Market Structure
The preferred market structure for CEO
As a CEO, I would prefer to operate under a monopoly market structure. According to Askar (2013), a monopoly market structure is that which has one single seller and sells a unique product in the market. This market structure offers a company the chance to make the maximum profits. The firm faces no competition as the product sold is unique, meaning that the firm can significantly cut on its marketing expenses, among other relevant costs. The demand for products of a firm operating under a monopoly market structure is also inelastic, meaning that the company can gain a significant profit margin through a price increase without losing its customers. The firm is not vulnerable to the risk of being kicked out of the market by other competitors in the industry. As a CEO, I would prefer to operate in this market structure as it would allow the company to focus on innovation and business growth rather than engaging in competition wars with rival companies.
The preferred market structure for a Consumer
As a consumer, I would prefer to operate in a perfect competition market structure. I would choose this structure because it would shift the bargaining power to the customers rather than the firm. Firms in this structure are price takers, unlike in the monopoly structure where firms are price setters. Consumers also have perfect information on the goods sold by the firms. Unlike the monopolies, companies sell identical products, and their market share does not influence the prices (Alm, Sennoga & Skidmore, 2009). The customers, therefore, have a higher bargaining end under this structure than under the monopoly structure. Demand for goods is also elastic, so a slight change in price affects the demand for the products by the consumers.
References
Askar, S. S. (2013). On complex dynamics of monopoly market. Economic Modelling, 31, 586-589.
Alm, J., Sennoga, E., & Skidmore, M. (2009). Perfect competition, urbanization, and tax incidence in the retail gasoline market. Economic Inquiry, 47(1), 118-134.