Public Service Announcment #652

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay, gang. Being the devilish monopolist that I am (and we all are), I have ordered my internal minions to restrict output by 90%.

That is all.







Behold!

A poll.

[patches70]

The excesses of your free market approach to your output has severely strained your resources so that you are now on the verge of collapse. All that is left is for you is to start laying off 60% of you internal minions.

Do you require any tissue or hand lotion?

[Lootifer]

Depends on the industry. But generally I would vote for a break up into smaller pieces (assuming it actually will promote competition, rather than just creating lots of little monopolies).

I dont get the bit about anti-trust. Explain please.

[Lootifer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

Ah right, I didnt realise that breaking up of monopolies was part of the anti-trust scope. I thought it was just anti-competitive behaviour that was covered (same but different).

I understand that our laws focus on the behavioural aspects rather making strict precedents on what is cool and what is not cool (ie monopoly is actively exploiting market power vs. monopoly is simply existing); but I could be wrong.

I believe focussing on the behavioural aspects would satisfy Sowells issues with the laws.

[BigBallinStalin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

Ah right, I didnt realise that breaking up of monopolies was part of the anti-trust scope. I thought it was just anti-competitive behaviour that was covered (same but different).

I understand that our laws focus on the behavioural aspects rather making strict precedents on what is cool and what is not cool (ie monopoly is actively exploiting market power vs. monopoly is simply existing); but I could be wrong.

I believe focussing on the behavioural aspects would satisfy Sowells issues with the laws.

I've been wanting to a do a study that examines (political contributions) over time with (occurrence of antitrust suits) and (getting the ruling in the contributors' favor). Microsoft comes to mind, but of course I'd have to use a larger sample than just one.

Then I may get denied from attending any political hearing about the issue because I named names (e.g. the experience of the author of Throw Them All Out). If that would happen, and if it happens on a wider basis, then what does that say about the government's ability to shape smart regulation?


RE: any kind of method of regulation: (I imagine this may apply to NZ as well, but maybe not):

Another problem is that most (IIRC >90%) of antitrust cases are filed by competitors--not consumers who benefit from the lower prices. Another problem is that the rules hinge on flexible variables (e.g. if I'm a competitor, and I make a claim against X, then I want to contract the definition of "market" and "good" as little as possible to show that 'foul' play has occurred. The other side, X, will expand those terms to show that foul play hasn't occurred. Really dumb.

Then there's the unreal methodology of that kind of economics (e.g. perfect knowledge, perfect markets, zero transaction costs, etc.).

So many problems...