3 ms·

Regulators don’t have to look beyond short term consumer preference (or rather, consumer benefit) with respect to dumping actually, because only the long term a

by abduhl 2y ago

Regulators don’t have to look beyond short term consumer preference (or rather, consumer benefit) with respect to dumping actually, because only the long term aspect of dumping (when prices are raised on consumers after driving competitors out of the market) is illegal. A company is free to burn as much capital as it wants while it is trying to enter and take over a market.

overfeed 2y ago
What mechanism can the regulators use to prevent competition going out of business while maintaining the artificially low prices? Ban price hikes after the competition is dead? What if the dumper decides to leave the market entirely after destroying the competition? [see Walmart leaving small towns, and the resulting food deserts]. The more proactive approach is tractable since it preserves competition (easy) instead of low prices (hard, on shakier legal footing)
- abduhl 2y ago
  What mechanism can the regulators use to prevent potential dumpers from entering a market? Setting price controls on the entire economy? What if the market is currently beholden to a decentralized monopoly with artificially high prices? [see taxis and the arguments people made for Uber’s existence despite it being an obvious dumping operation] The more proactive approach requires an omniscient regulator that you hope preserves competition but really can only guarantee current prices and incumbent profits.
  - overfeed 2y ago
    > What mechanism can the regulators use to prevent potential dumpers from entering a market? The legal system, including the discovery process, and basic accounting to calculate when the selling price is lower than BoM cost. Now it's your turn to answer my earlier question.
    - abduhl 2y ago
      > The legal system, including the discovery process, and basic accounting to calculate when the selling price is lower than BoM cost. So price controls is your answer? The Costco rotisserie chicken is illegal monopolization in your world. > What mechanism can the regulators use to prevent competition going out of business while maintaining the artificially low prices? The legal system, including the equitable power to split up companies under antitrust law. There is a reason that the proactive approach has been roundly rejected by courts in the modern day, despite Lina Khan’s best efforts to push it. Despite your comment earlier about preserving competition being “easy” (preserving competition via regulation is never easy) and preserving low costs being “hard” and on “shakier legal footing,” the test for antitrust remains consumer harm, not competition.
      - overfeed 2y ago
        > The legal system, including the equitable power to split up companies under antitrust law. And how well has this been working out? There hasn't been a real threat of forced divesture since Microsoft's anti-trust case back in the 1990s, and large companies are willing to pay fines that are dwarfed by the profits earned from destroyed competition. How does paying a fine undo consumer harm?

by abduhl 2y ago

overfeed 2y ago

What mechanism can the regulators use to prevent competition going out of business while maintaining the artificially low prices? Ban price hikes after the competition is dead? What if the dumper decides to leave the market entirely after destroying the competition? [see Walmart leaving small towns, and the resulting food deserts]. The more proactive approach is tractable since it preserves competition (easy) instead of low prices (hard, on shakier legal footing)

abduhl 2y ago
What mechanism can the regulators use to prevent potential dumpers from entering a market? Setting price controls on the entire economy? What if the market is currently beholden to a decentralized monopoly with artificially high prices? [see taxis and the arguments people made for Uber’s existence despite it being an obvious dumping operation] The more proactive approach requires an omniscient regulator that you hope preserves competition but really can only guarantee current prices and incumbent profits.
- overfeed 2y ago
  > What mechanism can the regulators use to prevent potential dumpers from entering a market? The legal system, including the discovery process, and basic accounting to calculate when the selling price is lower than BoM cost. Now it's your turn to answer my earlier question.
  - abduhl 2y ago
    > The legal system, including the discovery process, and basic accounting to calculate when the selling price is lower than BoM cost. So price controls is your answer? The Costco rotisserie chicken is illegal monopolization in your world. > What mechanism can the regulators use to prevent competition going out of business while maintaining the artificially low prices? The legal system, including the equitable power to split up companies under antitrust law. There is a reason that the proactive approach has been roundly rejected by courts in the modern day, despite Lina Khan’s best efforts to push it. Despite your comment earlier about preserving competition being “easy” (preserving competition via regulation is never easy) and preserving low costs being “hard” and on “shakier legal footing,” the test for antitrust remains consumer harm, not competition.
    - overfeed 2y ago
      > The legal system, including the equitable power to split up companies under antitrust law. And how well has this been working out? There hasn't been a real threat of forced divesture since Microsoft's anti-trust case back in the 1990s, and large companies are willing to pay fines that are dwarfed by the profits earned from destroyed competition. How does paying a fine undo consumer harm?