mergers are called when a company has no competition.
mergers are called when a company has no competition.
what is it called when a company has no competition?
mergers
bullet::::- monopolistic competition is a type of imperfect competition such that many producers sell products that are differentiated from one another (e.g. by branding or quality) and hence are not perfect substitutes. in monopolistic competition, a firm takes the prices charged by its rivals as given and ignores the impact of its own prices on the prices of other firms. the "founding father" of the theory of monopolistic competition is edward hastings chamberlin, who wrote a pioneering book on the subject, "theory of monopolistic competition" (1933). joan robinson published a book called "the economics of imperfect competition" with a comparable theme of distinguishing perfect from imperfect competition. chamberlin defined monopolistic competition as "challenge to traditional viewpoint of economics that competition and monopoly are alternatives and that individual prices are to be explained in terms of one or the other". he continues: "by contrast it is held that most economic situations are composite of both competition and monopoly, and that, wherever this is the case, a false view is given by neglecting either one of the two forces and regarding the situation as made up entirely of the other".
market (economics)
the design competition has been strongly criticized. an early critic of the competition was justin shubow, a former magazine editor and head of the national civic art society (ncas). shubow characterized the design process as rigged in gehry's favor, and established a web site, eisenhowermemorial.net, to attack the gehry design. edward a. feiner, former chief architect of gsa and the creator of the design excellence program. also objected to the memorial competition for being a closed competition. critics also included paul d. spreiregen, architect, professional advisor for the vietnam veterans memorial competition, and former chairman of the american institute of architects' committee on competitions, who in 2011 called for a design competition open to the public. on february 29, 2012, representative darrell issa, chair of the house oversight and government reform committee, launched an investigation into the competition. although issa's primary concern was the memorial's design, issa requested that eisenhower memorial commission chair rocco siciliano provide the committee with copies of all proposed designs submitted during the design competition, a detailed description of competition process, a detailed description of the means by which the commission selected the gehry submission, and documentation on all votes taken by the commission regarding the design competition (broken down by member). issa, in his capacity as an "ex officio" member of the national capital planning commission, also directed the eisenhower memorial commission to preserve all documentation related to the design competition and the gehry design. issa's investigation went no further than that in 2012. however, on march 20, 2012, the subcommittee on national parks, forests and public lands of the house natural resources committee held a hearing into the design competition. subcommittee chairman representative rob bishop (r-utah) asked how much it would cost to run a second design competition, and the political affairs newspaper "roll call" said bishop "tried to restart the design competition". although the subcommittee selected mostly witnesses who were critical of the gehry design, a few defended the design competition process as fair. william j. guerin, assistant commissioner for the office of construction at gsa, said critics mischaracterized the call for proposals as a closed competition. ned cramer, editor of "architect: the magazine of the american institute of architects", wrote nine days after the hearing that the design competition as a "limited request for qualifications" rather than a closed competition. art and architectural critic aaron betsky decried the general tone of the hearing as "mindless innuendo and vituperative allegations", and cramer agreed. lydia depillis of the "washington city paper" described the debate as a disorganized parade of criticism which was reaching "historic proportions".
dwight d. eisenhower memorial