[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is not the logic why Borodog doesn't think predatory pricing would never work. Predatory pricing doesn't work because:

1. It requires a business to run at a loss for a (long?) period of time. This is obviously awful for businesses who consider it and good for consumers. not true. You just need to be able to have a lower cost of goods than your competitors and make sure THEY don't make a profit.

2. If a firm actually does manage to run its competitors out of business, the high price level (and profits possible in that industry) will encourage other firms to compete with it. Again, bad for the firm trying it, good for consumers. Not when they know that as soon as they come in, the prices will drop and no profit will be made, and they lost any investment they had in getting to market
3. When a firm goes through stage one, if it is publicly owned and traded, it can be short sold by the general public. This, combined with the whole "running a loss for an indeterminate amount of time" thing are probably why firms don't try this strategy.assumes that they take a loss.

Or, there might not be any examples of predatory pricing because government regulation prevented them all. Pretty obvious what side to bet on here IMO...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Your counterarguments as laid out here seem to suggest that the "predator" is actually just winning the competition. Are you really saying that when one company is able to get all the business by offering lower costs to consumers at lower profit to them, that's bad for consumers? This seems to run counter to your example of Delta, which you've asserted is charging higher prices to consumers than it otherwise could, and I infer is making an "unfairly high" profit, not a reduced profit.