4 ms·

> makes the mental leap and assumes that just because there's something called 'anti-trust legislation' that it'll help I'm not trying to defend the author. B

> makes the mental leap and assumes that just because there's something called 'anti-trust legislation' that it'll help I'm not trying to defend the author. But there's no "mental leap" here; that's exactly the real-world, observable effect of anti-trust legislation when it is enforced. And what we're seeing now with the FTC is precisely the enforcement, for the first time in decades, of existing anti-trust legislation. If your point is "legislation isn't enough", you're right, but trivially and uselessly right. Of course the real effect comes from enforcement, just as making murder illegal but then not charging and arresting murderers would, obviously and trivially, not decrease the rate of murder.

ekianjo 4y ago
> But there's no "mental leap" here; that's exactly the real-world, observable effect of anti-trust legislation when it is enforced. The problem is that it's selectively enforced, which makes the legislation dubious at best. There are hundreds of monopolies or quasi-monopolies out there that will never be challenged.
- avianlyric 4y ago
  That’s an issue with enforcement, not the legislation itself. There’s no way to write legislation that prevents its abuse through selective enforcement. You have to address the abuse itself via strong government accountability. Not having anti-trust legislation isn’t going to increase competition. Say you need more competition, also isn’t going to increase competition. Real markets naturally tend towards monopolies, only governments putting a thumb-on-the-scales to prevent monopolies keeps competition alive long term. Something the US seems to have forgotten in the past couple of decades.
  - bborud 4y ago
    Observation: there exists a few companies whose market positions are very close to monopolies and where the government isn't doing anything that has actual effect. I don't think it is an issue with enforcement alone, but with laws that do not sufficiently obligate enforcement. Such laws are not created because politicians are corrupt. Concluding that regulation dosn't help when what we're observing is non-enforcement is a bit disingenuous. If I'm being charitable.
    - avianlyric 4y ago
      If you’re talking about the US, then the laws absolutely exist. They were created to break up companies like Bell and Standard Oil, and are extremely effective, when used. But they haven’t been used for decades, because regulators have decided not to use them. There are of course many reasons for that, including political pressure and regulatory capture. But to say the laws don’t exist, is just wrong. They exist, they just haven’t been used for a long time. Also writing law to obligate enforcement is tautological. All law is meant to be enforced. Who’s gonna enforce the enforcement of enforcement laws? And why would they not be subject to same pressures to under-enforce as well? > Concluding that regulation dosn't help when what we're observing is non-enforcement is a bit disingenuous. If I'm being charitable. Why do think I came to that conclusion? My comment argues quite the opposite.
      - eru 4y ago
        Breaking up Standard Oil was a farce. It was not a monopoly, and none of the arguments about how monopolies allegedly abuse their market power applied. See eg https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-standard-oil-was-a-predatory-monopoly/ https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-standard-oil-was-a-pr... or https://www.econlib.org/archives/2013/01/great_moments_i_6.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2013/01/great_moments_i_6.h... or https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2017/Hendersonpredatory.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2017/Hendersonpreda... > Furthermore, and also in contradiction to monopoly theory, Standard Oil’s share of the market had declined from close to 90 percent in the late 1800s to about 65 percent at the time of the court’s ruling. These facts, however, did not faze the judiciary. The court ruled that because Standard Oil had consolidated some 30 divisions under one single management structure it counted as a monopoly. In other words, Standard Oil did precisely the opposite of what monopoly theory maintains—it reduced rather than raised prices, it increased rather than cut production, it lost rather than “controlled” market share, and it paid its employees more rather than less than its competitors—yet the theory that Standard Oil engaged in “predatory practices” and “exploited” consumers has prevailed in our history books.
      - bborud 4y ago
        I didn't say the laws do not exist. I pointed out that they obviously do not work. And they obviously do not work because politicians are strongly disincentivized to ensure they work.
  - bootsmann 4y ago
    > Real markets naturally tend towards monopolies Would really like to see a credible source for this statement. There are industries where this happens (natural monopolies which is stuff like raw commodities, as competitors cannot mine at the place where you mine) but I don't think this holds in general at all.
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      > I don't think this holds in general at all. given that all industries consolidate and end up with 2-3 major players in every field, your assumption does not seem to hold at all.
      - eru 4y ago
        All industries? Huh? Have you had a look at a few industries recently?
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > That’s an issue with enforcement, not the legislation itself. No because the legislation does not clearly define what a monopoly is, making it easy for politicians to hijack it for any reason they want.
  - eru 4y ago
    > There’s no way to write legislation that prevents its abuse through selective enforcement. Are you suggesting that all legislation is equally prone to abuse through selective enforcement? That's wrong. Legislation differs a lot in how straightforward it is to enforce universally. Eg legislation about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is almost impossible to enforce. Legislation about which side of the road cars should drive on almost enforces itself: you don't need the police to write you a ticket to figure out that driving on a different side of the road than everyone else in your country is a bad idea.
- connor11528 4y ago
  Agree there needs to be more antitrust enforcement across the board. This is a movement that’s growing and takes time. There has been decades of non-existent enforcement and even encouragement of monopolies by the government. It’s past time the government break up some of these behemoths
- mrkurt 4y ago
  That's not really a problem. It sounds like a problem, but enforcement has to start somewhere. The FTC is targeting a broad range of markets: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases Some of the purpose of antitrust enforcement is to establish a baseline to "warn" other companies. They've only really interfered with a handful of tech acquisitions in the last year, but it sure sounds like everyone doing M&A is being very careful right now. Sometimes a credible threat of enforcement is enough.
eru 4y ago
> If your point is "legislation isn't enough", you're right, but trivially and uselessly right. My point is that 'anti-trust' legislation is at best pointless and at worst counter-productive to actually do anything about 'trusts'.

ekianjo 4y ago

> But there's no "mental leap" here; that's exactly the real-world, observable effect of anti-trust legislation when it is enforced. The problem is that it's selectively enforced, which makes the legislation dubious at best. There are hundreds of monopolies or quasi-monopolies out there that will never be challenged.

avianlyric 4y ago
That’s an issue with enforcement, not the legislation itself. There’s no way to write legislation that prevents its abuse through selective enforcement. You have to address the abuse itself via strong government accountability. Not having anti-trust legislation isn’t going to increase competition. Say you need more competition, also isn’t going to increase competition. Real markets naturally tend towards monopolies, only governments putting a thumb-on-the-scales to prevent monopolies keeps competition alive long term. Something the US seems to have forgotten in the past couple of decades.
- bborud 4y ago
  Observation: there exists a few companies whose market positions are very close to monopolies and where the government isn't doing anything that has actual effect. I don't think it is an issue with enforcement alone, but with laws that do not sufficiently obligate enforcement. Such laws are not created because politicians are corrupt. Concluding that regulation dosn't help when what we're observing is non-enforcement is a bit disingenuous. If I'm being charitable.
  - avianlyric 4y ago
    If you’re talking about the US, then the laws absolutely exist. They were created to break up companies like Bell and Standard Oil, and are extremely effective, when used. But they haven’t been used for decades, because regulators have decided not to use them. There are of course many reasons for that, including political pressure and regulatory capture. But to say the laws don’t exist, is just wrong. They exist, they just haven’t been used for a long time. Also writing law to obligate enforcement is tautological. All law is meant to be enforced. Who’s gonna enforce the enforcement of enforcement laws? And why would they not be subject to same pressures to under-enforce as well? > Concluding that regulation dosn't help when what we're observing is non-enforcement is a bit disingenuous. If I'm being charitable. Why do think I came to that conclusion? My comment argues quite the opposite.
    - eru 4y ago
      Breaking up Standard Oil was a farce. It was not a monopoly, and none of the arguments about how monopolies allegedly abuse their market power applied. See eg https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-standard-oil-was-a-predatory-monopoly/ https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-standard-oil-was-a-pr... or https://www.econlib.org/archives/2013/01/great_moments_i_6.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2013/01/great_moments_i_6.h... or https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2017/Hendersonpredatory.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2017/Hendersonpreda... > Furthermore, and also in contradiction to monopoly theory, Standard Oil’s share of the market had declined from close to 90 percent in the late 1800s to about 65 percent at the time of the court’s ruling. These facts, however, did not faze the judiciary. The court ruled that because Standard Oil had consolidated some 30 divisions under one single management structure it counted as a monopoly. In other words, Standard Oil did precisely the opposite of what monopoly theory maintains—it reduced rather than raised prices, it increased rather than cut production, it lost rather than “controlled” market share, and it paid its employees more rather than less than its competitors—yet the theory that Standard Oil engaged in “predatory practices” and “exploited” consumers has prevailed in our history books.
    - bborud 4y ago
      I didn't say the laws do not exist. I pointed out that they obviously do not work. And they obviously do not work because politicians are strongly disincentivized to ensure they work.
- bootsmann 4y ago
  > Real markets naturally tend towards monopolies Would really like to see a credible source for this statement. There are industries where this happens (natural monopolies which is stuff like raw commodities, as competitors cannot mine at the place where you mine) but I don't think this holds in general at all.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > I don't think this holds in general at all. given that all industries consolidate and end up with 2-3 major players in every field, your assumption does not seem to hold at all.
    - eru 4y ago
      All industries? Huh? Have you had a look at a few industries recently?
- ekianjo 4y ago
  > That’s an issue with enforcement, not the legislation itself. No because the legislation does not clearly define what a monopoly is, making it easy for politicians to hijack it for any reason they want.
- eru 4y ago
  > There’s no way to write legislation that prevents its abuse through selective enforcement. Are you suggesting that all legislation is equally prone to abuse through selective enforcement? That's wrong. Legislation differs a lot in how straightforward it is to enforce universally. Eg legislation about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is almost impossible to enforce. Legislation about which side of the road cars should drive on almost enforces itself: you don't need the police to write you a ticket to figure out that driving on a different side of the road than everyone else in your country is a bad idea.
connor11528 4y ago
Agree there needs to be more antitrust enforcement across the board. This is a movement that’s growing and takes time. There has been decades of non-existent enforcement and even encouragement of monopolies by the government. It’s past time the government break up some of these behemoths
mrkurt 4y ago
That's not really a problem. It sounds like a problem, but enforcement has to start somewhere. The FTC is targeting a broad range of markets: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases Some of the purpose of antitrust enforcement is to establish a baseline to "warn" other companies. They've only really interfered with a handful of tech acquisitions in the last year, but it sure sounds like everyone doing M&A is being very careful right now. Sometimes a credible threat of enforcement is enough.

eru 4y ago

> If your point is "legislation isn't enough", you're right, but trivially and uselessly right. My point is that 'anti-trust' legislation is at best pointless and at worst counter-productive to actually do anything about 'trusts'.