13 ms·
You should actually look at Standard Oil - it lowered prices, increased access, and by the time it was broken up was already losing market share and was not nea
by dantheman 5y ago
You should actually look at Standard Oil - it lowered prices, increased access, and by the time it was broken up was already losing market share and was not nearly as dominant. As with most anti-trust arguments -- market domination is temporary unless granted by the government, e.g. AT&T. In general it is sour grapes from those who can't compete.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoYou should look at Standard Oil. Yes, it lowered prices and increased access. And it did things that were clearly blatantly unfair competition. For one example, it demanded kickbacks from railroads on oil shipments - all oil shipments, including competitors'. It's pretty hard for a competitor to be able to compete in that environment.
- dantheman 5y agoIf you're referring to drawbacks - then you have to ask, why did the railroads grant them? Why would other oil shipments pay a higher rate? Is it because the volume and stability standard oil offered, as well as ownership of tankers and other critical infrastructure needed to be compensated for? Once again, their market share was falling while these programs were going on so clearly it didn't hamper competition.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoWhy did the railroads grant them? Because Standard Oil was a huge amount of business. And back then, railroads had other railroads that competed with them. The railroads granted them under the threat of Standard Oil taking a huge amount of business to the competition. Was it for the ownership of the tanks? No, I don't think so... but I can't prove it.