Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (24907)	5/18/1999 11:14:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

...or we could pool our money and look for a really large hammock.

To: Ilaine who wrote (24907)	5/19/1999 12:32:00 AM
From: E	Respond to of 71178

<<< So if you and I go to a market, and agree that we will pay no more than $13 for a hammock, and you convince the hammock seller to sell you two hammocks for $13, and then later I give you my $13 and you give me my hammock, I've violated the Sherman Act?>>> That's not an auction, or a collusion; it's merely a purchase. The rules of bargaining at a market have not been violated in any way.

To: Ilaine who wrote (24907)	5/19/1999 9:50:00 AM
From: DScottD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

Technically yes. You and I in this case are competitors who have made an agreement to fix the price of the item. It would be like GM and Ford agreeing amongst themselves that they will only pay up to a certain price for assembly equipment and sharing in the savings when one of them hammers a supplier for favorable purchasing terms. Or the real life example from when the baseball owners were found to have conspired to keep free agent salaries down back in the mid-'80s. While this wasn't a Sherman Act violation because of baseball's antitrust exemption, it did violate the collective bargaining agreement.