The Truth About Monopolies and Anti-Trust Laws

[ffrank345]

I agree with most of what this guy had said. I've also seen it said many times before... except the other times, it wasnt this boring.

[dmh724]

The Robber Barron's were also helped out by government by creating barriers to entry.

[AussieAustrianBlog]

@dmh724 Some. Your statement is a gross generalisation.

[Thentox]

what about tesco?

[666or999]

@Thentox What about it?

[Firestryke2]

As a gcc college student, this kicks some major ass...

[TurdFergisson]

Wait, so Alcoa lost its monopoly how??? US anti trust litigation. That is how.

It's unrealistic to say that monopolies, strategic behavior, tacit collusion, etc, do not occur without government interference.

I agree with your point, but it is anti-factual to claim there aren't market inefficiencies that occur in the free market. 

[june372]

@TurdFergisson We are not saying that there are not market inefficiencies. However, there are not and never have been market-created and -maintained monopolies. Also, if Alcoa was offering better prices to create a monopoly, what is bad about that? The government seems to find competitive pricing "anti-competitive" or "predatory".

[XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX]

@june372 I would love to agree with you but what about Standard oil? It had to be broken into various subsidiaries by congress, John D Rockefeller had no government ordained help (at least to my knowledge).

[ReasonAndLiberty]

@XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX You've made my day. I've done extensive research on this and have summarized my findings on the Mises Wiki article (I tried to cite all of my claims):

wiki.mises.org/wiki/Standard_O­il

Do note that they DID get government help through high tariffs and patent monopolies.

[ReasonAndLiberty]

@XpEAnUTBuTtERsUckSX For some reason, my link doesn't work. Just go to the link and search "standard oil" on the wiki and you'll find it.

If you'd like, I have info on AT&T and utility companies as well :)

[ReasonAndLiberty]

@june372 "evil monopolies", that is :)

[TurdFergisson]

@june372 "The government seems to find competitive pricing 'anti-competitive' or 'predatory'."

Monopolistic pricing schemes are by definition not competitive, and calling non-competitive pricing "competitive" (your words) just doesn't make a lot of sense.

When monopolies set prices above the competitive market-clearing price (ie above the theoretical point where marginal revenue equals marginal cost) there is deadweight loss, also known as social inefficiency.

[TurdFergisson]

@june372 Look, I am a Libertarian here, I just get annoyed by the common argument that monopolies don't exist outside of government license. It's a bad argument, not supported by empirical data, and not supported by economic theory. To write off monopoly as a government creation without real implications in a pure exchange system is just bad economics.

[dibaterman]

@TurdFergisson

In a market without government, if a monopoly does occur such as with the Bell Companies it tends to be that they provide a cheap service for consumers that negates competition. This isn't because of any criminal act, it's that consumers just don't see the value of buying something else. This isn't a bad thing, we people aren't stupid, if we don't like something we get something we do like for the price we want it at.

[kasyapa]

Thank you. The economic destruction must end.

[Avidcomp]

John Gault where are you? Tell me where and when... I'm ready to leave

[dtmoura]

Good video, but please burn that shirt!



[Bseriesxlp]

@dtmoura: I think it is a nice shirt.... He knows how to combine it.