Ron Paul on Anti-Trust Laws

[homeboyjase]

Someone told me that Ron Paul opposes anti-trust laws. I searched and didn't really find much other than second-hand information. What is his stance on them?

 

[nickcoons]

He opposes them at the federal level; they are unconstitutional.

I've heard people argue that under a Ron Paul presidency, corporate greed would be allowed to run rampant. That, of course, is not true as anyone who understands the free market knows. And the easy argument here is; if Ron Paul's policies would allow corporations to run wild, then why aren't the largest corporations (ABC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc) his biggest cheerleaders?

The answer here is pretty simple. Big corporations favor a highly regulated system, because it keeps competition from entering the market.

 

[Brutus]

nickcoons -- he shoots, he SCORES!

The existing players in a market LOVE to be regulated because it tends to cement in place the status quo. It also takes power out of the hands of the consumer and gives it to the bureaucrat or elected politician, who is generally much cheaper to appease.

That is why you often get rich people to support socialism. They can buy protection from politicians cheaper than they can satisfy their customers.

 

[Brutus]

Let me amend that -- the existing players LOVE regulation at the BEGINNING of the process. When the regulation makes the players unable to adjust to market demands or realities which aren't similarly regulated, then they squeal like stuck pigs.

Nothing in the above statement should be taken to be derogatory of porcine americans.

 

[danberkeley]

anti-trust laws are laws that break up monopolies and near-monopolies that, coincidentally, were made monopolies by government intervention. these laws are unessescary in a true free-market economy.

 

[Tom228]

Anti-trust laws are Constitutional. Congress has the right to regulate, anti-trust laws just happen to be a type of regulation.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

 

[Zarxrax]

I have been interested in this and other monetary topics as well, so I just purchased Ron Paul's new book, which is also available online for free. I just scanned through the online version, and while it doesn't appear to contain much discussion on the topic of monopolies, I did find this excerpt:

"The American people historically have been very
much opposed to all monopolies. The one thing that generally is
not known is that monopolies only occur with government sup-
port. There is no such thing as a free market monopoly. As long as
there is free entry into the market, a true monopoly cannot exist. "

http://www.mises.org/studyguide.aspx?action=author&Id=392

 

[danberkeley]

And let me guess, there has never been a true free market anywhere on Earth?

This sounds suspiciously close to the same arguments Communists use when you mention how hard states using their policies have failed.

What? Communists beleive that free markets will fail. Capitalists believe the government will fail in those markets.

 

[danberkeley]

"The American people historically have been very
much opposed to all monopolies. The one thing that generally is
not known is that monopolies only occur with government sup-
port. There is no such thing as a free market monopoly. As long as
there is free entry into the market, a true monopoly cannot exist. "
[/url]

if your skeptical about this qoute, u have to understand the definitions of monopoly, "free entry", and "free market". u cant have a free market with government bail outs.

 

[nickcoons]

Anti-trust laws are Constitutional. Congress has the right to regulate, anti-trust laws just happen to be a type of regulation.

Sorry, this:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

...is not a justification for anti-trust laws. Anti-trust laws break up companies. How does regulating commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, or with Indian tribes have anything to do with breaking up a single company into smaller pieces?

 

[hairball]

You are faced with a Hobson's Choice in Anti-trust. Anyone aware of the history behind some of the early anti-trust laws will know there was excellent reasons for them. Monopolies did exist in a free-market because Govt was bought and paid for by the big trusts, like the Railroads. When the Govt is truly limited and weak, the big trusts own them in ways that wil squelch any competition. Now if you have a Govt strong enough to make sure the free-market operates freely, then there is the danger of the Govt increasing the way they do.

That is why we are told that eternal vigilence is a price we pay for Freedom,because even the so called free-markets can be corrupted by monopolies that do arise. As osme of the oil companies did very early on, hard to have the people see the competition when the oil execs of the day send thugs out to kill them. That was a nifty tool.

That is why you have that portion of the Constitution about regulating commerce. Anti-trust just codified some of the details.

 

[Brutus]

Anti-Trust is by definition a violation of property rights. Government is the only group of people there is no recourse from when they violate your property rights.

You could read "The Myth of the Robber Barons" for a good insight into how this works.

 

[danberkeley]

Monopolies did exist in a free-market because Govt was bought and paid for by the big trusts, like the Railroads.

To reiterate, the free market did not create those monopolies, therefore, they are not free-market monopolies. If anything, those monopolies were created by mercantilism, which, in theory and in practice, is not capitalism.

 

[danberkeley]

Anti-Trust is by definition a violation of property rights. Government is the only group of people there is no recourse from when they violate your property rights.

You could read "The Myth of the Robber Barons" for a good insight into how this works.

Anti-Trust, by definition, in not constitutional at all and neither is it legal under the Articles of Conferderation.

 

[misterbig]

Well lets look at two examples of monopoly behavior:

- Intel placed pressure on integrators by charging them higher prices if they also sold AMD chips.

- Microsoft revoked the Windows resale licenses of sellers who also provided machines with other operating systems installed (such as Linux).

These are clearly anticompetitive behaviors. This is NOT a free market. We need anti-trust legislation. Are the current laws too little or too much? That is arguable. But to think that monopolies don't occur even in a completely free market environment is in my opinion incorrect.

 

[Tom228]

Sorry, this:



...is not a justification for anti-trust laws. Anti-trust laws break up companies. How does regulating commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, or with Indian tribes have anything to do with breaking up a single company into smaller pieces?

I like how you left out this part.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Though I will say, the problem of the Constitution is that, yes it is short and sweet, but vague and subject to mass interpretation. For example, you could take

to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

...and translate that to having the ability to break up monopolies to encourage and allow for more competition, for the welfare of the people. Remember, globalism wasn't really around yet, business competition wise.

 

[nickcoons]

Monopolies did exist in a free-market because Govt was bought and paid for by the big trusts, like the Railroads.

The statement is self-contradictory. Free-markets don't exist when government is bought and paid for, so a "free-market where government is bought and paid for" doesn't exist.

Secondly, governments that are weak are not bought and paid for.. who would bother buying a government that is weak and cannot help the cause of the buyer?

 

[nickcoons]

Well lets look at two examples of monopoly behavior:

- Intel placed pressure on integrators by charging them higher prices if they also sold AMD chips.

And somehow, systems with AMD chips still cost less.

[QUOTE- Microsoft revoked the Windows resale licenses of sellers who also provided machines with other operating systems installed (such as Linux).[/QUOTE]

Since all of the major manufacturers sell both Windows-based and Linux-based systems, I'm going to have to call BS on this claim.

These are clearly anticompetitive behaviors. This is NOT a free market. We need anti-trust legislation.

Intel and Microsoft are not monopolies. Microsoft has a large (shrinking) market share, but they have never had it all. Both of these companies do engage in anticompetitive behavior, but the market (rightfully) punishes them for it. The legislators should not.

 

[nickcoons]

I like how you left out this part.

I didn't leave it out.. it wasn't part of the original message for me to quote.

...and translate that to having the ability to break up monopolies to encourage and allow for more competition, for the welfare of the people.

It might be interpreted that way if it were possible to effectively legislate "more competition," but the free market does that the best. Anti-trust laws may have the good intentions of creating competition, but they don't, and therefore do not provide for the general welfare of the people.

 

[misterbig]

Since all of the major manufacturers sell both Windows-based and Linux-based systems, I'm going to have to call BS on this claim.

From http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0046.htm

Virtually all major PC manufacturers find it necessary to offer Microsoft operating systems on most of their PCs. Microsoft's monopoly power allows it to induce these manu- facturers to enter into anticompetitive, long-term licenses under which they must pay royalties to Microsoft not only when they sell PCs containing Microsoft's operating systems, but also when they sell PCs containing non-Microsoft operating systems.

I agree in my haste to post I muddled the message. Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior was to economically penalize resellers for bundling computers with non Microsoft operating systems (and forcing them to keep the terms of these deals secret). This artificially raises the cost of machines that don't include windows, clearly anti-competitive. This is restraint of trade.