Tell me if I have this train of thought correct.
So a long time ago there were these large capitalist monopolies and Trusts. These trusts monopolized commodies and large corporations dominated production. These operations were successful because they were able to provide services at low prices. For example Standard Oil. If millions of consumers benefited from these low prices, and entrepenuers reaped the benefits of low cost of capital, than how could anti-trust legislation get passed? We were a democracy so how could such an overwhelming majority of Americans who benefited from the low prices provided from the "Robber Barons" support politicians to break up these trusts? The only explanation is that these trusts were broken up by powerful and well funded special interests who lobbied for the competition.
Does the historical record support this? Was anti trust a result of special interests using the guns of the state to destroy competition?
I don't know much about this, but I always pictured people of the time having the same attitude about Standard Oil as the general populace does about Microsoft today.
All market based attempts to monopolize failed. The Railroad tycoons got the Federal government to regulate the railroads because only the government could provide the cartel that they sought.
You main assumptions, that regulations are bad for business and that regulations come about by demand from "the people", are false.
Anti-Trust laws were first wieldied by Theodore Roosevelt to hurt the competitor, J.P. Morgan, of his boss, John Rockefeller. When Taft, a Morgan ally, used these same laws against Rockefeller TR created the Bullmoose party to get Taft out of the White House and put Rockefeller's man Wilson in.
JonBostwick:The Railroad tycoons got the Federal government to regulate the railroads because only the government could provide the cartel that they sought.
Also remember that, once you have a transporation monopoly, it becomes very easy to acquire other monopolies.
Suppose that the fair cost for shipping oil is $1 and you charge $10. Therefore, your own oil company is at an advantage to your competitors, because the extra $9 flows back to you, but is fully paid by your competitors. In this way, one monopoly leads to other monopolies.
Don't forget the effect of limited liability corporation in producing monopolies.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
fsk:Don't forget the effect of limited liability corporation in producing monopolies.
Which is?
fsk: JonBostwick:The Railroad tycoons got the Federal government to regulate the railroads because only the government could provide the cartel that they sought. Also remember that, once you have a transporation monopoly, it becomes very easy to acquire other monopolies. Suppose that the fair cost for shipping oil is $1 and you charge $10. Therefore, your own oil company is at an advantage to your competitors, because the extra $9 flows back to you, but is fully paid by your competitors. In this way, one monopoly leads to other monopolies. Don't forget the effect of limited liability corporation in producing monopolies.
What is fair cost?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap