Monopoly and competition as objective properties of market economy and necessity of state-legal action on them

Kolesnik L.R., competitor DonGuU, the teacher

The problematic enveloped by this subject introduces us into ­ the most depth secrets of market economy where under the cover of ­ business freedom are created kindly and angrily, are making ­ highly moral and most low acts where in ­ state-legal action on public attitudes most ripenly shows the state role in economic and ­ social orbs shows,­  a degree of its interference in economy are made­­­­.

The state indirectly influences at a competition and monopoly by means of monetary and a tax policy, distribution ­ of public contracts, financing of fundamental ­ and applied scientific examinations, creation of incentives for investments into upgrade of out-of-date production, also attacks directly and immediately through the anti-trust legislation. The item of the state on behalf of it low-creating, low-employing and low-executing members as for a competition and monopoly, at creation of their standard-legal base and its subsequent incarnation in life can be convincingly argued and effective only in case of the correct reflectance in a state policy and, ­ the legislation of objective tags of a competition and monopoly and ­ value last in market economy irrespective of ­ the state interference. This circumstance obliges us before to speak about competition ­ and monopoly state regulation,­  to revert to knowledge of their economic ­ essence, determining legal forms of return action on them.

The ideal model of socially oriented market economy intends equality of participants of economic ­ attitudes, freedom in acceptance of solutions in problems by them of the ­ behavior in the market, inadmissibility of any interference somebody in their causes, an unobstructed possibility of an enter into a market and a drift from it.

Each businessman acts in those orbs as which considers favorable to itself, irrespective of the ripened public needs. But the buyer, and the customer is so free also. To the states with developed market economy ­ the minimum or peak ­ norms of consumption are unknown­. What to buy, from whom to buy and under what price, exclusively customer decides, leaning against the desires and solvency. The web of correlations arising between all ­ participants of market attitudes is penetrated by a competition.

A. Smith has proved, that a competition, equalizing rates of profit, objectively predetermines allocation of labour and ­ the capital, approaching it to the optimum. A.Smith has paid attention also to objectively developing differences between ­ subjective aspirations of the businessman and public result ­ of its activity. Each aspires only to own gain, but consequences every time are reversed so, that it ­ simultaneously satisfies also any another's gain, and all of them together implement interests of all company. Such paradoxical ­ result is reached besides via the competition. In well-known work "Examination about the nature and the reaches of the people" (1776) A. Smith has figuratively named it "an invisible arm" which is reserved, through oscillations of market prices shapes ­ centre costs and spots behaviors of participants of market attitudes, first of all sires of the goods.

K. Marx, stated, that "only in a competition – in capital action on the capital - laws of its tendency are implemented immanent to the capital”, that incorrect, "that the standing as if the competition imposes to the capital the chronologic laws brought from the outside which is not its ­ characteristic laws”­... The Competition carries out ­ inside laws of the capital, make them forced laws for the separate capital, but does not devise these laws. It ­ implements them".

The ideal model of socially oriented ­ market economy presented above ­not always ­ satisfies a test practice of market attitudes. Except unscrupulous diligent competition, the second danger, monopoly - ­ its direct antipode. Like a competition the monopoly also is immanent ­ to market economy, is objectively stipulated by development of the last. In economy two interdependent tendencies react. The first - tendency of managing subjects to isolation, formation ­ of independent economic frames. Legally it ­ is ensured with such forms of reorganization of legal entity, as selection and separation owing to what in the market appears more and more independent from each other and competing ­ managing subjects independent from each other among themselves­. The second tendency - tendency to absorption of one managing subjects by others, stronger­.

By measure of the social and economic ­ nature of their arising and functioning ­ is standard to different monopolies natural, legal and ­ artificial.

Among monopolies independently there are natural monopolies where on the objective conditions which are not dependent from wishes of people and ­ the state, on the nature of things other state of the market, except monopoly, is impossible or is inexpedient. Legal monopolies named like that because they are organized ­ legally and officially protected from ­ a competition.

The most widespread and dangerous to ­ competition freedom ­ in the market are artificial monopolies. These monopolies purposely change market frame - create barriers to entrance on the market of new businessmen­; restrict to firms which have not entered into monopolistically ­ join, access to source of raw materials and energy carriers­; create high level of technology; use bigger business giving larger effect from growth of a scale ­ of production, etc.       

In a common view the process of monopolistically concentration ­ of production and capital centralisation in the up-to-date conditions taking place in integration forms, diversification and conglomeration­.

Considering of both tendencies in their comparison ­ testifies to predominance of the second - monopolies. To its prevalence ­ moves objective development of production forces. In particular, mastering by reachings of a science, a technique, a technology and production on this bottom more quality and more cheap goods ­ in comparison with competitors requires bigger ­ capital investments, is frequent excessive for separately ­ taken managing subject. It forces lagged behind under the threat of ­ a defeat in competition and ruins to combine ­ among themselves or to join to stronger, anticipated ­ them.

There is one more cause objectively defiant monopolism and a prevalence last over the free competition. In ­ enterprise practice the competition and monopoly ­ are usually considered as alternative.

All speaking early made a conclusion that in reaching ­ of an optimum of market economy it is impossible to rely only on its natural functioning combined with self-regulation,­  that the market will regulate itself, and the competition will come itself and will act authority, without the state ­ support. Rational state-legal ­ action on objectively descending processes, protecting freedom of a competition and opposite to monopolisation ­ of economy, monopolistically activity, ­ an unfair competition and development of the free competition into ­ monopoly is necessary still­­­­. Building of reliable guarantees of freedom of a competition can be reached only at a leg on objectively operating ­ tendencies that does necessary their more detailed ­ reviewing.