Libertarians, anto-monopoly laws, free trade

[Barnabas]

What do libertarians think of anti-monopoly laws?

Do they see them as bad, because it is the state telling people what they can and cant do with their money, or do they see them as necessary for free trade to exist?

A super huge company with lots of money could pulverize their competition, why must the state get involved to impede that?

Does capitalism naturally leads to monopolies unless the state gets involved to correct that?



I have argued this once, and the other guy who was a libertarians, was against anti-monopoly laws, because he thought the laws were not necessary, a "Bill Gates" could appear, and with his genius destroy a monopoly by doing something revolutionary, but I think a super huge company can buy/use dumping whatever etc to destroy a new competitor which would have far less money and resources.

[Kidlicious]

I'm not a Libertarian, but monopolies are definitely the way for the economy to truly grow in the modern era. Interfering in the economy to increase competition can slow the progression of industries and therefore economic growth. Your Libertarian friend is right when he talks about the way change can make the competition/monopoly argument irrelevent in this day in age.

[VetLegion]

They see them as bad. Libertarianism is not a compromising ideology.

They also see most monopolies actually being a result of collusion of companies and governments.

Does capitalism naturally leads to monopolies unless the state gets involved to correct that?

I think it doesn't. On the other hand, there are such things as natural monopolies (water, gas, most utilities) which do occur, but they're not a flaw of capitalism as such.

[VetLegion]

A super huge company with lots of money could pulverize their competition, why must the state get involved to impede that?

In the past, pulverizing the competition included threats, violence, bribing politicians and even murder. Huge companies weren't only seen as threat to market, but also as threat to the very political system. I think that is the main reason.

[Cort Haus]

I remember the EU 'anti-monopoly' campaign against Microsoft on behalf of Netscape many years ago.

The idea, IIRC, was to stop MS bunding Explorer with Windows, a move which would only have harmed the consumer. Poor, plucky ickle Netscape needed protecting against the big bad MS - until Netscape got bought by mighty AOL-Time-Warner. So not-so-ickle Netscape.

More recently, the EU ruled against Sky TV's monopoly of live English Premiership football. Sky's rival Setana was awarded a slice of the pie. Result - the consumer will have to pay more money to subscribe to two networks instead of one to get the same number of games. Multi-millionaire footballers and their agents get richer. Consumers get poorer.

This left-libertarian is not impressed by state efforts at restricting monopolies.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm not a Libertarian, but monopolies are definitely the way for the economy to truly grow in the modern era. Interfering in the economy to increase competition can slow the progression of industries and therefore economic growth. Your Libertarian friend is right when he talks about the way change can make the competition/monopoly argument irrelevent in this day in age.

wtf Kid?

[chequita guevara]

Libertarians are opposed to any interference by the state in the market. Anti-monopoly laws are out. A libertarian would tell you that if a monopoly restricted free trade, some enterprising entrepreneur would figure out a way to bring a similar product to the market for less or with better quality.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Poor, plucky ickle Netscape needed protecting against the big bad MS - until Netscape got bought by mighty AOL-Time-Warner. So not-so-ickle Netscape.

By then the damage had been done. The case really wasn't about browsers. Netscape had been giving its product away free for years. The real issue was servers, and whomever controlled the browser market controlled the server market. So MS violated its consent decree with the government by using it's predominant OS position to bundle its browser, thus leading to more companies making the decision to purchase MS servers to serve those pages.

[Kuciwalker]

There's also the fact that Netscape was a pile of ****.

[Berzerker]

In the past, pulverizing the competition included threats, violence, bribing politicians and even murder. Huge companies weren't only seen as threat to market, but also as threat to the very political system. I think that is the main reason.

Yup, many "capitalists" dont really believe in capitalism or markets. Introduce the "monopoly" of power or the legal use of force by government and many businesses will try to use the system to gain advantage or outlaw competetitors - thats how industrial hemp was removed from the economy. William Randolph Hearst, Dupont, etc., didn't want to compete with hemp farming so they got it banned with a prohibitive tax. Early on the SCOTUS said Congress cannot use a constitutional power to create unconstitutional powers. A tax designed to eliminate hemp is unconstitutional because hemp was both interstate and intrastate commerce... Ironically Congress used the tax because the courts were not yet sympathetic to letting Congress control intrastate commerce, much less intrastate non-commerce, but the courts might ignore using a tax. Same result...

Libertarians are opposed to any interference by the state in the market.

Views vary, the court system plays a bigger role since this is where disputes are settled, not the legislature. Environmental regulation and pollution obviously present room for government to regulate given the transitory nature of waste. Btw, Kurdistan has a free market economy.

Anti-monopoly laws are out. A libertarian would tell you that if a monopoly restricted free trade, some enterprising entrepreneur would figure out a way to bring a similar product to the market for less or with better quality.

It aint restricting free trade to win more consumers than the competition, but monopolies that do develop still need to satisfy the consumer or face not only competition but the wrath of consumers eager to support alternatives.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
There's also the fact that Netscape was a pile of ****.

Hind sight is 20/20. In 97/98 when it was taking a nose dive, it was still superior to IE. It wasn't until IE5 came out that it really surpassed Netscape.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Yup, many "capitalists" dont really believe in capitalism or markets.

Small surprise there, really.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Environmental regulation and pollution obviously present room for government to regulate given the transitory nature of waste.

You think we wouldn't need environmental regulation if waste weren't transitory?

[Ell_man]

Another reason libertarians don't like anti-trust is that anti-trust enforcers can be just as self interested as private businessmen.

There's government failure as well as market failures. One must compare which world is better: A world with a monopoly and no anti trust OR a world of companies being prosecuted under anti-trust law that is enforced by imperfect people. If the incentives facing the anti-trust regulators are horrible, a private monopoly may be better.

The scary thing about anti-trust, I think, is that most anti trust cases are brought to court by competitors. Only a minority of cases are brought against companies by the actual anti-trust regulators. What better way for a politically powerful company to squash it's competitors than by filing anti-trust suits against them?

Also, anti-trust cases take a long long time to work their way through from start to finish. Sometimes, but the time the case is settled, the market structure changes so that the company who is being accused of huge market share is actually losing market share.

---

Brachy-Pride SAID

"but I think a super huge company can buy/use dumping whatever etc to destroy a new competitor which would have far less money and resources. "

But what prevents new firms from entering the market once the super huge company jacks up prices? Unless the super firm can scare all new competitors away by the threat of predatory pricing, it's not going to work. And all the while the super huge company is using predatory pricing, consumers are benefiting a whole hell of a lot! Giant firms who engage in predatory pricing are losing a whole lot of money, while firms with only 5% market share are losing a lot less.