4 ms·

Anti-trust laws were written to address certain perceptions of how businesses operated back in the late 1800s. They were not particularly grounded in reality, a

Anti-trust laws were written to address certain perceptions of how businesses operated back in the late 1800s. They were not particularly grounded in reality, and as such they are hard to actually implement as written in most situations.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Anti-trust laws were written to address certain perceptions of how businesses operated back in the late 1800s Source? First I’ve heard of Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting being a grandiose PR campaign.
- bmitc 4y ago
  It sort of was in the sense of Taft, Roosevelt’s successor, being much more aggressive and effective in actually bringing anti-trust lawsuits to fruition.
- legitster 4y ago
  Trusts in particular (cooperation agreements between competitors) were entirely a fad of businesses in the 1800s, particularly amongst more progressive-leaning Chairman. It is doubtful they would have had long term success even without government intervention. https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/85_605.pdf https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2... We also know that things like predatory pricing and trying to undercut businesses to acquire them was somewhat of a myth. If Standard oil sold for less than you, it was because their operation costs were lower because they were bigger. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil/NEW_SCHOOL_COURSE2005/articles/research-oil/john_mcgee_predatory_pricing_standard_oil1958.pdf http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil/NEW_SCHOOL_COURSE200... The enforcement of the Anti-trust act mostly relied on companies suing each other for grievances. But most companies never brought grievances about being acquired. It was a PR campaign! But for protective tariffs: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1890/10/01/103268337.pdf https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1890/10/01/103... Sherman himself was pretty open that he wanted to blame rising costs on businesses when a new round of tariffs was passed into law.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    Fair enough. If the claim is that antitrust measures were in the long run ineffective, not that they were dishonestly pursued, you have solid ground to stand on.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Anti-trust laws were written to address certain perceptions of how businesses operated back in the late 1800s Source? First I’ve heard of Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting being a grandiose PR campaign.

bmitc 4y ago
It sort of was in the sense of Taft, Roosevelt’s successor, being much more aggressive and effective in actually bringing anti-trust lawsuits to fruition.
legitster 4y ago
Trusts in particular (cooperation agreements between competitors) were entirely a fad of businesses in the 1800s, particularly amongst more progressive-leaning Chairman. It is doubtful they would have had long term success even without government intervention. https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/85_605.pdf https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2... We also know that things like predatory pricing and trying to undercut businesses to acquire them was somewhat of a myth. If Standard oil sold for less than you, it was because their operation costs were lower because they were bigger. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil/NEW_SCHOOL_COURSE2005/articles/research-oil/john_mcgee_predatory_pricing_standard_oil1958.pdf http://www-personal.umich.edu/~twod/oil/NEW_SCHOOL_COURSE200... The enforcement of the Anti-trust act mostly relied on companies suing each other for grievances. But most companies never brought grievances about being acquired. It was a PR campaign! But for protective tariffs: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1890/10/01/103268337.pdf https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1890/10/01/103... Sherman himself was pretty open that he wanted to blame rising costs on businesses when a new round of tariffs was passed into law.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  Fair enough. If the claim is that antitrust measures were in the long run ineffective, not that they were dishonestly pursued, you have solid ground to stand on.