4 ms·

This article[1] from Brookings says, >> At the time of the divestiture, the oil industry was becoming competitive because it was moving into Kansas, Oklahoma,

This article[1] from Brookings says, >> At the time of the divestiture, the oil industry was becoming competitive because it was moving into Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and California—states where Standard Oil didn’t have much power. The price of petroleum was actually falling in the years before the case, because these new fields were pumping so much crude. The breakup had no measurable effect on oil production, crude-oil prices or refined-product prices. (The article does say that antitrust actions were necessary to make cigarettes affordable, though.) For a rather less charitable take, [2] from the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" says, >> Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States had a defendant that was cutting prices while increasing output. The case also lacked evidence of either predatory pricing or consumer harm. After this quick bullet-point summary, there's more content below with references to other academic sources, page 2 is pretty interesting. > many would consider social media companies to be natural monopolies in the current context They have positive returns to scale, but even this phrasing ("social media companies") deflates the argument -- Facebook competes with Twitter competes with TikTok competes with Reddit competes with Youtube etc. They're big enough to exert market power, but - Some of them seem to dislike using that power (to the horror of authoritarians in many governments who want to co-opt it), and - If they abuse that power to the detriment of users (raising prices too high, banning enough communities) users will go elsewhere. 1: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/if-it-aint-broke-dont-break-it-up/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/if-it-aint-broke-dont-bre... 2: https://assets.realclear.com/files/2021/01/1755_antitrust.pdf https://assets.realclear.com/files/2021/01/1755_antitrust.pd...

bumby 5y ago
For just about any ruling, I’m sure you’ll find dissenting opinions. The only opinion that matters in the end is the court’s and they concluded it was a monopoly. For the record, with my limited understanding I don’t think “social media companies” are monopolies because they do not run afoul of general consumer prices because their products are typically free. They may deserve to be regulated under a different framework, but they don’t seem to fit the anti-trust paradigm. I brought them up because others, including the authors of the link I provided, consider them natural monopolies
- repsilat 5y ago
  > The only opinion that matters in the end is the court’s and they concluded it was a monopoly. I guess I'm less convinced of judicial infallibility, but I'll grant you it anyway. Mostly I don't think the important question here is the legal standard (which is of course what the court is interested in) than the question of whether the law is achieving its intent. If the law says that a company that is lowering prices and losing market share is a monopoly that should be broken up, the law isn't really reflecting mainstream thought about antitrust -- that market concentration is self-perpetuating and harms consumers.
  - bumby 5y ago
    Oh I’m not claiming they are infallible, my point is that in a pragmatic sense theirs is the opinion that matters. Here’s why I think you’re previous comment misses the mark: the court ruling was not about whether the company was monopolistic at the time of divestment (1911), the ruling was against business practices that occurred previously, dating back to 1870. It’s possible those practices were unfairly anti-competitive while also no longer creating a monopoly decades later due to other factors.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > If the law says that a company that is lowering prices and losing market share is a monopoly Gates was convicted of giving away Explorer for free. Nobody managed to show that harmed consumers. Like Rockefeller, Bill Gates was convicted of being rich.
    - bumby 5y ago
      You have an interesting way of rewording court decisions to fit your narrative. Here's what MSFT was actually taken to trial for: "monopoly position in the market for operating systems designed to run on Intel-compatible personal computers ("PCs"). Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that Microsoft violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a series of exclusionary, anticompetitive, and predatory acts to maintain its monopoly power. " Not "for Gates being rich." Now, his wealth may have put the spotlight on him, but that doesn't negate the court decision on his actions. I can lament that the only reason I was pulled over was because I drive a red Ferrari, but that doesn't mean that my speeding wasn't illegal.

bumby 5y ago

For just about any ruling, I’m sure you’ll find dissenting opinions. The only opinion that matters in the end is the court’s and they concluded it was a monopoly. For the record, with my limited understanding I don’t think “social media companies” are monopolies because they do not run afoul of general consumer prices because their products are typically free. They may deserve to be regulated under a different framework, but they don’t seem to fit the anti-trust paradigm. I brought them up because others, including the authors of the link I provided, consider them natural monopolies

repsilat 5y ago
> The only opinion that matters in the end is the court’s and they concluded it was a monopoly. I guess I'm less convinced of judicial infallibility, but I'll grant you it anyway. Mostly I don't think the important question here is the legal standard (which is of course what the court is interested in) than the question of whether the law is achieving its intent. If the law says that a company that is lowering prices and losing market share is a monopoly that should be broken up, the law isn't really reflecting mainstream thought about antitrust -- that market concentration is self-perpetuating and harms consumers.
- bumby 5y ago
  Oh I’m not claiming they are infallible, my point is that in a pragmatic sense theirs is the opinion that matters. Here’s why I think you’re previous comment misses the mark: the court ruling was not about whether the company was monopolistic at the time of divestment (1911), the ruling was against business practices that occurred previously, dating back to 1870. It’s possible those practices were unfairly anti-competitive while also no longer creating a monopoly decades later due to other factors.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > If the law says that a company that is lowering prices and losing market share is a monopoly Gates was convicted of giving away Explorer for free. Nobody managed to show that harmed consumers. Like Rockefeller, Bill Gates was convicted of being rich.
  - bumby 5y ago
    You have an interesting way of rewording court decisions to fit your narrative. Here's what MSFT was actually taken to trial for: "monopoly position in the market for operating systems designed to run on Intel-compatible personal computers ("PCs"). Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that Microsoft violated § 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in a series of exclusionary, anticompetitive, and predatory acts to maintain its monopoly power. " Not "for Gates being rich." Now, his wealth may have put the spotlight on him, but that doesn't negate the court decision on his actions. I can lament that the only reason I was pulled over was because I drive a red Ferrari, but that doesn't mean that my speeding wasn't illegal.