4 ms·
Antitrust laws are couched in vague undefinable terms and do not define what is "monopolistic" in advance. Any and all business can be considered monopolistic u
by dreamdu5t 12y ago
Antitrust laws are couched in vague undefinable terms and do not define what is "monopolistic" in advance. Any and all business can be considered monopolistic under antitrust law. Rulings are ex post facto. No business can know whether they have committed a crime or not, and will never know, until government decides to bring a case.
It is vain, however, to call simply for clearer statutory definitions of monopolistic practice. For the vagueness of the law results from the impossibility of laying down a cogent definition of monopoly on the market. Hence the chaotic shift of the government from one unjustifiable criterion of monopoly to another: size of firm, "closeness" of substitutes, charging a price "too high" or "too low" or the same as a competitor, merging that "substantially lessens competition," etc.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago> Any and all business can be considered monopolistic under antitrust law. That's not even remotely true. > No business can know whether they have committed a crime or not That's not even remotely true. There are plenty of factors that characterize 100% of businesses not investigated (much less, penalized) for their alleged anti-competitive practices. It is very possible to determine whether a business carries any risk of investigation. > For the vagueness of the law results from the impossibility of laying down a cogent definition of monopoly on the market. Again, you just aren't paying any attention. Regulatory capture has indeed made it far more challenging to bring an effective action, as well as de-fanging of antitrust regulation that served our parents' generation pretty well. But it's not actually difficult to use existing law to differentiate Google (natural monopoly) from cartel monopoly maintenance behaviors.