4 ms·

So you think that antitrust laws are wrong?

nickff 13y ago
Anti-trust laws are at least poorly implemented, and at worst intended to protect local special interests (against the trusts and their descendants). >"[W]e have no coherent and comprehensive account that differentiates between legal and illegal practices. Nor do we have any good way of devising remedies in complex cases that don’t create more distortions than the illegal practices they are supposed to eliminate."[1] [1] http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/18/christine-varney-antitrust-opinions-columnists-law.html http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/18/christine-varney-antitrust-...
- RivieraKid 13y ago
  That's possible (I have a very vague knowledge of the antitrust laws in the US). But a good antitrust law is better than no antitrust law. Do you think that a secret price-setting agreement between AT&T, Verizon and Sprint should be legal? It would be profitable to these companies. In a model, competetive market, this wouldn't work, because a competitor would immediately appear on stage and started offering equivalent products for lower price. But the actual market is absolutely different, that's why regulation is needed.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    Have you considered that the US mobile market may be less competitive because of other regulations? Who assigns spectrum and shuts down unlicensed providers?
    - RivieraKid 13y ago
      Yes, that's certainly possible. My position is that zero regulation is often not the optimal amount of regulation.
      - icebraining 13y ago
        Regulation is an ill-defined concept, so that statement is meaningless to me. If you mean the same as when people usually call "unregulated", which actually means heavily but baldy regulated, then we're in agreement.
icebraining 13y ago
You shouldn't assume that I think regulations are bad from what I wrote; I didn't say it was my position.
- RivieraKid 13y ago
  I didn't assume it, that's why I asked. Anyway, what exactly was the error in my argument above? All I said was that the common reasoning "regulation in model market is wrong, therefore regulation in real market is wrong" is flawed. Perhaps there are other reasons why regulated markets are always under any circumstances wrong. If so, I'll be happy to discuss them, although I'm convinced they're flawed too (lot of anecdotal evidence).

Anti-trust laws are at least poorly implemented, and at worst intended to protect local special interests (against the trusts and their descendants). >"[W]e have no coherent and comprehensive account that differentiates between legal and illegal practices. Nor do we have any good way of devising remedies in complex cases that don’t create more distortions than the illegal practices they are supposed to eliminate."[1] [1] http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/18/christine-varney-antitrust-opinions-columnists-law.html http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/18/christine-varney-antitrust-...

RivieraKid 13y ago
That's possible (I have a very vague knowledge of the antitrust laws in the US). But a good antitrust law is better than no antitrust law. Do you think that a secret price-setting agreement between AT&T, Verizon and Sprint should be legal? It would be profitable to these companies. In a model, competetive market, this wouldn't work, because a competitor would immediately appear on stage and started offering equivalent products for lower price. But the actual market is absolutely different, that's why regulation is needed.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Have you considered that the US mobile market may be less competitive because of other regulations? Who assigns spectrum and shuts down unlicensed providers?
  - RivieraKid 13y ago
    Yes, that's certainly possible. My position is that zero regulation is often not the optimal amount of regulation.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      Regulation is an ill-defined concept, so that statement is meaningless to me. If you mean the same as when people usually call "unregulated", which actually means heavily but baldy regulated, then we're in agreement.

icebraining 13y ago

You shouldn't assume that I think regulations are bad from what I wrote; I didn't say it was my position.

RivieraKid 13y ago
I didn't assume it, that's why I asked. Anyway, what exactly was the error in my argument above? All I said was that the common reasoning "regulation in model market is wrong, therefore regulation in real market is wrong" is flawed. Perhaps there are other reasons why regulated markets are always under any circumstances wrong. If so, I'll be happy to discuss them, although I'm convinced they're flawed too (lot of anecdotal evidence).