Antitrust law was originally conceived as a way to reduce the power of monopolies, period. Your conception of antitrust law as solely a consumer remedy is a later revisionist picture painted of the role of antitrust law, as a way to limit it, by conservative interests.
Well, I don't know what the Congress was thinking when it passed the antitrust laws. ;)
But, seriously, if you go back and read "The Antitrust Paradox," you will see that Bork lays out in very meticulous detail why he thinks consumer welfare should be the sole criterion for judging the wisdom of antitrust enforcement. Basically, the argument is that, when you get into weighing consumer welfare concerns against concerns about income redistribution and protecting producers (i.e., competitors), you place the courts in the position of having to weigh apples and oranges, and judges in the position of having to make policy determinations that really belong to Congress. That's a Bork-World no no.
Read the book, and if you can prove to me after you've read it that it's wrong, I'll eat my words.
As they portray it, in antitrust law if you can not show a consumer issue, you have no case.
Well, at least you've got that right.
And that because the people in government now cannot do it well does not mean it cannot be done.
Well, here I have to disagree with you. The government is singularly incompetent when it comes to micro-managing the economy, or predicting the future course of the evolution of technology and markets.
Don't get me wrong. I think a lot of government bureaucrats and officials are very smart, well-meaning people. It's just that it's not humanly impossible to master and direct something as complex at the economy.
I'm saying that when companies get too big and powerful they usually try to subvert the democratic process, starting with bribes or whatever else works to subvert the regulatory process. Your argument is that if the sheriff of some area may be bribed, that is proof that there is no need for a sheriff, because it worked out so badly. Whereas I as saying that it proves that there are scoundrels in town and you have a need for honest law enforcement.
And I'm saying that getting "honest law enforcement" as you call it is a lot harder than it seems. It's not that law enforcement is dishonest or corrupt, it's just that any time you set up a regulatory agency to act as a watchdog over some indusrty, that agency is going to get captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate. It's going to happen every single time. It's impossible to avoid.
So I say, let's leave the scoundrels alone as long as they are not hurting anyone and focus law enforcement on those areas where everyone agrees it is really needed.
Let's keep the Sheriff out of everyone's bedroom. He's got enough on his hands just policing the streets and saloons.
You conveniently forget the trucking, water, power, health care, railroad, internet, agriculture, financial, computer, and other industries in which they had a starring role. I wonder if right there I haven't named industries that constitute over 50% of the economy.
Well, fine: those are a standing indictment of government policy, too. ;)
1. Money and power corrupt. Monopoly power corrupts absolutely within the domain of the monopoly.
Well, this cliche' proves too much. If if the corrupting influence of power is a function of its strength, then government power corrupts absolutely, since it is far stronger and more difficult to evade than any power a private monopoly might have.
2. In order to maintain a monopoly, many many companies over the course of time have resorted to inferior technology and practices resulting in inferior customer service. To them it doesn't matter what the customer thinks as long as the monopoly is maintained.
I could not agree more. So, when you meld governmental and monopoly power, you end up with these problems in spades.
3. Government solved this problem, which at one time was restraining the entire economy in a major way, through regulation and the imposition of technical standards (in most areas.)
Government solved the problem of monopoly? Then why is it suing Microsoft?
I hope not, because this kind of regulation is the worst kind, a corrupt kind, the kind where the industry inevitably ends up running the show. And completely unworkable in any innovative field, because change is greatly inhibited. The only thing worse than a monopoly is a monopoly rewarded with tame regulation and a mandate for monopoly. This is why the phone company used to be the most hated organization in America, before the breakup (truth).
Well, if you are against the market, and against regulation, what are you in favor of?
This is a struggle for technical progress, free capitalistic competition, egalitarian justice and clean government against the usual American motifs of congressional corruption, ignorant leaders, and overwhelming power of wealth.
Well, at least we share the same goals, if nothing else. ;) |
