>>> Totally unproven.
Read Bork's book, "The Antitrust Paradox," the one he wrote before he became a "consultant." Then read the part in Areeda and Turner that talks about natural monopoly. Then come back and tell me about why you still think it's unproven.
<<<
Since this premise is central to you, I hope you will at least try to support it yourself. As far as Bork goes, he will always remain to me the guy who became Nixon's hatchetman during Watergate. And since then a sort of pious nitwit. Not a top quality mind, and not someone I read.
<<<I don't have a crystal ball, but I think that one of the arguments that will be made in this case is that competition, unfettered by government intervention, is the best way to deal with the problems of natural monopoly.
>>>
What competition? There's a monopoly in place, right?
>>> Once a company has been allowed to destroy an industry it might be very hard to create a dynamic industry again, and it may require subsidies, protection, and so forth. The infrastructure, the trained workers, the investor interest, the international competitive position all are damaged.
So you are saying what, that antitrust is ineffective?
<<<
I might argue that the process needs to start sooner, be more aggressive, and take less time in court. Perhaps via an in-place regulatory body rather than the relatively ineffective court system, because usually from here on we will be dealing with fast moving technological fields where the damage is done before you can get the law moving.
I believe the ideas of natural monopoly and short term consumer price effects as the measure of harm are red herrings being injected into the antitrust debate from only one direction - those who want to wreck antitrust protections. To the extent that intelligent people entertain these concepts we lose time and much else.
Cheers,
Chaz |
