Antitrust: Is there really a point?

[Borodog]

Sam,

My apologies if my questions came off as terse or combative. I was just looking for clarification.

[Voltron87]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is this? Why wouldn’t they just sell below cost in an attempt to drive everyone else out of business, and then raise prices to artificially high levels?

[/ QUOTE ]

if they sell below cost and drive everyone out of business then everyone has to shop at walmart

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There may be a difference between violent power and nonviolent power insofar as one is violent, but the difference between market power and political power (I assume what you mean by coercive power) is not all that distinct. Market power can be coercive, dollars can buy votes in congress, politcal favors can buy money. There is another form of currency, it's usually called social capital.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying hot dogs and ice cream cones are the same thing because you can trade one for the other.

You recognize that political power is the problem, but seek to limit market power instead?

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't expressed an opinion as to what should be limited, but, since we're using analogies without too much weight to make points, saying there different is more like saying electricity and magnetism are two seperate forces because they run along different axis.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't expressed an opinion as to what should be limited, but, since we're using analogies without too much weight to make points, saying there different is more like saying electricity and magnetism are two seperate forces because they run along different axis.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, let's just dispense with the BS analogies, then. The difference is that market power is obtained through voluntary, mutually-beneficial transactions and coercive power is obtained through violence (or the threat thereof). Power is not the problem. Coercion is.

If you dislike the fact that people often trade market power for political power, the solution should be obvious. If you discovered that people often trade shiny metal disks for violent favors, would you believe that banning shiny metal disks (or limiting people's ability to use them for trade) will stop the sale of violent favors?

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
Who said that you can't profit from your creation without IP laws? I am just saying that it is unjust to use governmental force as a means of shielding firms from competitors. People have every right to keep their ideas private. If they choose to enter the market with them, however, they should be prepared for competition.

Also, there are numerous advantages to coming up with the idea. Providing the best product, being the first to enter the market, etc... It is called entrepreneurship. You see profit opportunity, acquire capital, produce and profit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm...so the market dissolves property rights? I'm not sure I see the reason of your thinking. I agree that companies should not use governments to shield themselves from competitors, such as using government safety standards to create high barriers of entry. But, I'm confused...are you arguing that corporate espionage is ethical due to a company being in the market? Are you arguing that a company has no right to defend its own ideas and keep others from using them? That doesn't jibe with your argument against using the government...it seems as though you are advocating an expanded public domain. Please explain.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is this? Why wouldn’t they just sell below cost in an attempt to drive everyone else out of business, and then raise prices to artificially high levels?

[/ QUOTE ]

if they sell below cost and drive everyone out of business then everyone has to shop at walmart

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with that, as long as Wal-Mart continues with their low prices. Read point #2 in the OP.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who said that you can't profit from your creation without IP laws? I am just saying that it is unjust to use governmental force as a means of shielding firms from competitors. People have every right to keep their ideas private. If they choose to enter the market with them, however, they should be prepared for competition.

Also, there are numerous advantages to coming up with the idea. Providing the best product, being the first to enter the market, etc... It is called entrepreneurship. You see profit opportunity, acquire capital, produce and profit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm...so the market dissolves property rights? I'm not sure I see the reason of your thinking. I agree that companies should not use governments to shield themselves from competitors, such as using government safety standards to create high barriers of entry. But, I'm confused...are you arguing that corporate espionage is ethical due to a company being in the market? Are you arguing that a company has no right to defend its own ideas and keep others from using them? That doesn't jibe with your argument against using the government...it seems as though you are advocating an expanded public domain. Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ideas are not tangible, therefore they are not property. It is quite simple. I realize that producers lose some incentive to create without IP laws. This is merely because they aren't guaranteed a government-aided monopoly. They will, however, have a greater incentive to produce efficiently, as this is where profits will come from.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]


OK, let's just dispense with the BS analogies, then. The difference is that market power is obtained through voluntary, mutually-beneficial transactions and coercive power is obtained through violence (or the threat thereof). Power is not the problem. Coercion is.

If you dislike the fact that people often trade market power for political power, the solution should be obvious. If you discovered that people often trade shiny metal disks for violent favors, would you believe that banning shiny metal disks (or limiting people's ability to use them for trade) will stop the sale of violent favors?

[/ QUOTE ]

as I said before, I haven't expressed an opinion as to what should be limited... frankly I don't think limiting either would matter much. The purpose of my comments was expansive not argumentative. "Mutually- beneficial transactions" does indeed sound nice. But, this is really where Economic theory shows itself to be an idealization, and quite incomplete. For some reason Economics has received the credibility of a hard science where it really doesn't deserve it. It ought to be considered, just like all of its fellow social sciences, as a young science that deals with a small part of man's manifold nature.

"Governement" "Business" "Not-for Profit Organizations" are the 3 most common means of allocating resources and power. Government and Business cannot opperate without one another. When Businesses opperate without a strong Govenment to hold them in check, you have things like US steal in Gary Indiana or Walmart's exploitation of US workers and the US Federal Government's entitlement programs, or less frequently, the consolidation of power through monopolies. When Governments run amuck you have eastern Europe for most of this past century. Whether you blame the monopolies on the government or on the businesses is largely irrelevant since, either way it is the government not doing it's job, which, in this case, is to limit the power of business. There is a collusion, and both sides are colluding. And the fact that no poster has yet come up with a Monopoly that became a monopoly without the help of a Government doesn't imply that they are the product of governments at all, only that those who have built monopolies know how to use both hands.

The solution to the abuses of business and government in all their kind is not less governemt or less business. It is more transparency and a bigger democratic will. Information + people giving a crap + a willinginess to take action will have the biggest affect on these abuses.

To think that market power, and the private sector in general is based on "voluntary, mutually-benefical transactions" is naive. Read about US Steal and the developement of the EPA.

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
Ideas are not tangible, therefore they are not property. It is quite simple. I realize that producers lose some incentive to create without IP laws. This is merely because they aren't guaranteed a government-aided monopoly. They will, however, have a greater incentive to produce efficiently, as this is where profits will come from.

[/ QUOTE ] Again, I'm confused. Forgive me, but I find it ridiculous to suggest that producers will create ANYTHING due to a desire to produce efficiently. The fact is, people who create things want to be compensated for the fact that they created it. I'm not saying others can't study, from an outsider's point of view, the ideas of the producer...that's how competitors form a lot of the time. But, from your point of view, no idea, theory, or anything else from the mind is anything but public domain.

From that point of view, what's to stop me from doing a note-for-note reconstruction of famous rock songs, recording them, performing them, and calling them my own? After all, there are no IP laws...so who's to say that the original artist wrote it, anyway...and who cares if he did? The song became everyone's when he introduced it to the market.

It seems fun to believe that artists and producers would continue to produce sheerly for the joy of it...and they might...but we would never have any new ideas...because what fool would ever be so stupid as to share one of these ideas?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Government and Business cannot opperate without one another. When Businesses opperate without a strong Govenment to hold them in check, you have things like US steal in Gary Indiana or Walmart's exploitation of US workers and the US Federal Government's entitlement programs, or less frequently, the consolidation of power through monopolies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Monopolies can only be achieved WITH coercive government power.