) the buyers impose no unnatural barriers to competition.
Is the only problem that one of A,B,C are violated in reality (bribes, threats, trade secrets, etc.); OR are any of 1-4 wrong in themselves? If the latter, then how? (E.g., cos people really don't have an unrestricted right to set the price for what they rightfully own and produce, even if they coerce no one?!?)
2006-10-19
18:58:22
·
3 answers
·
asked by
Sasha
2
in
Economics