3 ms·

> Breaking up of Standard Oil, just made the owners more money. Isn't the break up of monopolies supposed to benefit the consumer as well by lowering prices,

> Breaking up of Standard Oil, just made the owners more money. Isn't the break up of monopolies supposed to benefit the consumer as well by lowering prices, which most economists argue that it did? IF if the owners made more money, and the consumers saved money, I would say that is a great argument for breaking up Google as well.

lesuorac 3y ago
Only in the abstract is antitrust supposed to benefit consumers. The goal of antitrust is to promote competition [1] but there's no requirement that competition results in lower prices. I would bet the better part of competition is not a reduction in price but a prevention of stagnation. Imo, the huge stagnation in USA's internet is purely a lack of competition. When Google Fiber showed up all of the sudden encombents could offer 10x the speeds. If horse shoe owners somehow were vertically integrated and controlled iron in the US; I have no doubt they would've squashed the automotive industry. [1]: https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Did you read your own citation “These laws prohibit anticompetitive conduct and mergers that deprive American consumers, taxpayers, and workers of the benefits of competition” The goal is to benefit consumers, taxpayers and workers, the mechanism is using competition
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    > Did you read your own citation >“These laws prohibit anticompetitive conduct and mergers that deprive American consumers, taxpayers, and workers of the benefits of competition” > The goal is to benefit consumers, taxpayers and workers, the mechanism is using competition Which part don't you understand. 1) In my second sentence I explicitly call out promoting competition is the goal of anti-trust 2) Parent was saying that anti-trust's goal was to lower prices.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      The goal of anti trust is to benefit consumers, the mechanism was competition.
      - afthonos 3y ago
        No, the goal is to prevent consumers from being deprived of the benefits of competition. That may sound like what you wrote, but it really really isn’t. In particular, it presumes that competition is a good in and of itself, and that its benefits are what is to be protected. More specifically, if you say that competition is good because it provides a variety of options, the prices can very much be higher, and consumers can still be considered to be reaping the benefits of competition.

lesuorac 3y ago

Only in the abstract is antitrust supposed to benefit consumers. The goal of antitrust is to promote competition [1] but there's no requirement that competition results in lower prices. I would bet the better part of competition is not a reduction in price but a prevention of stagnation. Imo, the huge stagnation in USA's internet is purely a lack of competition. When Google Fiber showed up all of the sudden encombents could offer 10x the speeds. If horse shoe owners somehow were vertically integrated and controlled iron in the US; I have no doubt they would've squashed the automotive industry. [1]: https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you

scarface_74 3y ago
Did you read your own citation “These laws prohibit anticompetitive conduct and mergers that deprive American consumers, taxpayers, and workers of the benefits of competition” The goal is to benefit consumers, taxpayers and workers, the mechanism is using competition
- lesuorac 3y ago
  > Did you read your own citation >“These laws prohibit anticompetitive conduct and mergers that deprive American consumers, taxpayers, and workers of the benefits of competition” > The goal is to benefit consumers, taxpayers and workers, the mechanism is using competition Which part don't you understand. 1) In my second sentence I explicitly call out promoting competition is the goal of anti-trust 2) Parent was saying that anti-trust's goal was to lower prices.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    The goal of anti trust is to benefit consumers, the mechanism was competition.
    - afthonos 3y ago
      No, the goal is to prevent consumers from being deprived of the benefits of competition. That may sound like what you wrote, but it really really isn’t. In particular, it presumes that competition is a good in and of itself, and that its benefits are what is to be protected. More specifically, if you say that competition is good because it provides a variety of options, the prices can very much be higher, and consumers can still be considered to be reaping the benefits of competition.