>What exists now with huge TNC dominance of global mkts isn't increasing
>competition; it's decreasing it. Takeovers, mergers, secret price fixing,
and
>cases like sterile gentech seeds, are IMO classically monopolistic
>(anti-competitive). The smaller, local/regional businesses usually can't
compete
>on price (quality/safety is not always easily judged by consumers), & if
any
>small guys do compete pretty well, the big guys try to buy them ASAP. I've
seen
>my mouthwash - Viadent(vegetable base) get bought by Colgate Palmolive.
Next
>thing they did was come out with a totally different product, same name but
>called "better tasting formula". It was a totally different formula with no
>'sanguinaria'(sp.?). They still sell the original one, much better IMO, but
can
>stop anytime they choose.
>
>Competition is more players/products, not fewer. Myth is that increased
>competition is destroying product quality. Globalisation & monopolisation
look
>like the culprits to me.
I think this is valid. A problem is that individual countries have
anti-combines or anti-monopoly legislation, but there are no international
counterparts. The MAI was imperfect in many respects, but it at least began
the process of setting some rules around international corporate and
government behaviour. However, the MAI is now dead, at least for the time
being.
Ed Weick
