Source link: http://blog.mises.org/2419/the-case-against-all-antitrust-legislation-lecture-31-of-32/
The Case Against All Antitrust Legislation (lecture 31 of 32)
August 29, 2004 by David J. Heinrich
These notes are from the lecture The Case Against All Antitrust Legislation, given at the Mises University. Any errors are mine, feel free to point them out so that I can correct them. This lecture was given by Prof. DiLorenzo.
History
- Railroads coming together in 1800s.
- Centralized meat packing in Chicago.
- Shipped dressed beef long distances from all over.
- All of the sudden, had all kinds of competition.
- Impetus for anti-trust law was actually to prop up the price of beef.
- Scales of economies and railroad transport were lowering prices all over.
- Anti-Trust Laws: Whenever you see one company suing another, it is because company A does something that benefits consumers (lowering prices) that company B doesn’t like.
Reformers vs. Abolitionists
- Austrians — abolish anti-trust
- Chicagoeans — reform anti-trust
Abolishing Anti-Trust Laws
- Anti-trust alws are inherently incompatable with competition:
- When created, even Socialists opposed anti-trust laws.
- Competititon is a dynamic ongoing process.
- If you disrupt this, you will mess things up.
- Anti-trust laws regulate trading, market advertising, raising prices (“price-gouging”), leaving some prices the same (“collusion”), cutting prices (“undercutting”), mergers.
- In a sense, a corporation is just a merger of assets between shareholders; company-mergers are more of the same.
- “Treble damages” — pay 3x what “overpriced”; but no way to know what the “market rate” should have been.
- Witch-hunt against companies with large market-share.
- Historically Protectionist:
- Not a single book on history had a statistic on the output levels in the 1880′s era.
- There were 17 industries in which DiLorenzo could find some historical data:
- Real GNP increased 24% from 1880 to 1890; the “cartelized” restricted industries increased by 100%.
- While general prices fell 7%, the prices of those general industries went down much more.
- So, they were expanding production 10x faster than the GNP and cutting prices faster than the general price-level was dropping.
- Congressmembers actually know this.
- So, anti-trust law was protectionism, in the guise of “increasing competition”.
- New York Times — anti-trust law was passed to clear way to bring in tariffs; they passed off a big anti-consumer law, with tariffs and protectionism; anti-trust was used as smoke-screen.
- “Exclusion” from consumers is a bad thing.
- 114-year history of destroying competititon.
- “Perfect competition” requires the Sherman Anti-Trust law — “many firms”. Economists of the 1890s saw all of the statistics, and saw the prices dropping from mergers.
- Anti-Trust and Monopoly (Independent Institute).
- Nirvana fallacy — comparing reality to perfect competitive ideal; but real competititon is between before and after innovation.
- Incompatible with private property and freedom of association. Business activities don’t harm anyone; Sherman is anti-free speech: even if you just “say” you want to fix prices, you can go to jail. In fact, any regulation of prospect of regulation stiffles free speech on the part of business-people, because of the fear of retaliation.
- Anti Rule of Law:
- Continual, capricious harassment of successful businessmen.
- Law vagueness: anti-trust laws are vague.
- The meaning of these laws is decided post hoc.
- No-one knows what’s legal vs. illegal, until the State sweeps down on them.
- Businessmen, innovation, initiative, etc are stiffled.
{ 7 comments }
“If you just “say” you want to fix prices, you can go to jail.”
It need not even go that far. Under most contemporary antitrust jurisprudence–largely influenced by the Chicagoean, Richard Posner–price-fixing may be inferred without actual evidence of conspiracy. The FTC and DOJ argue that such “implied” antitrust violations occur in many cases they bring.
The only thing I can see as a problem is the same fallacy Pat Buchanan uses to espouse protectionism (the Fed and existing trade distortions cause an adversely leveled playing field).
If you assume the status quo – which contains government distortions, one should not necessarily remove only SOME government distortions.
To paraphrase Harry Brown – the Government is like someone who breaks your leg and shows compassion by giving you a crutch. The WRONG thing to advocate is the removal of the crutch, at least unilaterally. The government ought to stop breaking legs.
We aren’t talking railroads, we are talking an era where we have Software copyrights and patents that are as bad as any royal grant the East India company (or South Seas
got. Some favored companies get contracts without bid. I could go on, but where you see a monopoly that can charge monopoly rents, look behind it and you will see a government sponsored barrier to entry.
Antitrust is only a necessary evil as long as Government itself creates evil monopolies by regulation. We can get rid of the subsidized crutches when we get rid of the leg-breakers.
Excellent points, TZ. The US government gives powerful statutory monopolies to software companies, pharmaceutical companies, media/entertainment companies, and bio-tech companies—just to name a few industries—and the only way to fix the problems brought on by these statutory monopolies is to curb them with anti-trust rules.
The anti-trust laws should go, but not without eliminating the government-mandated monopolies that make them necessary.
This situation is far more complicated then the previous contributors acknowledge. For 1893 as well as other years there were recessions due to cyclical factors, and the lack of a central bank. Thereafter the emergence of a central bank was new, and some credit it with the great depression of 1929 since the members of the board did not know what actions to take. In any event numerous companies during the 1893 period went out of business due to the business cycle. The Sherman antitrust act prohibited collusion hence the urge to merge. This made antitrust policy more difficult.
I love the way you write & also the theme on this blog.I am sure to keep revisiting to read more.
I do love the manner in which you have presented this specific matter and it does indeed supply me personally a lot of fodder for consideration. Nevertheless, through everything that I have observed, I only trust as the actual remarks pack on that people today keep on point and not embark on a tirade regarding the news of the day. Anyway, thank you for this superb point and although I can not necessarily go along with it in totality, I regard the viewpoint.
It’s arduous to seek out knowledgeable individuals on this subject, but you sound like you already know what you’re talking about! Thanks
Comments on this entry are closed.