GOOGLE’S Ad-Tech Monopoly

Posted on May 9, 2025 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By Staff Reporters

***

***

The DOJ wants Google to break up its advertising empire

Following a federal court’s ruling that Google operates an illegal ad-tech monopoly, the Justice Department requested that the company be forced to sell two major products—its Ad Exchange and a management platform—as an appropriate remedy.

Google, unsurprisingly, asked the judge for a less drastic remedy that would see the company make certain changes to its practices without having to break up its ad business. The judge won’t rule until the remedies trial starts in September.

Until then, Google has another thing to dread:

The government also wants the tech giant to sell Chrome to remedy its other monopoly (in search).

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

Like and Refer

***

***

Filed under: "Ask-an-Advisor", Breaking News, Ethics, Information Technology, Investing, Marketing & Advertising | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

ECONOMIC COMPETITION MODELS: In Medicine and Health Care

Posted on April 26, 2025 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By Staff Reporters

SPONSOR: http://www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org

***

***

HEALTH CARE ECONOMIC COMPETITION MODELS

In a discussion of competitive healthcare economic models, assumptions must include normal demand quantities, many fully informed patients and the fact that physicians cannot directly influence demand for medical care. These assumptions, although fluid, also preclude that patient buyers are large enough to have any influence over price and result in the following”:

  • In a “pure monopoly”, there is only one provider with a unique service. The doctor   is a “price maker” and charges whatever s/he wishes.
  • In an “oligopoly”, there are a few physicians who provide similar services. For example, when it becomes clear to Dr. Smith and Dr. Jones that neither can win their price war, oli-gopolists return prices to prior, but still inflated levels!  
  • In “monopolistic competition”, there are many providers with differentiated services. For example, should Dr. Jones decide to have evening hours, she may charge a premium for her fees if Dr. Jones doe not follow suit.
  • Finally, when “pure competition” occurs, there are many physicians, providing providing similar and substitutable services. Marketing and advertising does not affect fees, and prices are determined by supply and demand. The doctors become “price takers” by accepting fees arrived at by practicing competitively.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

The Medical Executive-Post is a  news and information aggregator and social media professional network for medical and financial service professionals.

Feel free to submit education content to the site as well as links, text posts, images, opinions and videos which are then voted up or down by other members. Comments and dialog are especially welcomed.

Daily posts are organized by subject. ME-P administrators moderate the activity. Moderation may also conducted by community-specific moderators who are unpaid volunteers.

Like and Refer

***

***

***

Filed under: "Ask-an-Advisor", Career Development, CMP Program, Glossary Terms, Health Economics, Health Insurance, Healthcare Finance | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

PARADOX: Anti-Trust Definition with Book

Posted on December 29, 2024 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By Staff Reporters

***

***

The anti-trust paradox suggests that antitrust enforcement artificially raised prices by protecting inefficient competitors from competition.

The Antitrust Paradox Book is an influential 1978 book by Robert Bork that criticized the state of US anti-trust law in the 1970s. A second edition, updated to reflect substantial changes in the law, was published in 1993. Bork has credited Aaron Director as well as other economists from the University of Chicago as influences.

Bork argued that the original intent of antitrust laws as well as economic efficiency makes consumer welfare and the protection of competition, rather than competitors, were the only goals of antitrust law.

Thus, while it was appropriate to prohibit cartels that fix prices and divide markets and mergers that create monopolies, practices that are allegedly exclusionary, such as vertical agreements and price discrimination, did not harm consumers and so should not be prohibited.

The paradox of antitrust enforcement was that legal intervention artificially raised prices by protecting inefficient enterprises from competition.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

Subscribe Today!

***

***

Filed under: Accounting, Ethics, Experts Invited, Glossary Terms, Media Mentions and PR, Recommended Books, Taxation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »