5 ms·

It's odd how there's prison time for price-fixing collusion between competing entities, but obtaining a monopoly (and therefore price-fixing) is far worse, but

It's odd how there's prison time for price-fixing collusion between competing entities, but obtaining a monopoly (and therefore price-fixing) is far worse, but usually doesn't get punished or even questioned until the public starts having problems with it.

Nav_Panel 12y ago
But the government does. Often mergers between large companies will be prevented if they'd create monopolies. Is there something in particular you're thinking of? One exception in particular is patents.
smt88 12y ago
Which monopolies are you talking about? In the OP, some small fish were colluding. The only unregulated monopolies I can think of (Google search, Apple App Store, Monsanto, Boeing) are very large and powerful, and they'll certainly have many national politicians in their pockets. So I don't find it odd that large monopolies aren't busted very often. It's a predictable outcome of a money-driven political system.
- steve19 12y ago
  People frequently confuse price-fixing with monopolies. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly. What is illegal is forming cartels and collusion to create restraint/constraint of trade [0] Patents are an example of government granted monopolies (on an idea). The government also grants monopolies to certains businesses or organizations [1]. Government is itself a monopoly of sorts (they don't offer or allow you a choice in Law Enforcement provider). Boeing may be a domestic Monopoly, but only because the size, scope and IP of the organization is hard to replicate. What would have been illegal if they had colluded with Communication Sat providers or NASA to prevent Musk from starting SpaceX. There is no evidence I can see that would prevent a sufficiently motivated entrepreneur from competing with them in the Aerospace Defense sector. Politicians are equal opportunity providers, they accept brides (donations) from anyone with a big wallet ;) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service
  - simoncion 12y ago
    > they accept brides ... from anyone with a big wallet ;) Tee hee. But, seriously: > [Government doesn't] offer or allow you a choice in Law Enforcement provider. The rise in private security firms and private offender-rehabilitation firms [0] kinda act as defacto law enforcement for some of the lower class. [0] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/shoplifting_at_whole_foods_or_bloomingdale_s_pay_corrective_education_company.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/0...
    - paulornothing 12y ago
      Well it's more like private security. People don't pay much attention to this mainly because stealing is bad in most people's eyes. People are not so concerned if it's actually legal or not to detain someone and basically blackmail them.
  - baddox 12y ago
    > There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly. What is illegal is forming cartels and collusion to create restraint/constraint of trade. That sounds like a description of a somewhat sane legal system, but it's not a description of United States "antitrust" law. See, for instance, United Staes v. Alcoa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa
- fragsworth 12y ago
  I was mostly thinking of the ISPs, who actively try to destroy competition, and are charging rates that would be absurd in other (competitive) markets. Other monopolies will probably emerge in the near future.
- cdr 12y ago
  I guess if your point of comparison is "Google search, Apple App Store, Monsanto, Boeing" the poster market on Amazon is "small fish", but this guy was the former director of Art.com (fired because of the price-fixing investigation, I take it?) - almost certainly a multimillion dollar business.
- XorNot 12y ago
  Google search is in no possible way a monopoly. And the apple app store is questionably one.
TaylorAlexander 12y ago
People can't tell there's a monopoly until they see the alternatives. Most monopolies today are so good people have no idea other things are possible. This seems to be a theme with historical monopolies too, which means simply inspiring people to think out of the box is critical to showing people the possibilities.
taeric 12y ago
I don't think your parenthetical can be taken as is. I agree it is more likely to result, but is it really a given?

Nav_Panel 12y ago

But the government does. Often mergers between large companies will be prevented if they'd create monopolies. Is there something in particular you're thinking of? One exception in particular is patents.

smt88 12y ago

Which monopolies are you talking about? In the OP, some small fish were colluding. The only unregulated monopolies I can think of (Google search, Apple App Store, Monsanto, Boeing) are very large and powerful, and they'll certainly have many national politicians in their pockets. So I don't find it odd that large monopolies aren't busted very often. It's a predictable outcome of a money-driven political system.

steve19 12y ago
People frequently confuse price-fixing with monopolies. There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly. What is illegal is forming cartels and collusion to create restraint/constraint of trade [0] Patents are an example of government granted monopolies (on an idea). The government also grants monopolies to certains businesses or organizations [1]. Government is itself a monopoly of sorts (they don't offer or allow you a choice in Law Enforcement provider). Boeing may be a domestic Monopoly, but only because the size, scope and IP of the organization is hard to replicate. What would have been illegal if they had colluded with Communication Sat providers or NASA to prevent Musk from starting SpaceX. There is no evidence I can see that would prevent a sufficiently motivated entrepreneur from competing with them in the Aerospace Defense sector. Politicians are equal opportunity providers, they accept brides (donations) from anyone with a big wallet ;) [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service
- simoncion 12y ago
  > they accept brides ... from anyone with a big wallet ;) Tee hee. But, seriously: > [Government doesn't] offer or allow you a choice in Law Enforcement provider. The rise in private security firms and private offender-rehabilitation firms [0] kinda act as defacto law enforcement for some of the lower class. [0] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/shoplifting_at_whole_foods_or_bloomingdale_s_pay_corrective_education_company.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/0...
  - paulornothing 12y ago
    Well it's more like private security. People don't pay much attention to this mainly because stealing is bad in most people's eyes. People are not so concerned if it's actually legal or not to detain someone and basically blackmail them.
- baddox 12y ago
  > There is nothing illegal about having a monopoly. What is illegal is forming cartels and collusion to create restraint/constraint of trade. That sounds like a description of a somewhat sane legal system, but it's not a description of United States "antitrust" law. See, for instance, United Staes v. Alcoa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alcoa
fragsworth 12y ago
I was mostly thinking of the ISPs, who actively try to destroy competition, and are charging rates that would be absurd in other (competitive) markets. Other monopolies will probably emerge in the near future.
cdr 12y ago
I guess if your point of comparison is "Google search, Apple App Store, Monsanto, Boeing" the poster market on Amazon is "small fish", but this guy was the former director of Art.com (fired because of the price-fixing investigation, I take it?) - almost certainly a multimillion dollar business.
XorNot 12y ago
Google search is in no possible way a monopoly. And the apple app store is questionably one.

TaylorAlexander 12y ago

People can't tell there's a monopoly until they see the alternatives. Most monopolies today are so good people have no idea other things are possible. This seems to be a theme with historical monopolies too, which means simply inspiring people to think out of the box is critical to showing people the possibilities.

taeric 12y ago

I don't think your parenthetical can be taken as is. I agree it is more likely to result, but is it really a given?