4 ms·

Anti-competitive behaviours such as price-fixing and over-broad no-compete clauses can be problematic even without a monopoly.

• lazide 2y ago
  Fair point, though they typically only become problematic (aka are acted on/legislated against) when they significantly distort the market to a degree people start really complaining about it. Usually due to either a monopsony/cartel/monopoly which controls most of the market doing it successfully. If the companies in the lower 5% of a market price fix or the like, no one usually cares. Even 20%, usually. The Sherman antitrust act speaks about ‘restraints of trade’ because it has to actually restrain trade, which requires a significant degree of control - which a successful/actual monopoly, monopsony, or cartel can do. Technically, even attempting to do it is illegal, but going after every company that tries has a bit of the same feel as locking up every single toddler because they took a swing at someone or threatened them with their cute little stubby kid scissors. It’s a waste of resources, not in anyone’s interest, stops behavior most people would consider necessary/healthy to some degree, causes much worse problems than it solves, etc. On the other hand, locking up a successful serial killer is just good public policy. The difference between the two is more a matter of the success and effectiveness of their tactics, not really intent.
  • n4r9 2y ago
    Generally agree. There are some subtle edge cases like price dumping, but even that's still ultimately an attempt to gain market dominance.