3 ms·

I will confess to not making it to the end of the introduction, but this is a general comment about anti-trust and monopoly laws. They're made up and arbitrary

I will confess to not making it to the end of the introduction, but this is a general comment about anti-trust and monopoly laws. They're made up and arbitrary. The best definition I have seen is that someone is a monopoly if they haven't made enough campaign contributions and weild enough political influence to appease government bureaucrats from shaking them down. The exception is for a monopoly created by the government itself by legislation/regulation giving someone special privileges or banning competitors. I challenge a reply to this comment for a definition of monopoly that rational+reasonable people could use to unambiguously differentiate between business that are and are not a monopoly (asside from the one I gave above). I like Walter Block's joke on monopolies. He starts with 3 prisoners in a gulag who are chatting amongst themselves about how they got there. First guy, "I was always late to work. I was accused of depriving the Soviet people of my labour, so was sent to the gulag." The second guy, "gosh, I was always early. They accused me of being selfish and ambitious: trying to brown-nose and get ahead of my fellow workers, so I got sent here too." The last guy, "I was always precisely on time. They said I must be a spy and accused me of having a western wristwatch." The same joke applies to monopolies. Three businessmen are all accused of being monopolists and are sent to prison. First guy, "I was charging more than my peers. They accused me of price gauging." Second guy, "I was charging less than everybody else, they accused me of undercutting the competition." Last guy, "I charged exactly the same as my competitors: I got charged with collusion and participation in a cartel."

missedthecue 6y ago
Indeed, the Chicago school has held for the last 60 years or so that Anti-Trust legislation produces more monopolies than it prevents.
pixl97 6y ago
Strongly defining a monopoly sets the bar for a company to be tenthousanths of an inch below it. Rather than avoid abusive behaviour a corporation will maximize it in the full extent the law allows. Companies are rarely leaders, most boardrooms are execs asking what their competitors are doing so they can mimic it.
cryptonector 6y ago
Rather than get a challenge, you're getting downvotes :(
burfog 6y ago
We unambiguously differentiate by setting a threshold. Does your water heater produce hot water? We can decide this unambiguously if you provide your required temperature and the actual temperature you are getting. Despite the lack of a universal definition of "hot", we can unambiguously determine if your water is hot or not. For your water heater, you probably set the threshold based on how much you enjoy your shower, how well your dishes get clean, and so on. For a monopoly, we can set the threshold at the point where there is an unacceptable amount of market control. Measurement of market control is more difficult than measurement of water temperature, but that is no excuse to give up. We measure beauty, intelligence, bad driving, poverty, odor, and misery.
- raincom 6y ago
  Well, at least measuring temperature doesn't depend on the K-street, campaign contributions, or ideologies.
- daniel-s 6y ago
  You have provided no definition. "Unacceptable amount of market control" defines nothing at all. In fact, it only supports what I said. "Unacceptable" will be what the bureaucrat/politician has decided he wants to go after. Perhaps you want to try again?
  - burfog 6y ago
    Define "pain", so that we know if opiates are appropriate. (or we give them to everybody who asks?) Define "reckless driving", so we know who the police should stop and who should be charged with that crime. (or we just give up on that concept?) Define "nuisance odor", so we can fine or arrest people who make entire neighborhoods unlivable. (or we let a condo smell like a huge industrial pig farm?) Define "mentally disabled", so that we can pursue rape charges (due to inability to consent) or appoint a financial caretaker. (or we just let the profoundly unintelligent get abused?) Life and law are full of fuzzy judgement. Pretending otherwise is a terrible idea.
- pdonis 6y ago
  Your hot water heater can be set at a different temperature from mine if we have different personal preferences for how hot the water should be. In other words, nobody gets to declare by fiat what an "unacceptable" level of hot is and force everyone to set their hot water heaters accordingly. The corresponding concept in "market control" is a free market, where nobody gets to declare by fiat what the threshold is for an "unacceptable" level of market control. So your analogy leads us to the conclusion that antitrust laws should be abolished.
mannykannot 6y ago
The joke is on you. Specifically, actor 2, who charges less than the competitors. Unless actor 2 is both a) selling at less than cost and b) either a de-facto monopoly supplier or is acting in concert with most other significant suppliers, then there is no monopoly issue. The issue is complicated if the low-cost supplier satisfies condition a by using its monopoly to strong-arm one or more of its suppliers into giving it preferential treatment, but the consequence of this is that not all valid cases are acted on.
- daniel-s 6y ago
  Your logic/argument is completely circular. Do you mean to say that undercutting competition is monopoly behaviour because you're strong-arming[1] your suppliers because you're a monopoly? [1] "strong-arming" is left undefined, but let's continue.
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    No, the point is the opposite of your misunderstanding: undercutting the competition is not necessarily monopolistic behavior, so your joke contains a straw-man argument.
- icelancer 6y ago
  >> Unless actor 2 is both a) selling at less than cost and b) either a de-facto monopoly supplier or is acting in concert with most other significant suppliers, then there is no monopoly issue Plenty of businesses have run into problems without doing this. You also use circular reasoning when saying there's no monopoly issue unless there's a monopoly issue.
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    > You also use circular reasoning when saying there's no monopoly issue unless there's a monopoly issue. Your paraphrase is inaccurate. The point is that undercutting the opposition is not, in itself, monopolistic.
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
fortzi 6y ago
It’s a nice joke, but antitrust isn’t (or at least shouldn’t) be determined based on price alone
tobmlt 6y ago
Hey, just want to say thanks. Fantastic point, and comment. I completely concur. But then I’m basically an Austrian who also likes math so I’m really just choir here.

missedthecue 6y ago

Indeed, the Chicago school has held for the last 60 years or so that Anti-Trust legislation produces more monopolies than it prevents.

pixl97 6y ago

Strongly defining a monopoly sets the bar for a company to be tenthousanths of an inch below it. Rather than avoid abusive behaviour a corporation will maximize it in the full extent the law allows. Companies are rarely leaders, most boardrooms are execs asking what their competitors are doing so they can mimic it.

cryptonector 6y ago

Rather than get a challenge, you're getting downvotes :(

burfog 6y ago

We unambiguously differentiate by setting a threshold. Does your water heater produce hot water? We can decide this unambiguously if you provide your required temperature and the actual temperature you are getting. Despite the lack of a universal definition of "hot", we can unambiguously determine if your water is hot or not. For your water heater, you probably set the threshold based on how much you enjoy your shower, how well your dishes get clean, and so on. For a monopoly, we can set the threshold at the point where there is an unacceptable amount of market control. Measurement of market control is more difficult than measurement of water temperature, but that is no excuse to give up. We measure beauty, intelligence, bad driving, poverty, odor, and misery.

raincom 6y ago
Well, at least measuring temperature doesn't depend on the K-street, campaign contributions, or ideologies.
daniel-s 6y ago
You have provided no definition. "Unacceptable amount of market control" defines nothing at all. In fact, it only supports what I said. "Unacceptable" will be what the bureaucrat/politician has decided he wants to go after. Perhaps you want to try again?
- burfog 6y ago
  Define "pain", so that we know if opiates are appropriate. (or we give them to everybody who asks?) Define "reckless driving", so we know who the police should stop and who should be charged with that crime. (or we just give up on that concept?) Define "nuisance odor", so we can fine or arrest people who make entire neighborhoods unlivable. (or we let a condo smell like a huge industrial pig farm?) Define "mentally disabled", so that we can pursue rape charges (due to inability to consent) or appoint a financial caretaker. (or we just let the profoundly unintelligent get abused?) Life and law are full of fuzzy judgement. Pretending otherwise is a terrible idea.
pdonis 6y ago
Your hot water heater can be set at a different temperature from mine if we have different personal preferences for how hot the water should be. In other words, nobody gets to declare by fiat what an "unacceptable" level of hot is and force everyone to set their hot water heaters accordingly. The corresponding concept in "market control" is a free market, where nobody gets to declare by fiat what the threshold is for an "unacceptable" level of market control. So your analogy leads us to the conclusion that antitrust laws should be abolished.

mannykannot 6y ago

The joke is on you. Specifically, actor 2, who charges less than the competitors. Unless actor 2 is both a) selling at less than cost and b) either a de-facto monopoly supplier or is acting in concert with most other significant suppliers, then there is no monopoly issue. The issue is complicated if the low-cost supplier satisfies condition a by using its monopoly to strong-arm one or more of its suppliers into giving it preferential treatment, but the consequence of this is that not all valid cases are acted on.

daniel-s 6y ago
Your logic/argument is completely circular. Do you mean to say that undercutting competition is monopoly behaviour because you're strong-arming[1] your suppliers because you're a monopoly? [1] "strong-arming" is left undefined, but let's continue.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  No, the point is the opposite of your misunderstanding: undercutting the competition is not necessarily monopolistic behavior, so your joke contains a straw-man argument.
icelancer 6y ago
>> Unless actor 2 is both a) selling at less than cost and b) either a de-facto monopoly supplier or is acting in concert with most other significant suppliers, then there is no monopoly issue Plenty of businesses have run into problems without doing this. You also use circular reasoning when saying there's no monopoly issue unless there's a monopoly issue.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  > You also use circular reasoning when saying there's no monopoly issue unless there's a monopoly issue. Your paraphrase is inaccurate. The point is that undercutting the opposition is not, in itself, monopolistic.
TheCoelacanth 6y ago

fortzi 6y ago

It’s a nice joke, but antitrust isn’t (or at least shouldn’t) be determined based on price alone

tobmlt 6y ago

Hey, just want to say thanks. Fantastic point, and comment. I completely concur. But then I’m basically an Austrian who also likes math so I’m really just choir here.