Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
It's a matter of economic theory and philosophy. In general, the free market economic theory holds that over time the only way a monopoly can survive is with the aid of the government. Thus, anti-trust isn't really needed as long as the government stays out of the picture.
To take the example of the ebook case. If the major publishers get together and set a price for ebooks, then over time, consumers will buy from cheaper authors and publishing companies. The big 5 can not enforce a price point one other entities. The same goes for agency pricing. The big 5 can insist on agency pricing, but if other publishers and independent authors are willing to allow the ebook store to set the price, then customers will tend to buy more of the cheaper books over time. In both cases, there is no need for anti-trust acts since any attempt to fix prices, or control supplies tends to fail over time.
|
In practice, government never stays out of the picture, as part of the excess profits (the purpose of a monopoly is to set prices at the maximum profit point, which cannot be reached in a truly competitive marketplace) is used to purchase favorable practices from government. It is immaterial whether it is a bribe, campaign contributions, or business to a company that the government member(s) have ties to.
You could even argue that patent, trademark, and copyright are government involvement in creating a monopoly, and should be abolished by free market economic theory...