>I always saw it as something that's not 'fair', but that helps the market win. The market wins when the price-fixing stops being worth the opportunity cost of

>I always saw it as something that's not 'fair', but that helps the market win. The market wins when the price-fixing stops being worth the opportunity cost of increased sales, or when a competitor (new or old) decides not to play ball. Not when the government steps in to force things in a certain direction. >Most of the pragmatic policies that make our world work break down on a moral level when you look at them too hard. We're all just trying to do what works empirically. The uneasiness I feel at the implication that things can be looked at "too hard" aside, how can one actually justify the claim that this works empirically ("works" meaning, presumably, in this case, that a better outcome is achieved)?