5 ms·

Anti-competitive behavior would be literally cheating at golf. In both cases, it has been observed over time that allowing individuals to do whatever they want

by Cushman 15y ago

Anti-competitive behavior would be literally cheating at golf. In both cases, it has been observed over time that allowing individuals to do whatever they want has a negative effect on the game. You are not required to believe that the rules are necessary, in either business or golf, for them to exist.

javert 15y ago
Anti-competitive behavior would be literally cheating at golf. Right, and "cheating" in the real world is defined by fraud and physical violence and their myriad manifestations, not mututal trade to mutual benefit (as on a proprietary exchange, for example). Or offering the best product at the lowest price. But, that's not at all the meaning of "anti-competitive" as people use it.
- Cushman 15y ago
  It is the position of the United States government, among others, that cheating includes the use of monopoly or oligopoly to unfairly restrict competition in any of several ways which are neither violent nor fraudulent. You're welcome to argue that that position is misguided, but it is certainly not nonsensical.
  - javert 15y ago
    You're welcome to argue that that position is misguided, but it is certainly not nonsensical. I think it's a very commonly held position, and it's understandable that people hold that position. I think monopolies are impossible or next to impossible except when granted by the government. BTW, I think (not sure) that that's actually the origin of the word "monopoly." So, yes, monopolists are cheating, and the government is cheating. Of course, if the government permits cheating, it's "dog eat dog," so you have to cheat and/or might as well in some cases. (That, in fact, is what makes the Occupy Wall Street protests so inane, IMHO.) I believe that in a truly capitalist system, oligarchies would be unable to weild undue influences for the same reasons I think monpolies would be unable to.
    - Cushman 15y ago
      You can have that opinion, of course -- although I'm very skeptical of any such absolute statement about such a complex system, and I feel it's willfully ignorant of the history of antitrust law -- but it's not really relevant. Monopolies are not illegal; if I make the best widget, I can be the only person selling widgets. It's illegal when I use my monopoly to stop competitors from selling their own widgets. If you believe that this situation is impossible, then the law is irrelevant, and it shouldn't bother you any more than laws against walking your elephant without a leash.
      - javert 15y ago
        I feel it's willfully ignorant of the history of antitrust law FWIW, I've spent a huge chunk of time studying ethics on my own. It's true that I can't claim to know a LOT of history about antitrust law. But the reason it's possible to make sense of "complex systems" is the use of (correct) principles about how they work, not examining every concrete example ad infinitum and saying, for example, "well, but maybe the ball will fall up next time". Anyway, putting aside the philosophisizing, I have more specific comments below. It's illegal when I use my monopoly to stop competitors from selling their own widgets My point is that your only means to do that is to use government force, i.e., laws. (Now there's a principle for you!) Now, I might obfuscate the design of my widgets so that only I can make other widgets that interface with them. But that's not the same thing. For example, that doesn't stop others from making their own entirely separate system of interconnecting widgets. Similarly, Apple controlling what's in the App Store doesn't stop Google from creating it's own app store and controlling it's content. One might say that Apple "has a monopoly on content of the App Store," but that's using the term "monopoly" disingenuously. This is not supposed to be a complete proof of anything, but it's supposed to suggest my line of thinking. If you believe that this situation is impossible, then the law is irrelevant Quite the opposite. The law is highly relevant because it's what makes the "cheating" possible. For example, if Apple got the government to bad the Google Store. Or if the EU bans Microsoft tightly bundling IE in Windows, for a real example.
        boxein 15y ago

by Cushman 15y ago

javert 15y ago

Anti-competitive behavior would be literally cheating at golf. Right, and "cheating" in the real world is defined by fraud and physical violence and their myriad manifestations, not mututal trade to mutual benefit (as on a proprietary exchange, for example). Or offering the best product at the lowest price. But, that's not at all the meaning of "anti-competitive" as people use it.

Cushman 15y ago
It is the position of the United States government, among others, that cheating includes the use of monopoly or oligopoly to unfairly restrict competition in any of several ways which are neither violent nor fraudulent. You're welcome to argue that that position is misguided, but it is certainly not nonsensical.
- javert 15y ago
  You're welcome to argue that that position is misguided, but it is certainly not nonsensical. I think it's a very commonly held position, and it's understandable that people hold that position. I think monopolies are impossible or next to impossible except when granted by the government. BTW, I think (not sure) that that's actually the origin of the word "monopoly." So, yes, monopolists are cheating, and the government is cheating. Of course, if the government permits cheating, it's "dog eat dog," so you have to cheat and/or might as well in some cases. (That, in fact, is what makes the Occupy Wall Street protests so inane, IMHO.) I believe that in a truly capitalist system, oligarchies would be unable to weild undue influences for the same reasons I think monpolies would be unable to.
  - Cushman 15y ago
    You can have that opinion, of course -- although I'm very skeptical of any such absolute statement about such a complex system, and I feel it's willfully ignorant of the history of antitrust law -- but it's not really relevant. Monopolies are not illegal; if I make the best widget, I can be the only person selling widgets. It's illegal when I use my monopoly to stop competitors from selling their own widgets. If you believe that this situation is impossible, then the law is irrelevant, and it shouldn't bother you any more than laws against walking your elephant without a leash.
    - javert 15y ago
      I feel it's willfully ignorant of the history of antitrust law FWIW, I've spent a huge chunk of time studying ethics on my own. It's true that I can't claim to know a LOT of history about antitrust law. But the reason it's possible to make sense of "complex systems" is the use of (correct) principles about how they work, not examining every concrete example ad infinitum and saying, for example, "well, but maybe the ball will fall up next time". Anyway, putting aside the philosophisizing, I have more specific comments below. It's illegal when I use my monopoly to stop competitors from selling their own widgets My point is that your only means to do that is to use government force, i.e., laws. (Now there's a principle for you!) Now, I might obfuscate the design of my widgets so that only I can make other widgets that interface with them. But that's not the same thing. For example, that doesn't stop others from making their own entirely separate system of interconnecting widgets. Similarly, Apple controlling what's in the App Store doesn't stop Google from creating it's own app store and controlling it's content. One might say that Apple "has a monopoly on content of the App Store," but that's using the term "monopoly" disingenuously. This is not supposed to be a complete proof of anything, but it's supposed to suggest my line of thinking. If you believe that this situation is impossible, then the law is irrelevant Quite the opposite. The law is highly relevant because it's what makes the "cheating" possible. For example, if Apple got the government to bad the Google Store. Or if the EU bans Microsoft tightly bundling IE in Windows, for a real example.
      - boxein 15y ago