1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15536/alan-greenspan-was-right-about-antitrust-anyway/

Alan Greenspan Was Right! (About Antitrust, Anyway)

February 3, 2011 by

Greenspan was right when he concluded that “the entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance” and is the product of “a gross misrepresentation of history.” FULL ARTICLE by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

{ 8 comments }

Stephen Grossman February 3, 2011 at 11:37 am

Capitalism competition increases production. Socialist competition increases equality, decreasing production. Mention Rockefeller and most people will condemn his alleged anti-competitive practices and evade or be ignorant of his dramatic increase in oil production and dramatic decrease in oil prices. Capitalism looks out at reality. Socialism is trapped inside social consciousness, enviously condemning capitalism for its superior production.

Michael A. Clem February 3, 2011 at 1:42 pm

Thank you for mentioning Rockefeller. JDR and Standard Oil did a lot of good for lower-income people, years before anti-trust action was even considered, much less taken. People tend to either not believe it, or assume it’s some kind of counter-intuitive anti-competitive action, i.e., he lowered prices to get rid of the competition.

J. Murray February 3, 2011 at 7:29 pm

Low prices, high wages, and high quality of product is the only way to maintain a monopoly in a free market. And I don’t exactly see how that’s a bad thing.

Name withheld February 3, 2011 at 10:51 pm

No, all it takes is for people to consistently choose some firm’s good over their competition for whatever reasons. People pick the lowest price all things equal but high wages aren’t necessary.

Stephen Grossman February 4, 2011 at 9:32 am

Socialists claim competition is an ideal, not a means, because proper competition is equality for them. They know that their ideal of consistent equality would destroy production so they are Pragmatic. They will arbitrarily break up the most productive firms. Antitrust economists know they have no objective standard. They dont care because their ideal of competitive equality justifies destroying production. Eg, A South Korean car recently won a car magazine’s award for high quality. North Korea exports “recreational” drugs, counterfeit money, nukes to Islamists, and nuke blackmail.

Joe February 3, 2011 at 9:59 pm

Just look at what they did to Alcoa Aluminum. It was a great natural monopoly. Eventually someone would have given them competition but that is the way of the market. Thank God.

Paul Stephens February 5, 2011 at 5:42 pm

It seems to me that the real issue is corporate power, and the enabling (and protecting) rules which corporations have been able to “buy” from judges and legislators.
“Anti-trust” as a term is confusing or ambiguous from the start. “Trusts”, as used in this expression, were the same as cartels. They were “interlocking directorates” creating tremendous monopoly power for every basic industry. It was the precursor of Fascism, and it happened almost as much in the US and other “free market” countries as it did in Italy, Japan, Germany, or Korea. It’s half-way at least to “State Capitalism” – the system which is doing so remarkably in China right now (mainly because we’re so stupid, and they take advantage of us – no doubt in revenge for all the ravages of World War II and the People’s Revolution).
Corporations aren’t people, and they don’t have “rights” to property, free speech, or anything else – except what we, the people and our governments grants to them. Let’s get back to a “human scale” economy, and quit letting corporate gangsters take over.

Rico Boudreau March 22, 2011 at 12:23 pm

Are you planning on giving this course more than once? I find it very interesting but I dont have time right now.

Thanks

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: