Ilia Platonov
Pr. Kinsella
EC 200B
22 October 2014
Food Inc Having watched the movie Food Inc I can't precisely define about what field of knowledge it makes sense to speak. For me the sense of this movie leaves towards policy and the social sphere, than the economics. Really, it is shocking when the large companies have the people in the government for advance of their purposes. But if to think of the economic party put in this movie, it is possible to allocate some important aspects:
Big corporations ruin private (small) business. As shown in the movie on the example of Monsanto, the company doesn't allow farmers to use the seeds. The share of the modified soy in 10 years grew by 88 percent. On how many I understood from the movie, the remained 10 percent have legal proceedings with the company and get into debts to pay bills. This destruction of small business, and as it is known without small business economy doesn't survive. (Soviet Union as example). …show more content…
In the movie it is told about four large companies. Yes, it is impossible to call it monopoly, but I strongly doubt that between these companies there is some competition. And if there is no competition, they can agree about the price of a product though it and is forbidden by the law. The conclusion - if isn't present the competition, it means the monopoly limited only to the consumer's opportunities. Yes, there are natural monopolies, for example in Russia it is the state companies, such as Gazprom, Russian Railways and Metropolitan. But it is natural monopolies in branches of the state value. I consider that in otras of production of food it is necessary to give the chance of the competition by small farming. Perhaps then we will start over again is healthy
Pr. Kinsella
EC 200B
22 October 2014
Food Inc Having watched the movie Food Inc I can't precisely define about what field of knowledge it makes sense to speak. For me the sense of this movie leaves towards policy and the social sphere, than the economics. Really, it is shocking when the large companies have the people in the government for advance of their purposes. But if to think of the economic party put in this movie, it is possible to allocate some important aspects:
Big corporations ruin private (small) business. As shown in the movie on the example of Monsanto, the company doesn't allow farmers to use the seeds. The share of the modified soy in 10 years grew by 88 percent. On how many I understood from the movie, the remained 10 percent have legal proceedings with the company and get into debts to pay bills. This destruction of small business, and as it is known without small business economy doesn't survive. (Soviet Union as example). …show more content…
In the movie it is told about four large companies. Yes, it is impossible to call it monopoly, but I strongly doubt that between these companies there is some competition. And if there is no competition, they can agree about the price of a product though it and is forbidden by the law. The conclusion - if isn't present the competition, it means the monopoly limited only to the consumer's opportunities. Yes, there are natural monopolies, for example in Russia it is the state companies, such as Gazprom, Russian Railways and Metropolitan. But it is natural monopolies in branches of the state value. I consider that in otras of production of food it is necessary to give the chance of the competition by small farming. Perhaps then we will start over again is healthy