"Lüko Willms" wrote in message

Am 04.01.2012 12:17, schrieb Recliner:
No, that was again this Mr. Recliner (or who ever) who claimed
that
once there is only one owner of a company, that turns this company
into a monopoly which is to be fought.

I know that English is not your native tongue, so perhaps you're
confused by the English language terms "ownership" and "monopoly".
The ownership of a company has nothing to do with whether it's a
monopoly.

Correct. But YOU wrote that a single owner turns a company into a
monopoly:

Am 03.01.2012 14:33, schrieb Recliner:
If a company is dominated by one single shareholder, and
that shareholder has other interests, then you have a potential
conflict of interest. It's why monopolies are restricted
in the EU and other free capitalist countries.

I welcome you retraction of that nonsense, but you should not deny
that you wrote it.


There's nothing to retract or deny, and please don't keep insulting me
when I'm trying hard to be polite to you. As certain other posters in
this newsgroup should have realised by now, habitual rudeness diminishes
the people who deliver the insults, *not* the people they insult. Again,
I'll give your lack of English knowledge the benefit of the doubt, but I
invite you again to take account of the words "and [if] that shareholder
has other interests, then you have a potential conflict of interest".

To explain that in simpler words, if one shareholder gets effective
boardroom control of a company by having more than (say) 40% of the
shares, then a potential monopoly would exist *if* that same shareholder
also controls other companies in the same industry; it would be
unimportant if the shareholder has no significant interests in competing
companies.

If those companies collectively controlled more than, say, 40% of the
market, then they would be able to set prices, etc, all under the
control of the monopoly shareholder. As I keep trying to explain
politely to you, the level of shareholding in a single company doesn't
tell you anything about whether it's a monopoly. It's the presence or
absence of effective competition that matters. So it's fine if small
businesses in a competitive market are owned by a single family, and
no-one but you would suggest that they had a monopoly.

So the fact that DB has a single shareholder doesn't make it a monopoly;
the lack of strong competition in Germany means it has a German
monopoly. Its UK subsidiaries also have a single shareholder, in the
form of the German government, but they don't have a monopoly here. Is
that clear now?

Now please will you answer my question about workers rights in the two
Koreas?