Antitrust Law - Needed or Not?

[helmuth_hubener]

Firstly they cannot conspire to bar competition.

Again, what, specifically, does it mean to "conspire to bar competition"? Could you give us all a specific example of a specific action?

 

[Mr Tansill]

Thank you for your generous and genial words, I think I can point to such a system. The USA had just such a system in the early days of electrical distribution, starting about 1882. The Edison companies were totally private market companies. They'd go in, build a plant with a couple engines and dynamos, run some wires, and charge subscribers.

There is no reason we could not have several companies in a single town who run cabling, several who own and maintain cabling (perhaps the same ones as the runners, perhaps different), and several who provide services through those cables, along with many sub-contracts and virtual network operators.

Let me give you an industry that I think will help you imagine what I'm proposing. In mobile telephony in the US, a guy will have about four major networks to choose from, along with one or two additional regional or super-regional networks. Physically, there may be only one or two towers with the range to reach his house (or there may be eight). And then there are dozens, approaching hundreds, of what's called MVNOs, like Tracfone, who buy data wholesale from one or more of the non-virtual networks and resell it to customers. From the customer's perspective, the experience on the MVNO is completely different than the one on the company with the parent network -- it's a different business with a different pricing structure, different customer service, different everything. So within a fairly constrained and limited network physically-speaking, there is an abundance of competition and choices.

Electricity could be like that. In fact, the technology to do it for cabled services is less advanced than what's been required to build this system for cable-less services. Edison was burying electrical cable from day one. Having it perched on poles is... one option. It is not necessarily the most robust one.

There is so much advancement that could take place in this industry. In the early days, there was tons of innovation: the feeder and main system, the three-wire system, metering, high-tension long-distance distribution, and on and on! The last fifty years: zip! They still have to drive the truck around to read the meters, for heaven's sake, even with their lame, last-century "wireless" meters that they are only now starting to put in!

And why would that not be desirable? Have you really thought this through? Why would it be a problem if 10, or 20, or 100 companies all want to spend thousands or millions of dollars running redundant (or seemingly-redundant) cabling around town? (Redundancy is a very good thing to have, by the way, for reliability and resiliency of a network.) How would this hurt me, personally, as a customer?

It would be nothing but good. It might hurt them, the companies, because there might not be enough demand for a 97th electricity provider to pay them back for their investment running the copper. But for the customers, it's great! Bargain-basement prices! More entrants into the market doesn't hurt customers. Just gives them one more suitor, courting their money. They can always say no and stick with what they've got.

I am looking at things as they are, also. There is plenty of room underground for more cabling. There is plenty of conductive metal in the world. The technology of ditch-digging is well-established and is becoming more advanced than ever. There exists no technical barrier to a polycentric, competitive electrical market.

And in fact, it's the only system that makes sense. Just as with everything else:

Let people buy electricity from and sell electricity to whomever they want, however they want, whenever they want, whyever they want.

Thanks for your very detailed response. I think I maybe didn't give enough detail in my earlier critique, but what I was trying to get at is the fact that it's really not possible to have unbounded growth in a market like electricity because of its dependence on physical landlines for transmission. You cite we could have 10, 20, or 100 companies all competing for our $$$, and I agree that is a good thing, but it's not where my "thought experiment" was intended to lead.

I'm talking about the cable required to have 10,000, or a million, or a billion, or 10^80 companies provide infrastructure for a city - this is admittedly ridiculous, and isn't meant as a serious suggestion, but rather to show the inevitability of the impending collision between the "corporate right" to access a particular market (in this case the hypothetical electricity market) and the "individual right" to preclude more of their property being taken via the use of eminent domain - which is the crux of the point I attempted to make previously. I chose "electricity" simply because of its reliance on land lines, and an easy parallel I saw to how the internet is delivered to people's homes.

So the CORE reason I see that these companies NEED to be regulated is because their business model required and is enabled by the application of eminent domain - their businesses could not function without the application of that concept, and therefore is why I think they need to be regulated. It's necessary to place a reasonable limit on the amount of land that is taken to run cables, etc.

 

[Bryan]

Depends on the definition of "bad".

Absolutely, which is why I put it in quotes- which obviously isn't totally clear.

In microeconomics it is a well know fact that monopolies will always produce less of a given product than the market demands. It is something of a counterintuitive reasoning behind it and I do not recall the details at this moment, but it is nevertheless a fact. When determining the volume of production, businesses use certain calculations. For monopolies the results are of necessity different from those of other sectors where competition exists. This is good for the monpoly in question, but is presumably bad for the market and does, in point of fact, render that particular market unfree in some manner and degree.

Agreed on most accounts. I would not say that it is a fact that monopolies act that way, it's a fact it is in their best interest to and the data shows they generally do.

That is what I mean when I say that rational monopolies do "bad" things of necessity. It is in their rational self-interest to do them. If we regulate that behavior away, which we typically do either by prohibiting them from acting in accord with their economic best interests or, far more commonly by regulating pricing upward to the detriment of the consumer and to the benefit of the monopolist, we have retained the element of coercion, which so many appear to rail against. There is of necessity no free market where monopolies are concerned and this absence is a matter of economic science on the one hand, or political interference on the other. Either way, somebody is taking it in the neck and this is why monopolies are bad for economies and human freedom in general. It's all there in the numbers, which in this case really are not lying.

In and of itself, coercion is not evil. The evil arises in the nature of specific instances of coercion. In the vast majority of cases that I have seen, the coercions in question are in fact evil as all hell. But will we call the coercion to not commit murder, fraud, and other very serious crimes evil? I would think not.

You're really hitting on the crux of the issue here... it's about morality, ie: what is evil vs not?

Once again, this predicates largely on the precise definition of "truly free" and what, exactly, defines "anti-trust". That last bit is not mere pedantic foolery, either. Ask any law professor what defines anti-trust law and a likely response will be "nobody really knows". The anti-trust laws are devised in so befouled a manner as to specify virtually nothing with clarity, which in itself should tell you much about the nature of the American version.

And this is certainly a good part of the problem, the laws can be molded to suite a particular interest.

Im' not trying to be a PITA here, though perhaps I succeed in any event; I am pointing out that words are tricky, important, and that depending on their precise, or not so precise usage, there could be anti-trust laws in even a free land.

No, you're absolutely correct, we have to be very clear on our terms, as much as a pain as it can be.

Let us briefly rewind to the basics. To be properly free, at least by my definition, men stand centrally within the circle of their rightful prerogatives to act as they please with the one exception that they bring no harm to others, including thwarting their exercise of even rights. That leaves the avenue of possibilities broadly expansive and the restrictions vanishingly narrow. By living in accord with this, the realized potential for freedom and prosperity are optimized to their greatest degree for everyone because opportunity is not being actively diminished by one man against his fellows.

But as we all know, people are not perfect and are not always angels. Even in the best circumstances one man's understanding of what is permissible may stand in stark contrast to that of another's. When those differing understandings clash, how is the dispute to be resolved? And when one man's ethics fall prey to his temptations such that he knowingly violates his brother pursuant to sating his desire to have that to which he is not rightfully entitled, we have yet another flavor of conflicting interests.

When such conflicts arise, how shall they be resolved in a "truly free" society? If rules, however few and well designed they may be, are to have any meaning, then they must be backed with the promise of force against those who refuse or otherwise fail to toe their line. Without it, where is the incentive for "bad" people to behave themselves in accord with those rules? Indeed, without the specter of force behind them, rules become naught but mere suggestions to be respected or ignored as one pleases at any given moment.

If we are not to run amok in chaos with the strong consuming the weak or what have you, which for practical reasons tends to be a very undesirable outcome, then we must have a tiny handful of rules by which we GOVERN OURSELVES. Failing to govern the self within the generous metes of properly contrived rules, we bring the governance of our fellows upon ourselves in compensation. Without this, there is no reason that anyone should of necessity control themselves. I would assert that most people would likely do so just because they are of such an amiable nature as not to wish any conflicts between themselves and their neighbors. But there are always that small minority who refuse to respect the rights of their fellows and act accordingly as they run roughshod hither thither. For such people must corrective measures be taken, either sooner or later, because so far as I can see, such people when left unchecked only become more stridently disrespectful of others.

We could have the law of the jungle, so to speak, where a given offense of one man against another might meet with widely varying consequences depending upon whom the offense is made, and perhaps even depending upon a given man's mood at any given time. Monday morning might see Johnny smack Jimmy for stealing a stick of his gum and Monday afternoon might bring gunshots. Perhaps some rules for dealing with such things would be a good idea? Assuming so for argument's sake, the question then arises regarding who will apply these rules. As far as I am concerned, it could be the aggrieved party so long as application is done knowledgeably and with proper fairness. Makes me no mind at all. Or, we could have courts or tribunals or give it to the minister or a computer sufficient to the task. The salient point is that the rules exist such that we can all become aware of them. They can be called anything you like - anti-trust laws, tort laws, criminal laws, "boojum"... the label matters not, so long as you are consistent with it.

+rep. We need another thread to get into this.

Agreed, but boycotting is not always enough. What about when a real tort is committed? Your company's product is killing people who are dropping like flies? Yes, the market may put them out of business, but what of their responsibility toward those they have harmed? Are such people expected to simply "walk it off"?

In these cases that is really a completely different matter.

I believe you are conflating two separate issues. Markets decide on winners and losers who continue to buy the products of the winners and stop buying those of the losers. The market chose Chevy over Delorean and Yugo. They chose Coke Classic over the New Coke. But the market, taken abstractly, determine what happens when the Ford Pintos start exploding in highway accidents.

My point is that if the market is smart it will do things that will avoid supporting a monopoly because it is in their best interests not to. For example, if Chevy started to use questionable business tactics and started to wipe out all the other car companies, when it came to buying your next car you might say you don't want to buy a Chevy because they are trying to get a monopoly, so every if they are now better/cheaper you'd buy brand X since it's in your overall best interest.

All well and good and what I may term "morally praiseworthy". But "can" does not mean "will". It is great to see people who choose the high road. Those are not the people for whom the threat of force has been set into place; it is for the scoundrels who often stop at very little in order to get what they want at the unjust expense of ohers.

Perhaps, but that does not invalidate the need for rules, assuming the avoidance of general chaos in a world that has trained itself for one man to endeavor to take that which rightfully belongs to another without adverse consequence.

Agreed, this is part of the real challenges.

 

[Bryan]

I like this idea ideally, but the major problem I see is not so much monopoly that stifles innovation, but instead price fixing. Business with close to monopoly marketshare are generally easier to spot, and the consumer can make these decisions.

But Oligopoly is far different when those business form a cartel and price fix. One major problem is that the successful ones uses price fix intermediate goods, and it is harder to spot the cartel forcing up a price by 3 cents on thousands of different final goods.

The information simply is not there for the consumer to make decisions on weather to boycott, and more specifically who to boycott.

I agree, this can be a problem, but it's one that is getting easier to do with the internet- it's also why I suggest the use of 3rd parties that provide information, or retailers who limit who they buy from to limit monopolies.

Sure they can, but again, most of the time retails don't have any idea prices are being fixed because they sell the final good.

This is where third party researchers can help. You'll also get whistle blowers who can provide leads.

Companies may also have incentives to try and claim a company is a monopoly when it is not.

Agreed, but you'd also have a similar problem with any government solution.

I sell goods to walmart, they force me to sell to them at only slightly higher than my marginal cost. They are so big I have to have their business. We all agree this is good for consumers, but I claim Walmart is practicing predatory pricing. My point is that information is not always correct, and this causes certain frictions in the market.

You'll always have issues like this, the question is how are they managed.

I disagree with you here a little bit. The laws aren't twisted in favor of anyone. The problem is that Congress flat out exempts certain industries from the law all together. I think this distinction is important.

So you're saying the problem is worse than I'm stating...

Anyway, just a few of my thoughts.

Slutter McGee

Great thread.

 

[Bryan]

I reformulated a better response to this question, breaking the problem down into specific issues with specific axioms for each issue.


Moral Issues
Axiom 1: Having a monopoly does not mean that you have done anything morally wrong, all of your property and clients can be justly acquired.
Axiom 2: Antitrust laws only have value when they are back by forcing others to comply, such as with breaking up a monopoly by taking control over resources.
Axiom 3: It is immoral to apply force against others when they have not done anything wrong.
Axiom 4: Antitrust laws that are not based on addressing immoral actions are immoral as they will require force against others who did nothing wrong.
Axiom 5: As the definition and scope of antitrust laws is not limited to immoral actions they are immoral.

Individual Choice Issues
Axiom 6: While it can be problematic for one company to gain a monopoly on something that does not guarantee they would do things you don’t like.
Axiom 7: Antitrust laws remove your personal choice of what you find acceptable vs. not acceptable and puts it in the hands of the government.

Government Power Issues
Axiom 8: Antitrust laws give more control and power to the government.
Axiom 9: The more power a government has the more likely it will become a target of corruption.
Axiom 10: History and natural law show that the consolation of power will lead to a distortion of that power to favor the politically connected.

Government Spending Issues
Axiom 11: The development of antitrust laws, the monitoring of the market for violations and the prosecution of violators requires government spending unless everyone works for free.
Axiom 12: People do not work for free, thus government spending is required.
Axiom 13: Government spending requires additional revenue either with taxes, fees or fines.
<Deferring discussion on the issues with taxes, fees or fines>
Axiom 14: Government taxes and fees remove money from the free market.

Free Market Alternative
Axiom 15: The free market offers solutions that can stop undesirable behavior with the use of boycotts and bad public relations. Consumers with limited time can rely on third party research firms for important information or shop at retailors who purchase based on acceptable behavior policies by a company.

Conclusion
Free market solutions (Axiom 15) are superior to government solutions which are immoral (Axiom 5), reduce your choice (Axiom 7) and can actually make market matters worse (Axiom 10 and 14).

Additional considerations could analyze the cost on the market to deal with antitrust laws and how companies unnecessarily distort themselves to adhere to the laws.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm talking about the cable required to have 10,000, or a million, or a billion, or 10^80 companies provide infrastructure for a city - this is admittedly ridiculous, and isn't meant as a serious suggestion, but rather to show the inevitability of the impending collision between the "corporate right" to access a particular market (in this case the hypothetical electricity market) and the "individual right" to preclude more of their property being taken via the use of eminent domain

I was merely trying to keep this in the realm of what you would see as "the real world" by avoiding changing anything else in society. In my explanation of how a free market in electricity could work (and has!) governments are still robbing and slaughtering and everything is still as it is in that regard, except for one change that there is now a free market in electricity. Now that is a relatively free market -- the electric companies and customers are still paying taxes and toeing lines and doing all the things good little citizens should do. It's just that there's free entrance and free competition in the industry. Anyone can start a cable-laying company and run cable.

So, what is your problem with this proposal? It seems to be this: eminent domain exists. Now I am opposed to eminent domain. However, assuming eminent domain continues, would there really be a problem?

Answer: no. Are there going to be a million or a billion or 10^80 companies all wanting to run cable through your backyard? No, Mr. Tansill, there obviously are not. You know that's an absurd propisition and are just using it to make a point. But what is the point exactly? You're mixing the absurd and the realistic, claiming to be interested in grounded, hard-nosed reality, but then making your conclusions based on a fantastical, imaginary, impossible scenario. That seems confused. Let's stick with one or the other, and of the two, I say let's just stick with the practical and realistic.

So, forget about 10^80. What would a free market in electrical distribution actually look like? There would be multiple companies. In some places, there may be two or three separate physical copper cables going to each home. In other places, there may be only one. In some places there will be, as today, none at all. Did you know that? If you buy 40 acres of unimproved land, you may have to pay upwards of $20,000, $40,000, even $100,000, to get the electrical company to run a line out to your place. Under my system, instead of having to deal with "the" electric company, you'll have your choice of who you want to run the line. Perhaps you'll even run your own to the nearest node, retaining ownership of the line yourself and keeping your options open to connect it at the node to whatever network you choose. After all, if you're paying for it anyway, why shouldn't you own it?

Anyway, that's in rural areas. In more developed populated places, lines already exist. Generally, each home right now has running to it twisted pair copper line (for phone), higher gauge non-twisted copper line (for power), and coaxial line (for television), one of each. All three of these could, in theory, carry electricity, by the way. When the market is opened up, that is the base-point it will be starting from. There may be one or two entrepreneurs in town that then are excited about building an electrical distribution company who will then start laying lines to certain neighborhoods where they think or know there is a demand. It may work something like this:

https://fiber.google.com/cities/provo/how/

In all likelihood, these new entrepreneurs will likely pair data and other advanced services with the raw electricity, since as long as you're going to the expense of digging a trench, why not fill it up with as much unique value proposition as possible? Plus, entrepreneurs tend to be innovative people. No one's going to get excited about, "Hey, let's go to all the effort to start a new company to compete with Neanderthal Power and Light by being exactly like Neanderthal Power and Light!" They will come up with ideas and fusions and innovations I can't even predict.

In any case, there might be two such people. There might be five. There might be none. It just depends on what entrepreneurs you have in your town, and whether they can get excited about electricity distribution or something to do with it. They might dig a few trenches along your property line in the back of your backyard or wherever the existing cables lie. Not a big deal. Not going to cause any problem. There is not going to be some sort of trenching Apocalypse, destroying humanity with 10^80th cables upsetting the Earth's gravitational field or something.

Can we agree? Realistically, not going to be a problem.

Also, eminent domain is absolutely not necessary to such a market. Do you think Google Fiber needs eminent domain? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! People would crawl over nails to sign the contracts and give permission to make their entire yard a gaping crater for the next hundred years in order to get this service.

And so your core objection:

So the CORE reason I see that these companies NEED to be regulated is because their business model required and is enabled by the application of eminent domain - their businesses could not function without the application of that concept, and therefore is why I think they need to be regulated.

...I think is false.

But even if it were true, just because companies use eminent domain (whether "required" by realities or not), it does not then follow that because of that we must forever be stuck under a state-granted or state-run (depending on your locality) forcible monopoly system. That does not follow. Even if the eminent domain system remains exactly as it is, we do not need a monopoly. We absolutely can have competition in electrical provision. It's very realistic and practical. It's very doable. And it would be a great improvement.

There is simply no excuse left not to do it.

 

[Mr Tansill]

At this point, I think we just disagree.

I was using the electricity example as a demonstration to show that at some point, there will be a time where other people's property rights have to be overruled in order to make way for corporate access to a market OR the government will be forced to restrict access to that market. It wasn't meant as a realistic scenario, and I even tried to make that clear by explicitly identifying it's purpose. Sometimes people draft arguments like that to examine the consequence of universalizing a principle. You used it as a launching point to create a scenario with a forest of details I really couldn't follow.

In either case, it was merely meant to explain my thought process behind my position that these companies should have restrictions placed on them because of the reality in which they were created, and through which they have the privilege of operating. In my view, that core, enabling feature they could not, and cannot exist without, is the application (or previous application) of eminent domain. It's my position that easements on property, while I think are necessary, are also attended by special responsibilities - namely, that the corporations who get to profit by having a government imposed right-of-way through someone's backyard in order to conduct business, don't have the right to exploit that necessary monopoly.

Here's my favorite video on the subject:

 

[osan]

At this point, I think we just disagree.

I was using the electricity example as a demonstration to show that at some point, there will be a time where other people's property rights have to be overruled in order to make way for corporate access to a market OR the government will be forced to restrict access to that market. It wasn't meant as a realistic scenario, and I even tried to make that clear by explicitly identifying it's purpose. Sometimes people draft arguments like that to examine the consequence of universalizing a principle. You used it as a launching point to create a scenario with a forest of details I really couldn't follow.

In either case, it was merely meant to explain my thought process behind my position that these companies should have restrictions placed on them because of the reality in which they were created, and through which they have the privilege of operating. In my view, that core, enabling feature they could not, and cannot exist without, is the application (or previous application) of eminent domain. It's my position that easements on property, while I think are necessary, are also attended by special responsibilities - namely, that the corporations who get to profit by having a government imposed right-of-way through someone's backyard in order to conduct business, don't have the right to exploit that necessary monopoly.

Here's my favorite video on the subject:

Perhaps this is closer to the truth:

This, closer still:

 

[helmuth_hubener]

At this point, I think we just disagree.

Maybe. More likely, you don't exactly understand what I'm talking about. As you put it:

You used it as a launching point to create a scenario with a forest of details I really couldn't follow.

My unsolicited advice: If you are going to try to use technological arguments to justify your politisophical prejudices, you should try to actually understand the technology. That is all.

Let me one more time explain,... no, let me sum up:

Mr. Tansill point, one and only: These jerks only exist at all and rake in the dough because of eminent domain. Because of that, the gov't goons should make (very reasonable, moderate, helpful, and pro-public, of course) regulations kindly guiding the jerks by the hand and preventing them from being quite so jerky. Is that a fair summary?

Helmuth's line of defense number one: Core assertion is false. Electrical, and what you apparently really want to talk about: internet, services have been provided in the past with no eminent domain. None! Internet is even today widely provided with no eminent domain involved. None! No eminent domain! Eminent domain is not a necessary prerequisite for the existence of these industries. Period. The single leg your argument was standing on is thus cut off.

Helmuth's line of defense number two: Let's temporarily rivet your leg back on, though, just for fun. If eminent domain were necessary for these industries, it in no way follows that because of that the industries would need to be run on a closed, barred-and-gated monopoly model. It absolutely does not follow. The two statements are unconnected. "Because eminent domain, therefore gov't-regulated monopoly" is not a logical statement.

Let's have free entry. Let's have free competition. And let's have freedom! Do we disagree about that, Mr. T?

 

[ClydeCoulter]

At this point, I think we just disagree.

I was using the electricity example as a demonstration to show that at some point, there will be a time where other people's property rights have to be overruled in order to make way for corporate access to a market OR the government will be forced to restrict access to that market. It wasn't meant as a realistic scenario, and I even tried to make that clear by explicitly identifying it's purpose. Sometimes people draft arguments like that to examine the consequence of universalizing a principle. You used it as a launching point to create a scenario with a forest of details I really couldn't follow.

In either case, it was merely meant to explain my thought process behind my position that these companies should have restrictions placed on them because of the reality in which they were created, and through which they have the privilege of operating. In my view, that core, enabling feature they could not, and cannot exist without, is the application (or previous application) of eminent domain. It's my position that easements on property, while I think are necessary, are also attended by special responsibilities - namely, that the corporations who get to profit by having a government imposed right-of-way through someone's backyard in order to conduct business, don't have the right to exploit that necessary monopoly.

Here's my favorite video on the subject:

The comparison to delivery of more packages to delivery of lots of data being profitable is comparing oranges to rotten apples.

Building larger pipelines to push greater amounts of data doesn't increase profit (but eats it) without raising rates. But, delivering more packages does increase the profits of UPS and other carriers.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Moral Issues
Axiom 1: Having a monopoly does not mean that you have done anything morally wrong, all of your property and clients can be justly acquired.
Axiom 2: Antitrust laws only have value when they are back by forcing others to comply, such as with breaking up a monopoly by taking control over resources.
Axiom 3: It is immoral to apply force against others when they have not done anything wrong.
Axiom 4: Antitrust laws that are not based on addressing immoral actions are immoral as they will require force against others who did nothing wrong.
Axiom 5: As the definition and scope of antitrust laws is not limited to immoral actions they are immoral.

Individual Choice Issues
Axiom 6: While it can be problematic for one company to gain a monopoly on something that does not guarantee they would do things you don’t like.
Axiom 7: Antitrust laws remove your personal choice of what you find acceptable vs. not acceptable and puts it in the hands of the government.

Government Power Issues
Axiom 8: Antitrust laws give more control and power to the government.
Axiom 9: The more power a government has the more likely it will become a target of corruption.
Axiom 10: History and natural law show that the consolation of power will lead to a distortion of that power to favor the politically connected.

Government Spending Issues
Axiom 11: The development of antitrust laws, the monitoring of the market for violations and the prosecution of violators requires government spending unless everyone works for free.
Axiom 12: People do not work for free, thus government spending is required.
Axiom 13: Government spending requires additional revenue either with taxes, fees or fines.
<Deferring discussion on the issues with taxes, fees or fines>
Axiom 14: Government taxes and fees remove money from the free market.

Free Market Alternative
Axiom 15: The free market offers solutions that can stop undesirable behavior with the use of boycotts and bad public relations. Consumers with limited time can rely on third party research firms for important information or shop at retailors who purchase based on acceptable behavior policies by a company.

Conclusion
Free market solutions (Axiom 15) are superior to government solutions which are immoral (Axiom 5), reduce your choice (Axiom 7) and can actually make market matters worse (Axiom 10 and 14).

Additional considerations could analyze the cost on the market to deal with antitrust laws and how companies unnecessarily distort themselves to adhere to the laws.

That sums it up! To be strictly accurate, libertarian-wise, rather than "morally wrong," "done anything wrong," and "immoral actions" I would say instead aggressive actions. Whether or not an action is moral isn't really the point. In fact, it's irrelevant. Likewise, whether or not an action "harms" anyone (osan's criterium) is irrelevant. What is relevant is: did the actor aggress?

I can set up a Big Scary Consulting Company and conspire to keep little guys like osan out of the consulting business all I want. That is not an act of aggression. It's not a tort. It's not anything. It's a business decision I am well within my rights to make. It won't work, but I can do it 'til the cows come home.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I reformulated a better response to this question, breaking the problem down into specific issues with specific axioms for each issue.


Moral Issues
Axiom 1: Having a monopoly does not mean that you have done anything morally wrong, all of your property and clients can be justly acquired.
Axiom 2: Antitrust laws only have value when they are back by forcing others to comply, such as with breaking up a monopoly by taking control over resources.
Axiom 3: It is immoral to apply force against others when they have not done anything wrong.
Axiom 4: Antitrust laws that are not based on addressing immoral actions are immoral as they will require force against others who did nothing wrong.
Axiom 5: As the definition and scope of antitrust laws is not limited to immoral actions they are immoral.

Individual Choice Issues
Axiom 6: While it can be problematic for one company to gain a monopoly on something that does not guarantee they would do things you don’t like.
Axiom 7: Antitrust laws remove your personal choice of what you find acceptable vs. not acceptable and puts it in the hands of the government.

Government Power Issues
Axiom 8: Antitrust laws give more control and power to the government.
Axiom 9: The more power a government has the more likely it will become a target of corruption.
Axiom 10: History and natural law show that the consolation of power will lead to a distortion of that power to favor the politically connected.

Government Spending Issues
Axiom 11: The development of antitrust laws, the monitoring of the market for violations and the prosecution of violators requires government spending unless everyone works for free.
Axiom 12: People do not work for free, thus government spending is required.
Axiom 13: Government spending requires additional revenue either with taxes, fees or fines.
<Deferring discussion on the issues with taxes, fees or fines>
Axiom 14: Government taxes and fees remove money from the free market.

Free Market Alternative
Axiom 15: The free market offers solutions that can stop undesirable behavior with the use of boycotts and bad public relations. Consumers with limited time can rely on third party research firms for important information or shop at retailors who purchase based on acceptable behavior policies by a company.

Conclusion
Free market solutions (Axiom 15) are superior to government solutions which are immoral (Axiom 5), reduce your choice (Axiom 7) and can actually make market matters worse (Axiom 10 and 14).

Additional considerations could analyze the cost on the market to deal with antitrust laws and how companies unnecessarily distort themselves to adhere to the laws.

This.

Simply put, the supposed benefit gained is at the cost of the many. Any appreciable 'order' or 'fairness' gained is subtracted, one, from the relative freedom we all enjoy (as governments who are authorized by the people to infringe on rights to do 'A', 'B', or 'C', will necessarily do 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D'), and two, it is subtracted by what they take in the first damn place!

So someone might temporarily try to fix the price in a given sector (absent government declaration and protection) by a few cents on a thousand different products (as incredible as that sounds). Well naturally the solution is to take a few dollars (probably a lot closer to ten or twenty dollars) from every one.

It's good that people notice a problem in whatever degree they do but trying to fix the problem by preemptively creating the problem is not the answer. Clearly it cannot be.

 

[Mr Tansill]

Maybe. More likely, you don't exactly understand what I'm talking about. As you put it:



My unsolicited advice: If you are going to try to use technological arguments to justify your politisophical prejudices, you should try to actually understand the technology. That is all.

Let me one more time explain,... no, let me sum up:

Mr. Tansill point, one and only: These jerks only exist at all and rake in the dough because of eminent domain. Because of that, the gov't goons should make (very reasonable, moderate, helpful, and pro-public, of course) regulations kindly guiding the jerks by the hand and preventing them from being quite so jerky. Is that a fair summary?

Helmuth's line of defense number one: Core assertion is false. Electrical, and what you apparently really want to talk about: internet, services have been provided in the past with no eminent domain. None! Internet is even today widely provided with no eminent domain involved. None! No eminent domain! Eminent domain is not a necessary prerequisite for the existence of these industries. Period. The single leg your argument was standing on is thus cut off.

Helmuth's line of defense number two: Let's temporarily rivet your leg back on, though, just for fun. If eminent domain were necessary for these industries, it in no way follows that because of that the industries would need to be run on a closed, barred-and-gated monopoly model. It absolutely does not follow. The two statements are unconnected. "Because eminent domain, therefore gov't-regulated monopoly" is not a logical statement.

Let's have free entry. Let's have free competition. And let's have freedom! Do we disagree about that, Mr. T?

No, we don't disagree about freedom. Your assertion that the internet is not enabled by eminent domain is just that: an assertion of the opposing claim, and doesn't actually address the argument, or prove anything different. At best, it represents the fact that one of us is incorrect about the truth of that statement.

How exactly do you propose we have free competition? Should X ISP be forced to allow bits from a website that doesn't pay a fee to travel along their pipes? Not if that company accesses others' private property to deliver their service. But they don't, and that's our disagreement. I say that the internet is enabled by eminent domain (or has been previously) - you say it hasn't. That's the core difference here. Now, I ask this: Would a local government allow an individual to cut cables traveling on or over an individual's property who decided they no longer wanted them there? No they wouldn't. If you think they would, then so be it - I guess in that universe eminent domain is not required - though I think folks' internet connection will be pretty slow...

To your second point - again, we just purely disagree, because I think we both understand the terms we are talking about, though I am going to clarify my point to be sure: I don't think that a government monopoly necessarily follows from eminent domain. What necessarily follows is government regulation of that corporation (or corporations) that benefited from those laws. Now, if that's what you think, then I am in complete polar disagreement - allowing a corporation the benefit of the strong arm of the government to establish access to a market (or provide a service, or whatever) without "attaching strings" is allowing corporations the power of the government without the accountability.

I'm all for free competition, but I'm not sure what that looks like with the way the infrastructure of the internet is set up.

Another way to view the situation is this:

1. ISPs advertise a certain speed at which their internet will work (i.e. 5 MB/s, 10 MB/s, etc.).
2. ISPs terms do not include caveats that those speeds only work on a subset of the internet.
3. When ISPs begin to throttle access based on content, they are violating the terms of the contract they have established with their customers.

This situation, IMO, requires government intervention to ensure compliance with contractual obligations.

 

[Mr Tansill]

The comparison to delivery of more packages to delivery of lots of data being profitable is comparing oranges to rotten apples.

Building larger pipelines to push greater amounts of data doesn't increase profit (but eats it) without raising rates. But, delivering more packages does increase the profits of UPS and other carriers.

Clyde, thanks for watching that video - I think you're incorrect though. I've seen this argument before regarding "amounts" of data vs. "rate" of data, as if there was a difference, so I'm glad to actually have a chance to address it.

1. Companies provide internet connections based on the "rate" of a connection - like 5 MB/s, 10 MB/s, etc. Here are a couple of examples for reference: http://www.comcast.com/internet-service.html and http://www.verizon.com/home/highspeedinternet/.

2. There are a fixed number of seconds in an hour, day, and month (varies...). This happens to be 60 * 60 * 24 * ~30 = ~ 2.6 million seconds/month.
2a) 5 MB/s connection is equivalent to ~13 TB/month.
2b) 25 MB/s connection is equivalent to ~ 65 TB/month.
2c) 28.8 KB/s connection is equivalent to ~ 75 GB/month.

3. Accessing a larger amount of data per month is indistinguishable from having a faster connection speed. The only reason companies advertise using their current "terminology" is because people understand what you can do with a 25 MB/s connection vs a 28.8 kbps connection. They could just as easily offer the "caps" above, and there would be no difference.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

No, we don't disagree about freedom.

I don't think that a government monopoly necessarily follows from eminent domain. What necessarily follows is government regulation of that corporation (or corporations) that benefited from those laws.

I'm all for free competition, but I'm not sure what that looks like with the way the infrastructure of the internet is set up.

So it sounds like we could both agree to a plan that would do two things:

1. Eliminate eminent domain, and
2. Declare a free market with free entry and free competition.

Is that correct?

 

[Mr Tansill]

So it sounds like we could both agree to a plan that would do two things:

1. Eliminate eminent domain, and
2. Declare a free market with free entry and free competition.

Is that correct?

100% correct.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

100% correct.

Well, let's toast to that, then!

I do definitely see your point that "with great power comes great responsibility," as applied here: "with large gov't-granted crony privileges come large reels of red tape." You live by the sword, you die by the sword. You take the gov't goodies, don't be too surprised there's strings attached.

There are many ISPs, however, that do not use eminent domain directly, that build their networks on already-existing copper and fiber. They work with telcos, or other players from whom one buys bandwidth like Level3, do peering and aggregation and... well, all kinds of technical and complicated things. But no filing of eminent domain requests.

There are also whole important distribution methods of the internet that have no eminent domain whatsoever, notably the cell phone towers that stream you your internet with no trenches, no easements, no eminent domain. Just waves in the air.

 

[Slutter McGee]

All of the micro economic models and their attendant calculations I was taught do very much indeed take innovation into account, which is expressed as part of the cost function.



I don't think the derivative of 1-Q**2 = 1-2Q. Rather, it is simply 2Q. Constants have no derivative. That is why when you are integrating f(x) over some interval, the result includes a constant, usu. denoted 'C', which is more or less the y-offset of the function.



But they always do "bad" things, if they are not regulated otherwise. But the regulation also is a bad thing. Therefore, for my money monopolies are generally deleterious to the economy. I do not advocate banning by force, but do object to state-granted privilege of monopoly.



The deadweight losses to the consumer cannot be avoided without regulation when we are talking of a monopoly operating in its rational self-interest. In this respect, the only thing innovation does is reduce the value of the cost function. But cost remains and the rationally operated monopoly will still operate as a detriment to consumers. The monopoly, if rational, is not going to operate as if there was competition. If they do behave, then they are not rational. It is a simple matter of definitions.




I thought it was fairly clear. Proper accountability for one's actions v. the nonsense that is enforced by "law" would result in a happier, saner world. We now employ force against people for non-criminal acts. Guy buys a hooker and ends up in jail. Lady lights a joint, jail. Fail to pay taxes - jail. And so forth.



One either has free markets or has something else. If costs are such a hazard, then perhaps there is no actual and free market for the product or service in question. If there is a real market, customers will accept the costs. It is as simple as that. BTW, the BI case, as well as others such as Socony and Applalachian coal, are absolute cluster copulations WRT price fixing, with all manner of nonsense about the rules not applying literally.



No. Anti-trust laws are superfluous - redundant, and in the case of real US antitrust, not to be... erm... trusted.

If that is the case then I might agree especially with Price fixing issues. This is something that may not be evident at all to the consumer without these laws.





Your point is well taken, but I would maintain that tort is the answer. That tort may place a burden upon juries... well, tough poo. But I certainly get your point and understand that such a situation could lead to all manner of miscarriages of just equity verdicts and rulings. But the question then arises: would specific and presumably competent anti-trust law fix this potential problem? It just appears to me that in this case anti-trust law would constitute a very narrow and deep branch of tort law, put in place because of the great technical difficulties such cases may at times present.

The better solution, in my eyes, is to remove all restrictions on monopolies and oligopolies. Let them collude all they want, but under certain conditions. Firstly they cannot conspire to bar competition. Secondly, there would be no more state-endowed privileges of monopoly. Power companies and the sort would be stuck with "perfect" competition. If you can maintain your monopoly, then goody for you. But if you cannot, do not look to government to pull your bacon from the fire. With this, all rights of way become public domain and must be shared.... utility and phone poles, for example. That could get messy, but if the problems become bad enough, let the players innovate their ways out of them. That is the right way to do things. The current way is lazy or it is the result of wanting something for nothing - like guaranteed market.





We have all the mechanisms we need - we just need to use them properly. If I design the Ford Pinto and market it knowing that in certain types of impacts the gas tank will explode and the passengers turned to crispy critters, I am CRIMINALLY liable for such death and injury. The excuse Ford officials made about the $11 additional cost for putting in a proper tank should cut no mustard and, in fact, should serve as proof of criminality. Those responsible should see prison time and the company required to pay for what they have done.

If indeed the cost increase would have eaten heavily into the market for the Pinto, then perhaps Ford would have been well served to re-examine that market and possibly decide that it simply did not pay to go there.

Most of these issues really do boil down to simple answers. What complicates things most are the conflicting interests. Ford wanted the extra market share and were willing to see a certain number of their customers burn to death or be horribly maimed by their failed products in order to get it. I would call that malice aforethought. They knew, they did anyway... what part of that is not felonious and deserving of a life sentence?

Had they not known and could not have reasonably become aware, they would then only be liable for the tort in $-terms. Had they now known and should have known as per the reasonable man standard, perhaps a lighter criminal sentence would be in order.

The point is that the mechanisms are there. Congress and other legislatures are far too fond of complicating things with endless pages of redundant, conflicting, and outright stupid statutory enactments.

If you don't know how to take a partial derivative then I have no idea what else I can say.

Slutter McGee

 

[osan]

If you don't know how to take a partial derivative then I have no idea what else I can say.

Slutter McGee

Nowhere in your post did you specify a partial derivative. However, given they relate to multivariate functions, does the idea even have meaning in the world of single-variables? I don't see it, but that means nothing. That was a single-variable function, was it not?

 

[Slutter McGee]

Nowhere in your post did you specify a partial derivative. However, given they relate to multivariate functions, does the idea even have meaning in the world of single-variables? I don't see it, but that means nothing. That was a single-variable function, was it not?

MR=MC. learn to calculate MR. It is not difficult. Twice the slope for a monopoly or you can take the partial derivative of the total revenue. I am done. Done seeing how posting relatively simple math in this thread is going to help no one.

Good Luck Yall,