Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
Right, I don't disagree.
|
It's your insistence on referring to the agency pricing as 'illegal.' that is making it sound like you are disagreeing when all your explanations seem to say you are not disagreeing.
You say:
Quote:
|
In that case under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act agency pricing would fall under price fixing and be prosecuted as such.
|
but if they had colluded to fix wholesale prices then it would be:
Quote:
|
In that case under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act wholesale pricing would fall under price fixing and be prosecuted as such.
|
and if they had colluded to fixed direct sales prices then it would be:
Quote:
|
In that case under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act direct sales pricing would fall under price fixing and be prosecuted as such.
|
See? The agency pricing element is irrelevant and not at issue, and we can't understand why you insist on saying it's illegal, when you seem to be clearly saying that you understand it is not.
Why are you insisting on using the misleading language?
Quote:
|
Except not everything under this act is being prosecuted.
|
EVERYTHING is never prosecuted under any law. We'd need a court system 1000 times bigger, and how could MORE LAWYERS be good for anyone?
Quote:
See monopolies for example, under the Sherman Act ANY monopoly would be illegal, but not every monopoly will be prosecuted:
[...]
Quote:
|
Although the language of the Sherman Act forbids all monopolies, the courts have held that the act only applies to those monopolies attained through abused or unfair power. Monopolies that have been created through efficient, competitive behavior are not illegal under the Sherman Act, as long as honest methods have been employed.
|
|
You are confusing "
seeming to be illegal by the language of the law" with "proven to be illegal in case law."
(I'm pretty I'm using the term 'case law' correctly here. The lawyers about can correct me if I'm wrong.)
You say "all monopolies are illegal under the act" but then you later quote evidence that states "not all monopolies are illegal under the act."
"Would seem to be illegal" is not the same thing as "is illegal" especially when the courts have already established otherwise. There are LEGAL monopolies.
While it's probably true that even some illegal monopolies go under the courts radar from lack of resources just like with anything else, it says nothing about anything to say that LEGAL monopolies are not prosecuted. That's obvious.
Quote:
|
Now agency pricing has been found to be not illegal.
|
There was never any question that it was, as far as I know.
Quote:
|
then I may reasonably conclude that the courts will only act upon and prosecute harmful behavior to the consumer. Lower prices would not be harmful, imo.
|
You would be mistaken. It's not just the consumer that is protected by these laws, it's the businesses and the market economy as well.
Predatory pricing is an example of when lower prices to the consumer are indeed illegal and prosecuted under these laws.
I just can't happen to think of a situation where collusion to set lower prices across the board would be a realistic scenario.
ApK