That's not what "monopoly" means.
Oligopoly seems like the most accurate word choice.
"Monopoly" in this sense is meant to indicate that one is put in a bad negotiating position because the power/options are consolidated into few hands that can demand bargains that are beneficial to their side thus, in this case, disadvantaging Costco.
Every time you use the word "monopoly" it doesn't have to have an exact 1:1 relationship with a law 101 textbook definition.
The real travesty is that these companies hold regional monopsonies so the farmers can only sell to one company, putting them in a bad spot where the chicken companies can dictate terms. Costco wants to be able to do that directly to farmers too, without the middle man.
One of the fundamental aspects of a monopoly is the ability to set prices and therefore extract money from customers without providing additional value- like a tax or a rent.
Whenever few enough competitors exist that a company can begin to tax or collect rent without providing additional value, it takes on monopolistic characteristics.
But that's exactly what monopoly means, i.e. you can't get in and compete with those players.
It sounds like you are justifying monopolized markets for whatever reason.
There are other forms of market failure relating to a small group having too much power in the market: Monopoly, Cartel, Oligopoly, Monopsony, etc. etc.
Oligopoly or Cartel are far closer to what the article is describing. To use the word "Monopoly" here is simply incorrect English.
Nonetheless, economic principles have a precise, technical definition for Monopoly, Duopoly, Monopsony, Oligopoly, Cartel, and Oligopsony.
Each situation requires a different policy to handle. So its important to choose the right word to describe any particular problem.
I just don't see that argument-from-etymology is a productive way to get there since it doesn't seem to generalize.
like any field of study, people apply words outside of the technical application and meaning gets diluted the further a person is from the field (economics). just look at how superhero movies use the word 'dimension'. =)
but yes, without examining the industry in more detail, oligopoly is the safer initial assumption.
A market that is not competitive enough is an 'oligopoly'. That's the word you want. Why do you want to move the definition of 'monopoly' when we already have the word 'oligopoly'?
But the article said 'monopoly', not 'oligopoly'.
Monopoly is a form of oligopoly. But oligopoly is not a form of monopoly.
All monopolies are oligopolies. Not all oligopolies are monopolies.
This chicken situation is maybe an oligopoly. It isn't a monopoly.
If you think a situation with multiple supplies and limited competition is a monopoly, then I'd ask you... why do we also have the term oligopoly? What do you think the difference is?
The latter is far, far easier and actually achievable.
Also for what it's worth I don't believe the article author misunderstands the word monopoly. I think they abused it to get clicks.
> But oligopoly is not a form of monopoly.
This is wrong, sorry.
It's the other way around, since we are talking about market economies, not literal meanings of words.
Oligopoly _specifically_ describes what we have here. I learned a new word today.
The company I work for is the "something something group".
Well, to that I say: "Pelecie inoteso su erik anohot fete derera notel not. Toyino litifid ca yigo lece yevi vitod emefan berie nisur, cinim pociepem oce irimo alucetef cupara yonebup eroyifeh oponud."
If the literal definition of words is absolutely irrelevant, then this is a cogent argument that perfectly refutes your position.
Historically, monopoly was about single players taking over the economic system. There are other, better words to use if you aren't describing ONE powerful company.
Carnegie Steel Company. Rockefeller's Oil. Ma Bell. ONE supplier, across the entire USA.
You're not winning this argument from etymology (where Mono literally means one), or historical. Ma Bell's breakup was as recent as 1980s, this isn't some "ancient history" here, its modern US history.
True monopolies, e.g. Bell Telephone, local cable franchises, utilities, etc. are (almost?) always granted by the government.
Crucially, the "mono-" bit means "one." One seller.
1 < n ⪅ 5 is "oligopoly".
If they collude and conspire it's a "cartel", but technically a cartel can also be a subset of players in a "polyopoly" (which is "many sellers", i.e. a healthy market). It's just way easier if the cartel = everyone :)
If the suggested "Cartel" doesn't work, there's also "Oligopoly"
"Market Failure" is the word you're looking for. And there's LOTS of ways to achieve Market Failure.
Your vocabulary of economic terms is limited and imprecise. If you study economics more, you'll certainly appreciate the amount of work that the field has put into definitions and policies.
These details are important, especially in a democracy where we voters are the ones who ultimately decide upon the fate of our country. We all have to have basic economic knowledge of these Market Failure conditions, as well as the policies available to combat them.
This isn't exactly what monopoly means. Have you tried looking in a dictionary to see what it does mean?
CNBC is a major news organization, so they generally should be using English correctly. I think a blog post can have technical errors here and there, but the standards for a proper news article are higher.
Doesn't make it an interesting topic of conversation.