4 ms·

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 effe

by 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.

by bborud 4y ago

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.