Monopoly power on the producer side

I didn't know how to frame this title but still want to capture my thoughts about recent changes we see in monopolistic behaviour. The govt has usually looked at the monopolies in industries serving the consumers and they use a HHI index to assess the competitiveness of an industry and approve/disapprove mergers based on the projected HHI index after the merger. Monopolies are bad because they hold too much market share, have high pricing power and can stifle innovation in their industries because of their power. Compared to a competitive industry, a Monopoly would produce less of a product and charge a higher price for the product. and we break up Monopolies to make the industry more competitive. Basic Microecon classes at universities teaches us all this. This is not the point of my blog.

But Microeconomic theories (atleast the ones I know) have always looked at Monopolies serving the end consumer - like AT&T, Standard Oil, Microsoft etc. but what about those companies that act as monopolies to manufacturing companies - like a Walmart. Walmart almost dictates pricing terms to its suppliers and the suppliers don't have much of a say or choice to go somewhere else to sell their wares. If they don't sell to Walmart, they pretty have to shut down a large portion of their production capacity. This pressure from Walmart then pushes these companies at first to seek efficiencies in production in the US and after that they can only get those costs down by moving to a lower-cost overseas operation. But this causes these companies to lay off employees in the US. So are we increasing unemployment in the country by having these kind of Monopolies like Walmart - they may not be charging a high price to a consumer but extract low prices from their suppliers. Google is another example. They hardly charge anything from a user for e-mail or its search function from a consumer but it has almost 65% of the market share in the search space. They can dictate terms to the companies seeking to advertise on its search pages. I am just raising a question whether Monopolies should strictly be looked at from the point of view of how they behave with a consumer. Is there a potential fallout for an economy by having companies with monopolistic power with their suppliers? What we pay for something is earnings for another. Porters five forces does look at all the sources of power for an industry - should the govt only look improving the bargaining powers of a consumer in a Monopolistic industry - should they also not look at improving the bargaining power of suppliers?

exchange rate wars - continued part 2

Let me get more of my thoughts on this before I get overly influenced by the rightists or leftists views on the QE2. There was an interesting article in Barrons a few weeks back with the title 'Monetary Steroids' by Randall Forsyth. I quote a few sentences from the article. "The trade deficit is a symptom, not the cause of a complex of economic problems. To target a trade deficit is lunatic", Goldman writes on his Inner workings blog at www.atimes.com. "Roberty Mundell shoed in his Nobel Prize-winning work that trade deficits arise from an excess or deficiency of savings in a national economy; if the chinese want to save 50% of GDP, they can only do so by exporting goods, because there aren't sufficient outlets for savings inside China". For the US to increase its savings rate and stop importing goods from Japan and China would mean the US economy would have collapsed, adds Goldman.

I have made this point before in my other blogs - every country in the world can't be net exporters unless we start trading with some outer space aliens. and add to that a corollary, every country can't have a positive savings rate. The desirable equilibrium is to have minor trade deficits/surpluses and average savings rate close to zero. If the chinese or indians have a 40 ro 50% savings rate, it is unsustainable. They can only sustain it by being big net exporters, causing trade frictions and currency exchange rate wars. The govts of the big savings countries need to get their citizens to spend money internally on goods and services. That can be done by providing safety nets like social security, unemployment benefits, universal health care coverage, disability protection etc so that every citizen doesn't see the need to save a big cushion of cash for some unforseen calamity in their life. By saving a big percentage of their income, they are not driving demand for internally produced products and services and so those products & services have to be exported to keep people employed. and these countries initially have a cost advantage to export these goods but then try to sustain the same export advantage using currency manipulation. The country that is losing jobs because of this will retaliate - one tool of easy retaliation is to try to devalue their own currency, which is what the US is trying right now. This is not a solution to the problem but just a response to what the other party is doing. will talk about some solutions in my next blog.