Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Perfect competition provides both allocative efficiency and productive efficiency: Such markets are allocatively efficient, as output will always occur where marginal cost is equal to average revenue i.e. price (MC = AR). In perfect competition, any profit-maximizing producer faces a market price equal to its marginal
Chess is an example of a game of perfect information. In economics, perfect information (sometimes referred to as "no hidden information") is a feature of perfect competition. With perfect information in a market, all consumers and producers have complete and instantaneous knowledge of all market prices, their own utility, and own cost functions.
[7] [8] The extensive use of game theory in industrial economics has led to the export of this tool to other branches of microeconomics, such as behavioral economics and corporate finance. Industrial organization has also had significant practical impacts on antitrust law and competition policy. [9]
Under "Idealizing conditions of perfect competition", there's an sentence "If the cost of changing a firm's manufacturing process to produce the substitute is also relatively "immaterial" in relationship to the firm's overall profit and cost, this is sufficient to ensure that an economic situation isn't significantly different from a perfectly competitive economic market."
Perfect and imperfect oligopolies are often distinguished by the nature of the goods firms produce or trade in. [8] A perfect (sometimes called a 'pure') oligopoly is where the commodities produced by the firms are homogenous (i.e., identical or materially the same in nature) and the elasticity of substitute commodities is near infinite . [ 9 ]
Perfect competition requires a perfect knowledge of the state of the market; and though no great departure from the actual facts of life is involved in assuming this knowledge on the part of dealers when we are considering the course of business in Lombard Street, the Stock Exchange, or in a wholesale Produce Market; it would be an altogether ...
The book discusses the views of Alfred Marshall and Arthur Cecil Pigou on competition and the theory of the firm. Marshall believed that competition was imprecise, with prices being influenced by the rise and fall of demand. He also used the analogy of trees in a forest to explain how firms grow and establish a monopoly.
A broader conclusion of the model is that antitrust, or competition, policy should be "discretionary". [5] That is, government regulators who are faced with a proposed merger need to examine each proposal on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, the cost savings might make it worth the loss of competition, while in others they will not.