[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Are you siding with the loser of that battle?

Yes.

the purpose of anti-trust laws to keep consumer prices low? Or is it to preserve competition?

To me, a trick question. Law are passed to gain some advantage to the lawmakers, generally that of re-election, with satisfying big campaign contributors a related consideration. Yes, there also may be a public-spirited aspect. I'm not 100% cynical, just close.

What most of us know is that real predatory pricing is rare.

Let's suppose mine is a minority view. I'd find that a good thing

In transportation, at least, I think predatory pricing is the norm. Those $1 Megabus ads are not for my benefit.

What's rare is to see a gaffe like the Robert Crandall quote in my last post, where the monopolist admits it. Instead you need to look at the symptoms. One symptom is wildly gyrating prices. Like Random House charging OverDrive $25 one day and $100 the next. I don't look at this as proof Random House is evil. I don't think these companies are good or evil, just responding to where they find themselves. My point in mentioning Random House is that if prices for a product are subject to wild gyration, it's the kind of industry with a lot of potential for market-cornering.

We've repeatedly seen Amazon and Walmart and B&N go toe-to-toe in price wars, which means no big player in that industry has or is going to allow themselves to be underpriced.

As someone who reads few best-sellers, WalMart isn't even on my radar here. But I do think we can expect a continuing competitive market in best-sellers.

Maybe WalMart should be on my radar. Their everyday low prices model is the opposite of predatory pricing, and some economists say they keep down US inflation. By contrast, B&N no longer has the financial strength for battles that requires accepting losses.

Predatory pricing is not happening in the book biz, and is unlikely to do so -- especially if agency pricing is upheld.

I don't think agency pricing is going to be upheld.