It’s the law of supply and demand, so what you see on the shelves is what you get. If demand is high enough, anything is sold.

It is the law of monopoly, so if it isn’t, you get monopolistic competition.

Monopoly is the inability to sell your product to someone who can only afford the price you set for them. The law of oligopoly, on the other hand, is when the supply of a product is so high that there is a severe and sudden drop in demand. Oligopoly is more of a “ifs” than a “buts.

The fact is that many of the big-name companies that are competing for entry into the new world of online video game consoles will not be able to buy video games because they don’t have the right type of equipment. There are companies with a lot of equipment. They need to purchase all the equipment they can afford. There is no way that the video game console will not be able to compete with the $40 console.

The market that is being offered is the same market that currently has some players that have the right equipment. Only the players that have the right equipment are able to buy these games. The companies that have the wrong equipment will have to find a way to sell it to the right people. The current consoles are not a way to sell it but a way to buy it. In other words, the current consoles are not a way to make money but a way to lose money.

For the game-play community, it’s always pretty obvious that no one has the right to participate in the game.

That’s right. This is something that I’ve been thinking about for a while. I’m not sure it is a problem, but it is a problem in general. For instance, in a perfect world everyone had the same equipment. Every company would be able to sell their product to anyone who wanted it(meaning the right person to sell their product to would be the company itself). However, in a perfect world, there would be no competition between companies.

If there was no competition then we would have no way to make money (for example) and we would have no incentive to participate in the game. We would be forced to make products for the market that we think will make the greatest amount of profit. However, in a perfect world, we would all be competing against each other. In particular, I would put a lot of emphasis on the amount of competition between companies.

We need competition to create a strong economy. But then there is also the opposite: competition to destroy the economy. I think competition between companies is quite healthy. But competition between companies that want to destroy the economy? That is very unhealthy.

I’m of the opinion that the ideal is to be able to compete against other companies with all of your resources. This is necessary for the good of the economy, as well as the ability to compete on the international market.

Avatar photo


Wow! I can't believe we finally got to meet in person. You probably remember me from class or an event, and that's why this profile is so interesting - it traces my journey from student-athlete at the University of California Davis into a successful entrepreneur with multiple ventures under her belt by age 25

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *