4 ms·

Literally the entire reason antitrust laws were written? Standard Oil? General Motors? AT&T? A little disingenuous to pretend that never happened.

by Rusky 9y ago

WalterBright 9y ago
Let's take Standard Oil. They never had a monopoly - at their peak they had a 90% market share. SO's market share slid steadily throughout the years of the anti-trust trial, and Rockefeller was unable to stem the slide. (The competition figured out how to beat him.) See "Titan" by Ron Chernow > pretend I know what the popular wisdom is. But dig a little deeper and you'll find it is not correct. > General Motors was formed in 1908. The Sherman Antitrust Act was in 1890, so GM could not have been the reason for it.
- Rusky 9y ago
  > GM could not have been the reason for it ...which, to clarify, was not my point. That is, going back up-thread a bit, it's still clear that capitalism intrinsically encourages monopolistic behavior, and that "government intervention propping up companies" is not the cause. In fact, I would go so far as to say that even if there were no capitalistic tendency toward actual monopolies, it would still have the same winner-take-all problem, merely due to the prospect of a "winner".
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    Every company wants to be a monopoly, sure. But free market forces prevent that from happening. It takes government to prop one up. A prospect and an actual problem are two different things. SO was never convicted of being a monopoly, either. A subtle but crucial point, and usually overlooked.
    - kerkeslager 9y ago
      I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming that free markets prevent monopolies, but even if they do, free markets self-destruct. Once corporations in a free market have enough money to start influencing politics they use it to start regulating in their favor and the market ceases to be free. You can regulate to prevent that, but then the market isn't free, yet again. It's also a bit myopic to view companies as a binary monopoly/not monopoly. A company with 90% market share isn't a monopoly, but has most of the downsides of a monopoly, and likely is a monopoly within subsets of the market.
    - Rusky 9y ago
      Free market forces don't prevent it from getting close enough to cause a problem (if that's even possible under capitalism- the problem we're talking about is due to the attempt to gain a monopoly, not having one). I couldn't care less what Standard Oil's maximum market share was, you're arguing an irrelevant technicality. My point is, again, that in this case the prospect is what causes the problem.
      - WalterBright 9y ago
        > cause a problem The "problem" was that kerosene prices dropped 70% under SO. The real problem was that Rockefeller was rich, and then (like today) a lot of people just can't stand the idea that others are rich. If you're really interested in going beyond soundbites and understand what was happening, I really recommend Chernow's "Titan". Chernow actually agrees with you, so you can't argue his book is unfair. Chernow's opinions, however, are not congruent with his presented facts in the book. He's just so convinced of Rockefeller's evil nature that he is blinded by his own narrative :-)
        Rusky 9y ago
        Neither of those are the problem I'm referring to, which should be obvious based on the thread we're in... But to spell it out, the problem is that the winner-takes-all aspect encourages people to overwork themselves or their employees, despite the diminishing returns that brings. Maybe you're just so convinced of capitalism's good nature that you were blinded to what we were talking about in the first place? ;)
        WalterBright 9y ago
        I think you're inventing a problem. I don't know many capitalists or employees who believe they must work themselves to death because of some presumed winner-take-all aspect. In fact, I don't know any. Few define business success as erasing all competition. Success is making a good profit.
        the_cat_kittles 9y ago
- somecontext 9y ago
  > Let's take Standard Oil. They never had a monopoly - at their peak they had a 90% market share. Out of curiosity in calibrating your definition of "monopoly", can you give an example of a monopoly (past or present) together with an estimate of their market share? Thanks.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    Sure. The USPS has a monopoly on first class mail. Market share = 100%. The government prosecutes anyone else who tries to do it. Up until a couple years ago, in Washington State, hard liquor could only be sold through state stores. 100% market share. The plumber's union is a monopoly. It is illegal to hire a non-union plumber. 100% market share. Anyone holding a patent, trademark, or copyright has a monopoly. 100% market share by law.
    - xapata 9y ago
      Are you aware that federal law uses a different definition of "monopoly"?

Literally the entire reason antitrust laws were written? Standard Oil? General Motors? AT&T? A little disingenuous to pretend that never happened.

by Rusky 9y ago

Literally the entire reason antitrust laws were written? Standard Oil? General Motors? AT&T? A little disingenuous to pretend that never happened.

WalterBright 9y ago

Let's take Standard Oil. They never had a monopoly - at their peak they had a 90% market share. SO's market share slid steadily throughout the years of the anti-trust trial, and Rockefeller was unable to stem the slide. (The competition figured out how to beat him.) See "Titan" by Ron Chernow > pretend I know what the popular wisdom is. But dig a little deeper and you'll find it is not correct. > General Motors was formed in 1908. The Sherman Antitrust Act was in 1890, so GM could not have been the reason for it.

Rusky 9y ago
> GM could not have been the reason for it ...which, to clarify, was not my point. That is, going back up-thread a bit, it's still clear that capitalism intrinsically encourages monopolistic behavior, and that "government intervention propping up companies" is not the cause. In fact, I would go so far as to say that even if there were no capitalistic tendency toward actual monopolies, it would still have the same winner-take-all problem, merely due to the prospect of a "winner".
- WalterBright 9y ago
  Every company wants to be a monopoly, sure. But free market forces prevent that from happening. It takes government to prop one up. A prospect and an actual problem are two different things. SO was never convicted of being a monopoly, either. A subtle but crucial point, and usually overlooked.
  - kerkeslager 9y ago
    I'm not sure on what basis you're claiming that free markets prevent monopolies, but even if they do, free markets self-destruct. Once corporations in a free market have enough money to start influencing politics they use it to start regulating in their favor and the market ceases to be free. You can regulate to prevent that, but then the market isn't free, yet again. It's also a bit myopic to view companies as a binary monopoly/not monopoly. A company with 90% market share isn't a monopoly, but has most of the downsides of a monopoly, and likely is a monopoly within subsets of the market.
  - Rusky 9y ago
    Free market forces don't prevent it from getting close enough to cause a problem (if that's even possible under capitalism- the problem we're talking about is due to the attempt to gain a monopoly, not having one). I couldn't care less what Standard Oil's maximum market share was, you're arguing an irrelevant technicality. My point is, again, that in this case the prospect is what causes the problem.
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      > cause a problem The "problem" was that kerosene prices dropped 70% under SO. The real problem was that Rockefeller was rich, and then (like today) a lot of people just can't stand the idea that others are rich. If you're really interested in going beyond soundbites and understand what was happening, I really recommend Chernow's "Titan". Chernow actually agrees with you, so you can't argue his book is unfair. Chernow's opinions, however, are not congruent with his presented facts in the book. He's just so convinced of Rockefeller's evil nature that he is blinded by his own narrative :-)
      - Rusky 9y ago
        Neither of those are the problem I'm referring to, which should be obvious based on the thread we're in... But to spell it out, the problem is that the winner-takes-all aspect encourages people to overwork themselves or their employees, despite the diminishing returns that brings. Maybe you're just so convinced of capitalism's good nature that you were blinded to what we were talking about in the first place? ;)
        WalterBright 9y ago
        I think you're inventing a problem. I don't know many capitalists or employees who believe they must work themselves to death because of some presumed winner-take-all aspect. In fact, I don't know any. Few define business success as erasing all competition. Success is making a good profit.
      - the_cat_kittles 9y ago
somecontext 9y ago
> Let's take Standard Oil. They never had a monopoly - at their peak they had a 90% market share. Out of curiosity in calibrating your definition of "monopoly", can you give an example of a monopoly (past or present) together with an estimate of their market share? Thanks.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  Sure. The USPS has a monopoly on first class mail. Market share = 100%. The government prosecutes anyone else who tries to do it. Up until a couple years ago, in Washington State, hard liquor could only be sold through state stores. 100% market share. The plumber's union is a monopoly. It is illegal to hire a non-union plumber. 100% market share. Anyone holding a patent, trademark, or copyright has a monopoly. 100% market share by law.
  - xapata 9y ago
    Are you aware that federal law uses a different definition of "monopoly"?