I don't need to prove something that is fundamentally a root of the modern legal system.
If it's so fundamental, it should be easy to find some support for the idea.
So far you've given me nothing, while I've provided links that support my position. Links that authoritatively, directly contradict your idea.
en.wikipedia.org for instance.
"Protecting the interests of consumers (consumer welfare) and ensuring that enterpreneurs have an opportunity to compete in the market economy are often treated as important objectives."
Now, others have too.
You are simply wrong.
What I wish to argue is the spirit of the law, and the fact that it's designed to support the consumer, and that second order concepts like "competition" may be idealized by a few opinionated people, but it's not what the laws were designed to protect.
"A few opinionated people?" You mean, like, everyone but you?
Your tactic of discrediting anyone and everyone who doesn't support your preconceptoins is getting tiresome. The MIT economics professor I quoted was an expert witness in the MS antitrust case, which the prosecution won. Who are you?
I know exactly why you're pushing this argument so hard, BTW; To support your simpleton "lower prices are always good" argument, i.e. Intel's rebates save consumers money, so they must be good.
Because if the law is about protecting competition, your simpleton argument falls.
The actual, supportable fact is that the protection of free trade is the goal of antitrust law.
fpg |
