Thomas DiLorenzo on the myth that monopolies exist on the free market and antitrust law is used to break up monopolies.

6 posts / 0 new

From Thomas DiLorenzo:

"Joel Klein, the third-rate lawyer/political hack who is in charge of the government's Microsoft persecution, recently tried to rationalize the lawsuit by saying that it was in keeping with the long history of consumer protection regulation, beginning with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. In reality, the history of antitrust has been a history of politically-inspired witch hunts launched against America's most innovative and entrepreneurial businesses.

In the June 1985 issue of the International Review of Law and Economics I showed that the industries accused of "monopolization" by Senator Sherman and his colleagues in 1890 were expanding production four times more rapidly than the economy as a whole for the decade prior to the Sherman Act (some as much as ten times faster) and were dropping their prices even faster than the general price level was falling during that deflationary period.

The trusts "have made products cheaper, have reduced prices," admitted Congressman William Mason, who nevertheless was in favor of an anti-trust law. He was in favor of the law because he, and most of his congressional colleagues, wanted to protect less-efficient businesses in their districts from competition. Antitrust has always been a protectionist racket.

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, the grossly biased judge in the Microsoft case, has frequently compared Bill Gates to John D. Rockefeller, thereby perpetuating another statist myth -- that Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company was a "monopoly." But Standard Oil caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 5.9 cents by 1897 while stimulating an enormous amount of innovation in the industry, just as Microsoft has stimulated innovation in today’s computer industry. For this great service to consumers, Rockefeller was prosecuted and forced to break up his company.

In his masterpiece, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Dominick Armentano carefully examined fifty-five of the most famous antitrust cases in U.S. history and concluded that in every single case, the accused firms were dropping prices, expanding production, innovating, and generally benefiting consumers. It was their less-efficient competitors who were "harmed," as they should have been.

For example, the American Tobacco Company was found guilty of "monopolization" in 1911, even though the price of cigarettes (per thousand) had declined from $2.77 in 1895 to $2.20 in 1907, despite a 40 percent increase in raw material costs.

In what is perhaps the best example of nonsensical double-talk in antitrust history, in 1944 Judge Learned Hand found Alcoa guilty of "monopolizing" the virgin ingot aluminum market by employing "superior skill and foresight" which the judge feared had "forestalled" competition by those businesses with less skill and foresight. He condemned Alcoa for being extremely adept at correctly anticipating market demand for its product and then supplying that demand, to the "exclusion" of its less efficient competitors.

Alcoa "embraced every new opportunity" with a "great" organization, said the judge, and manned the organization with "elite business personnel." It was obvious to the confused and befuddled Judge Hand that gaining market share through entrepreneurial excellence should be illegal.

In 1962 the government forbade the Brown Shoe Company, which had 1 percent of the shoe market, from acquiring Kinney Shoes, which also had a 1 percent market share. A company with 2 percent of the shoe market, according to the government, constituted a monopoly.

In 1969 IBM, the Microsoft of the day, had a 65 percent market share in the computer market and was sued by the government for allegedly monopolizing the industry. IBM was mired in a court battle for thirteen years before the government finally gave up on the case. In the meantime, the company was eclipsed by Intel and other competitors while Microsoft had just produced, in 1981, its first copy of MS-DOS.

The government's assault on IBM undoubtedly weakened the company and weakened the level of competition in the industry as well. This has happened time and again as a result of Quixotic antitrust prosecutions.

In 1962 the government forced the Schwinn Bicycle Company to divorce itself from its network of dealers; foreign competition eventually drove Schwinn into bankruptcy.

General Motors was never prosecuted, but because of the company's fear of antitrust it was official company policy from 1937 until 1956 to never let its market share top 45 percent, for any reason. This fear of antitrust prosecution contributed to the industry's dramatic losses in market share to the Japanese and German automakers during the 1970s and '80s.

RCA was prohibited by antitrust regulators from charging royalties to American licensees, so the company licensed its products to Japanese companies. The entire Japanese electronics industry is based on this.

Antitrust regulation killed Pan American World Airways by forbidding it from acquiring domestic routes. Lacking "feeder" traffic for its international flights, the company went bankrupt.

Most Americans have never heard of any of these facts because they have been fed the Official History of antitrust, which is that free markets are a source of monopoly power which must restrained by enlightened antitrust regulators.

The truth is that monopoly is impossible in a free market; government is the true source of monopoly; and antitrust itself has never done anything but render American industry less competitive while inflicting great harm on consumers. The standard account of antitrust regulation being in "the public interest" is truly Orwellian."

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

just a remindered of your promise to leave

Quote Dr Mario Kart:

I guess we can just respond to every post with - I thought you weren't posting here anymore. Maybe we need to band together to mass report all the prisonplanet spam as well.

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 10:01 am

I'm just wrapping up. I'll be out of here within a day or two. I just wanted to make some final responses. Keep speaking out for what you believe in, even though it will result in the exact opposite of what you want.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

As usual your comments make no sense.

Actions have to follow words to accomplish change when means becoming active in organizaitons to achieve change from within and without. Working to change your community is also involved.

To make change happen you have to know where you have been and where you are going.

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 10:01 am

I don't know why you are leaving, except perhaps if you are afriad of actually debating issues with some of the smartest liberals on the internet.

As to your long and extensive research into monopolies and prices, I don't really know what to say. I have been down this road with libertarians before, and I think it is mostly tricks - they extract what they want from the historical record and study somehting no one knows anything about - and then you have to go to the library and prove them wrong.

But it seems to me it is not really necessary to do all this. Prices are not really the issue. Even Marx, when talking about monopoly capitalism, said that it was the highest level of industrial development, precisely because it spurred economic growth. And our own recent experience points to some obvious advances - look at the cost of 'cell' phones, LCD televisions, computers. All of these industries are dominated by small numbers of companies. But we can also see the costs of concentration.Instead of a variety of different types and qualities. The three or four firms produce essentially the same product - or do after a period of time. Far from individuals having an effect in the market, it is mass produced for the masses. On the reverse side, the working conditions and wages of these people who actually make this stuff are terrible, the toxic waste costly, and there are just a few at the top who achieve the highest gains. And, many of the goods from China are dangerous - whether it is from the lead in baby food or the cars that can't stop.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:

I'm just wrapping up. I'll be out of here within a day or two. I just wanted to make some final responses. Keep speaking out for what you believe in, even though it will result in the exact opposite of what you want.

Bye Bye.......Spooner

As you already know there are plenty of sites with your type of thinking so you shouldn't have any problem finding a new home. I visit several of them every so often just to get a good laugh. This place is by far the best one for progressives that I've seen and I came here to read and learn from the best and so far I haven't been disappointed. You can learn a lot reading what others have to say so where ever you go read a lot there before you jump in.

Good luck to you and where ever you go I hope you find happiness and great conversation...

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am

Currently Chatting

The world we're leaving for today's teens...

Without immediate global action on climate change, today's teenagers will be forced to live with the consequences of our inaction. The World Bank has issued their third report of climate change, and it says that global temperatures could rise by as much as 4 degrees Celsius by the time today's teens hit their 80th birthday.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system