3 ms·

Chernow is more of a laity source than an academic one. Fun to read, but it’s not a strong source. He tends to over emphasize the efficiency side and neglect th

by bumby 6mo ago

Chernow is more of a laity source than an academic one. Fun to read, but it’s not a strong source. He tends to over emphasize the efficiency side and neglect the logistical barriers to entry and many would consider Chernows thesis incomplete. If your claim is that someone needs to have 100% market to be anti-competitive, we’re talking past each other. I know HN can have relatively high levels of binary thinking, but the real world is more complicated and nuanced. X doesn’t have to perpetually lose money, just long enough to put Y out of business. Modern definitions of predatory pricing did not exist at the time, but that is essentially what Standard Oil was found guilty of in their day. They can also lose market share as new markets emerge but that doesn’t undermine the monopoly argument. If I have a utility in TX and another utility opens in CA, my regulated monopoly is still intact.

WalterBright 6mo ago
SO had a significantly lower cost structure, it didn't need to lose money. The nuance is throughout the SO anti-trust trial, SO was losing market share. SO's main method of growing was to buy out competitors, and made them rich with SO stock.
- bumby 6mo ago
  The court case found SO used local aggressive price cutting until competitors were driven out. That’s why they were broken up. I don’t think there is court evidence whether they lost money (although there’s speculation) in those cases because that standard wasn’t established until later antitrust cases. But once competitors were gone SO raised prices. SO still meet the threshold for monopolistic operation. Yes, SO had a lower cost structure in many cases. But efficiency is not the determining factor for antitrust behavior. That’s the chink in Chernows perspective: he focuses almost solely of efficiency argument and ignores the larger context. And not to be snarky, but that’s the same pattern you take whether you defend Rockefeller, Musk, or any other business magnate. There’s a narrative you identify with and you’ll stick to it almost to the point of circular reasoning.

by bumby 6mo ago

WalterBright 6mo ago

SO had a significantly lower cost structure, it didn't need to lose money. The nuance is throughout the SO anti-trust trial, SO was losing market share. SO's main method of growing was to buy out competitors, and made them rich with SO stock.

bumby 6mo ago
The court case found SO used local aggressive price cutting until competitors were driven out. That’s why they were broken up. I don’t think there is court evidence whether they lost money (although there’s speculation) in those cases because that standard wasn’t established until later antitrust cases. But once competitors were gone SO raised prices. SO still meet the threshold for monopolistic operation. Yes, SO had a lower cost structure in many cases. But efficiency is not the determining factor for antitrust behavior. That’s the chink in Chernows perspective: he focuses almost solely of efficiency argument and ignores the larger context. And not to be snarky, but that’s the same pattern you take whether you defend Rockefeller, Musk, or any other business magnate. There’s a narrative you identify with and you’ll stick to it almost to the point of circular reasoning.