2 ms·

Details are pretty limited in the linked article, but what’s described does sound like a price fixing agreement. Doesn’t matter if it’s “family ranchers” or

Details are pretty limited in the linked article, but what’s described does sound like a price fixing agreement. Doesn’t matter if it’s “family ranchers” or someone else - that’s illegal, as it should be.

amluto 3y ago
I wonder if they could have accomplished a similar goal by creating a joint venture that would hold title to all of them land, allow the previous owners to continue using the land but not to withdraw ownership for, say 10 years, and would, like most companies, be open to an offer to purchase the whole entity.
tivert 3y ago
> Details are pretty limited in the linked article, but what’s described does sound like a price fixing agreement. Doesn’t matter if it’s “family ranchers” or someone else - that’s illegal, as it should be. I'm not so sure. If the landowners incorporated into a single entity what they did would be fine, and it's not like they have any kind of real market-level monopoly power to force anyone to deal with them. Applying the law in that way just seems to be a way to enable bullying of the little guy by rich corporations, by giving the corporations a monopoly on coordination. IMHO, it shouldn't be "price fixing" unless the parties involved in the agreement would be judged to be an illegal monopoly if they were a single entity.
- flutas 3y ago
  > Applying the law in that way just seems to be a way to enable bullying of the little guy by rich corporations. Agreed. The owners are under zero obligation to sell as is, what is that line again that companies love to use? "We have a right to refuse service to anyone, as long as it's not discriminating against a particular class under federal, state, or local law." This would be like a dealership suing a bunch of people because they refused to trade in their car to them while someone was protesting the dealership and said "these cars are worth more than XY dealership offers, don't trade to them."

amluto 3y ago

I wonder if they could have accomplished a similar goal by creating a joint venture that would hold title to all of them land, allow the previous owners to continue using the land but not to withdraw ownership for, say 10 years, and would, like most companies, be open to an offer to purchase the whole entity.

tivert 3y ago

> Details are pretty limited in the linked article, but what’s described does sound like a price fixing agreement. Doesn’t matter if it’s “family ranchers” or someone else - that’s illegal, as it should be. I'm not so sure. If the landowners incorporated into a single entity what they did would be fine, and it's not like they have any kind of real market-level monopoly power to force anyone to deal with them. Applying the law in that way just seems to be a way to enable bullying of the little guy by rich corporations, by giving the corporations a monopoly on coordination. IMHO, it shouldn't be "price fixing" unless the parties involved in the agreement would be judged to be an illegal monopoly if they were a single entity.

flutas 3y ago
> Applying the law in that way just seems to be a way to enable bullying of the little guy by rich corporations. Agreed. The owners are under zero obligation to sell as is, what is that line again that companies love to use? "We have a right to refuse service to anyone, as long as it's not discriminating against a particular class under federal, state, or local law." This would be like a dealership suing a bunch of people because they refused to trade in their car to them while someone was protesting the dealership and said "these cars are worth more than XY dealership offers, don't trade to them."