fagin%ji@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU (08/05/86)
John Mills writes, in reply to Keith Lynch: > Monopolies can and would form under PURE capitalism. That is > why we have anti-trust laws. > Once a large, wealthy person or business > controls most of a market, it is relatively easy to keep your > current market share and get most of the rest. Evidence please. If you're familiar with an example of a monopoly that existed in the US without government assistance, please tell us about it. And I'll save you the trouble: don't use AT&T, U.S. Steel, Standard Oil, or the railroads as examples. Believers in antitrust fail to understand the terrible consequences of allowing the political marketplace to pronounce judgements on economic associations. Over 80% of all antitrust cases are between competing firms and do not involve the federal government. This suggests that the real purpose of antitrust law is to permit businesses to use the legal arena to avoid competition, and not to prevent monopolies. And when the feds jump in, they never apply any meaningful standard to judge whether or not an industry is monopolized. How could they? Consider the wording of the Sherman Act, which prohibits "unfair restraint of trade". This is so ambiguous that it's meaningless. If company X is charging a price that the powers that be feel is to high, they're obviously charging higher than the "market" price, and are monoplizing the industry. If company X is charging a price perceived to be to low, company X is engaging in "predatory" pricing and is attempting to monopolize. (In cases like this, it is usually competing companies that bring the suit). And if company X is charging what everybody else charges, then they're ALL engaging in a "shared monopoly", whatever that is. The Sherman and Clayton Acts should be repealed. They've screwed the consumer ever since the turn of the century. Barry Fagin -------