Jeffrey Tucker asked me this morning why there has been no cries for antitrust action against the government’s nationalization of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae — which effectively creates a mortgage monopoly. I suspect there’s some statutory provision that exempts these “government sponsored enterprises” from the prying eyes of the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission. But even if there’s not, the antitrust community is not in the habit of picking fights where it doesn’t enjoy a decisive tactical advantage, and as we’ve seen, Freddie and Fannie are arguably the most politically-connected entities in the western hemisphere.
It’s worth noting that during the past few years, the FTC and DOJ have been aggressively trying to nationalize the real estate broker industry. The DOJ recently forced the National Association of Realtors to rewrite its policies regarding broker access to online listings. And the FTC continues to prosecute local broker groups that adopt Internet access policies without federal permission. Ostensibly the FTC/DOJ actions want to lower brokerage commissions by forbidding multiple listing services from discriminating against homes sold directly by owners. In practice, however, the agencies simply want brokers dependent on federal regulators for their livelihoods. (If the people won’t come to you seeking rents, you have to give them the proper “incentives.”)
The lesson here is that while the Treasury establishes an even more powerful government monopoly over mortgage lending, the so-called “trust-busters” obsess over marginal issues that will yield greater state power but little consumer benefit. Indeed, antitrust has nothing to do with the sort of “trusts” that served as scapegoats for power-grabby 19th century politicians. The FTC’s agenda increasingly focuses on smaller businesses and trade groups (and even self-employed individuals) while the DOJ has learned to kidnap non-U.S. citizens and imprison them for exercising free speech and property rights (aka “fighting cartels”.)
{ 2 comments }
Again this is the consequence of relative morality. The department of justice merely references itself to the political climate currently in place and then pronounces through its actions its stance or position.
Against the standard of principled classical liberalism the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice would be ruled as criminally mischievous.
I have not been paying keen attention to the activities of the FTC or DOJ (shame on me) and this blog post has piqued my interest. Could you possibly cite some examples as evidence for the claim that “The FTC’s agenda increasingly focuses on smaller businesses and trade groups (and even self-employed individuals) while the DOJ has learned to kidnap non-U.S. citizens and imprison them for exercising free speech and property rights (aka “fighting cartels”.)”?
Thank you.
Comments on this entry are closed.