3 ms·

I don't understand this philosophy. If monopolies don't harm the customer, why bother having a market at all? You could argue that freedom requires private pro

I don't understand this philosophy. If monopolies don't harm the customer, why bother having a market at all? You could argue that freedom requires private property and only a market economy is compatible with private property. But "A planned economy is more efficient but I don't support it because I support private property rights" is a pretty uncommon stance.

casefields 7y ago
One of the legal giants in this area, is probably the best place to start: https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardepstein/2019/01/23/beware-of-populist-antitrust-law/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardepstein/2019/01/23/bewar...
tzs 7y ago
Monopolies don't inherently harm the consumer. The harm comes from abusing your monopoly once you have it. Hence, the concentration in law more on the harm than on the existence per se of a monopoly. It goes the other way, too. Just as having a monopoly doesn't automatically mean you are in violation of antitrust law, not having a monopoly does not mean you aren't violating antitrust law. The practices you use to acquire a monopoly are often harmful long before you reach monopoly, or even before you become the biggest competitor in your market, and those are in scope for antitrust. Antitrust law is really more about monopolization than about monopoly. The distinction is explained well in this report from the Congressional Research Service [1]. From the summary: > Antitrust law does not mandate either that markets be competitive, or that they contain some predetermined number of participants/competitors; it is concerned, rather, with the operation of markets, on the assumption that a properly functioning market (i.e., one in which there is an opportunity for viable competition, and is not skewed by the predatory actions of participants), will best protect consumers. "Monopoly" and "monopolist" are, therefore, merely descriptive terms, used to illustrate situations in which a single entity (or group of entities) possesses effective control of the market in which it operates; neither term implies anything about the lawfulness of the monopoly possessed. "Monopolization," on the other hand, is the term used in antitrust law to characterize as unlawful a situation in which a monopolist—irrespective of whether his monopoly has been lawfully achieved—couples his monopoly status with behavior designed to unfairly exploit, maintain, or enhance his market position. Similarly, "attempted monopolization"connotes a situation in which an entity unlawfully or unfairly attempts to secure a market monopoly. The long-standing, judicially created Rule of Reason, which involves balancing an anticompetitive action with any procompetitive results, underscores those facts. [1] https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33708.html https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33708.html
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
  Planet Money recently had a piece on this. Consumer harm seemed to be predicted based on if prices would increase if the business in question was made to change. The profit margin was never a consideration. It's easy to say that online search might not be as good if Google were broken up, or that mobile phones might not be as good if Apple were broken up. Or that their "products" might cost more money. But in a competitive market, if their margins are one of the highest in the world, the mkre likely outcome seems like a simple reduction in their margins.
- anoncake 7y ago
  > Monopolies don't inherently harm the consumer. The harm comes from abusing your monopoly once you have it. Hence, the concentration in law more on the harm than on the existence per se of a monopoly. This is only true if you consider maximizing your profit by producing as cheaply as possible while selling them for the price the market will bear — in short, maximizing profit — an abuse of a monopoly. Banning a for-profit company from trying to make a profit doesn't sound like a coherent policy. > Antitrust law is really more about Is is pretty much irrelevant in a discussion about ought.

casefields 7y ago

One of the legal giants in this area, is probably the best place to start: https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardepstein/2019/01/23/beware-of-populist-antitrust-law/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardepstein/2019/01/23/bewar...

tzs 7y ago

Monopolies don't inherently harm the consumer. The harm comes from abusing your monopoly once you have it. Hence, the concentration in law more on the harm than on the existence per se of a monopoly. It goes the other way, too. Just as having a monopoly doesn't automatically mean you are in violation of antitrust law, not having a monopoly does not mean you aren't violating antitrust law. The practices you use to acquire a monopoly are often harmful long before you reach monopoly, or even before you become the biggest competitor in your market, and those are in scope for antitrust. Antitrust law is really more about monopolization than about monopoly. The distinction is explained well in this report from the Congressional Research Service [1]. From the summary: > Antitrust law does not mandate either that markets be competitive, or that they contain some predetermined number of participants/competitors; it is concerned, rather, with the operation of markets, on the assumption that a properly functioning market (i.e., one in which there is an opportunity for viable competition, and is not skewed by the predatory actions of participants), will best protect consumers. "Monopoly" and "monopolist" are, therefore, merely descriptive terms, used to illustrate situations in which a single entity (or group of entities) possesses effective control of the market in which it operates; neither term implies anything about the lawfulness of the monopoly possessed. "Monopolization," on the other hand, is the term used in antitrust law to characterize as unlawful a situation in which a monopolist—irrespective of whether his monopoly has been lawfully achieved—couples his monopoly status with behavior designed to unfairly exploit, maintain, or enhance his market position. Similarly, "attempted monopolization"connotes a situation in which an entity unlawfully or unfairly attempts to secure a market monopoly. The long-standing, judicially created Rule of Reason, which involves balancing an anticompetitive action with any procompetitive results, underscores those facts. [1] https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33708.html https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33708.html

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
Planet Money recently had a piece on this. Consumer harm seemed to be predicted based on if prices would increase if the business in question was made to change. The profit margin was never a consideration. It's easy to say that online search might not be as good if Google were broken up, or that mobile phones might not be as good if Apple were broken up. Or that their "products" might cost more money. But in a competitive market, if their margins are one of the highest in the world, the mkre likely outcome seems like a simple reduction in their margins.
anoncake 7y ago
> Monopolies don't inherently harm the consumer. The harm comes from abusing your monopoly once you have it. Hence, the concentration in law more on the harm than on the existence per se of a monopoly. This is only true if you consider maximizing your profit by producing as cheaply as possible while selling them for the price the market will bear — in short, maximizing profit — an abuse of a monopoly. Banning a for-profit company from trying to make a profit doesn't sound like a coherent policy. > Antitrust law is really more about Is is pretty much irrelevant in a discussion about ought.