[tylerdurden]

Some of my previous writings in this forum about antitrust:

[ QUOTE ]
Antitrust laws invariably harm consumers.

They are not used against monopolies, because monopolies derrive their market dominance from government protection in the first place. Instead, they punish firms that achieve market dominance through successful competition. The elimination of competitors is not the same as the elimination of competition (only government itself can achieve that).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The theory of natural monopolies was developed (by interventionist economists) well after such monopolies were granted (for political reasons). The theory was then used to retroactively justify the government intervention.

The theory's suggestions are not bourne out by historical fact, either. There is no evidence that any firm has ever achieved long-term efficiency gains by being the only player in a given market. To the contrary, deregulation consistently brings more efficiency and lower prices to consumers.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Since monopolies only occur when government licenses them, there is no need for anti-monopoly legislation, as long as the government stops creating them.

Antitrust legislation has never, ever, ever been used against a company that "became" a monopoly on its own. They have been used as a club to bludgeon companies that competed successfully and ran a lot of competitors out of business - but a lack of competitors does not mean that competition is being hindered.

[/ QUOTE ]