Slashdot Mirror
Google Was 3 Hours Away From DOJ Antitrust Charges
turnkeylinux writes "Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. called off their joint advertising agreement just three hours before the Department of Justice planned to file antitrust charges to block the pact, according to the lawyer who would have been lead counsel for the government. 'We were going to file the complaint at a certain time during the day,' says Litvack, who rejoins Hogan & Hartson today. 'We told them we were going to file the complaint at that time of day. Three hours before, they told us they were abandoning the agreement.'"
I can't help but think you could make a game of this.
Announce something to get the government's back up, wait until they've done loads and loads of preparation then rip their opportunity from under them just before they get chance.
The only downside is it's a waste of tax payers cash, not that most public sector jobs aren't a waste of tax payers cash anyway though.
The way I see it, two things could happen:
1. Google and Yahoo could partner, leading to a monopoly.
2. Yahoo will go out of business, leading to a monopoly.
There is no way to prevent a monopoly.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Free Market + Government Intervention & Punishment + Taxpayers Dollers = LOLFAILWHALE ECONOMY
Free Market + Government Suggestion & Aid + Taxpayer Dollers = Working Economy
A "hey, we're probably going to have to sue you if you do this" seems equally like "suggestion" to me. This is part of how the contours of what's permissible and what's not get drawn, and companies in the future will look at this and say "Google and Yahoo went this far, but got warned off. To what extent is our deal like that one?"
Any business transaction that Google may try to do will be under scrutiny. They are the: Coke, Kleenex, Jell-O, Sheetrock, Skillsaw, etc... of the internet. A brand name that is also a name for a type of product - a marketer's wet dream.
There's really two sides to the issue. Jerry Yang was being an idiot by not realizing that Yahoo needed to team up with someone else (MS) if they were to continue being competitive. Secondly, Google failed to realize early that teaming up with the second largest PPC advertiser wouldn't draw HUGE notices from anti-monopoly watchers. I personally think that it was a stupid idea of Google to even suggest it. Even though it never went through and they didn't get charges, as a consumer of their products (both as a webmaster and a searcher) I don't want them to become what they have stated they wouldn't - "evil." Thats my two cents.
It's all fun and games till someone divides by 0. Then it's hilarious.
The free market relies on companies not becoming monopolies.
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true
Honestly, if I were Google, I would only be trying to buy Yahoo for Flickr, which seems extremely synergistic with Google's current offerings.
Yahoo's search tech is archaic and inferior, Yahoo's e-mail is not up to par with GMail, and most Yahoo site features are irrelevant and poorly executed on their site.
Both sites have a daily reach of about 30%, maybe they just want to make Yahoo.com redirect straight to Google. That would be good for a laugh and some ad revenue.
Monopolies happen if no one else can compete and is part of the free market system. Yahoo can't compete.
So if Yahoo goes, what happens then? Google's market share will only increase as a result. I don't see the difference here.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
The free market relies on companies not becoming monopolies.
Not quite. The free market relies on companies not *leveraging* their monopolies.
And it isn't like Microsoft doesn't have a dog in the search business.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
This is
Since when did "monopoly" in any given field or industry mean "getting an even larger market share?"
Google is *already* a monopoly if you use this twisted, perverted definition. I can't wait until the left starts arguing that Google is too big, that we need search engine competition, and demands they be broken up for being too good at what they do.
The same people that say a free market needs an X amount of competition (where X is whatever appeals to their gut on that time of the day) betray a free market by limiting success or otherwise interfering with it. What the hell is a "free market" supposed to be if you're just going to knock down the king of the hill eventually? That's *not* a free market, whether you like free markets or not. A free market is a market without government interference, not some mystical "my perfect li'l market" fantasy.
Isn't aid a form of intervention?
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
The free market that is...
It has never existed, and hopefully never will. Its only advantage is doctrinal purity for some economists who don't like dealing with the messiness of the real world. There would be no advantages for any society that implemented it, and significant disadvantages because it has no effective way of managing the many cases where the cost of an action is not borne by those who benefit from the action. Mixed economies are the only pragmatic economies; the real debate is just over what the precise mix should be.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Who was the douche that threw his company under the bus, calling out Yang and saying Yahoo was stupid for not immediately selling out to Microsoft? He didn't care about the future of Yahoo as a company. He wanted a quick payout of his stock. He threw a fit, started a huge fight with the board, made Yahoo look bad, and not only is the future of Yahoo in question, but his own stock has plummeted. Now a Microsoft deal may happen, but for far less. The bitching caused the stockholders to lose their ass, and their company. I say that is a job well done.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Might be to advance the perception of fairness, nobody is immune, let the courts decide, stuff like that.
And actually, in the long run, that may bring out the best. The difference may be subtle, but I see a difference in how Google and Yahoo responded here in comparison to how Microsoft has historically responded to such moves. Google and Yahoo respectfully withdrew once it became certain that they were on a collision course with public authority. I believe the record is abundantly clear that in cases of conflict with public interest, Microsoft, historically, has pushed ahead with its agenda to the fullest extent possible, sometimes (as in the EU antitrust case for example) past the point where legal avenues have been exhausted.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and watch for changes in this distinction, but I'd like to think that in the long run a pattern will become evident in which corporations that play fair are rewarded and those which don't lose the advantage.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
No, the "Free Market" doesn't care one way or another, by its very definition, about monopolies, or fairness, or the rights of consumers, or anything else like that.
Which is why I, and many other people, think that some intervention on the free market is a good thing so that the consumers don't get boned. The discussion then just becomes how much, when and where that intervention happens
- ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
I assume you mean how Bush implemented voluntary pollution control measures in his state and none of the big polluters actually did anything and then continued to benefit from government dollars. Yup...totally a Working Economy there.
However, ending slavery, ending Company Towns, worker protection and safety laws are all government intervention and punishment that actually made things better.
I'm not sure if you live in free market fantasy land or are a shill for Bush policies, but either way the government intervention & punishment is the only thing that really works. The problem is we have allowed the corporations to buy off enough of the government to manipulate the game and rules far too much and the government gets involved in WAY too much bullshit that it has no business meddling with.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
I couldn't agree more. :) I'm just saying that monopolies, in and of themselves, aren't evil (hence why, in this case, I think the DoJ was being overzealous... without evidence that Google was planning to leverage that monopoly, there was nothing actually wrong going on (yet)).
It's proof that Government intervention is required in order to maintain a free market. The free market also relies on a voluntary exchange of goods or services - which requires government "regulation" to prevent theft and other involuntary exchange. Government is also needed to provide things such as tort resolution and contract enforcement.
Why did the DOJ call off the attack on Microsoft, yet decide to go after Google and Yahoo on this...?
For the same reason the government does anything. Whim. Political pull. Don't try to make sense of it.
I prefer a third option. Here goes:
Yahoo, in a desperate bid to get MS's attention, hires actress Natalie Portman to seduce me to enlist my help in the matter. After hours of outrageous sex, including several acts involving grits, she convinces me to help. I go over to Bill Gates' house to resell him on the idea of a Yahoo/MS merger. Gates, grateful for my help and insight in the matter, agrees to call Ballmer up and talk to him about it, gives me a $2 million tip, and lets me take hom the biggest TV in his house. The next day, after another night of crazy mad oily sex with Natalie Portman, I meet up with Ballmer and Yang at Yahoo HQ. I make them apologize to one another, secure the deal to create a new search engine giant to compete with Google (called "MiYahoo"), get a nice portfolio of stock in the new company, then leave to go rent a goat and a midget for another night of insane smelly filthy sex with Natalie Portman.
Problem solved.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Something that is often forgotten is that the free market is NOT a natural phenomenon. When left to their own devices, the businesses will try to fuck the consumer, and the consumer who has virtually no individual power, will seek consumer rights via collective bargaining, eventually forming large concerted organizations that will act against the interests of the business. In other words, there are checks and balances in play, and the government's part in regulating the economy was created as a check against businesses seeking to overpower the public.
There are few if any free markets in the world for a good reason. They don't work. If you want to find a free market, you can look towards Somalia, no government interference there.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The American idea of "Free Market" is kind of like "Free Software". Basically the goal is to have everyone play nice and have an equal chance to contribute and so on. Nothing about that precludes government regulations. SOME people insist you should have an "anarchic market" and then go around calling it "free".
Fact is, people need rules. They're a fundamental part of society once you go beyond a certain population size. Without them you get anarchy, which is only bad when there are bad people. If everyone just loved everyone else then we'd be peachy. But then you get stupid things like wars based on race, religion, ideals, or just flat out greed. That's reality. That's life.
Some think you can change it, but they're delusional. Unless you are willing to trample over someone's rights and reprogram them (which to me the idea is worse than rape, though not by much) you are going to have people that will just see that as weakness and, like a predator, act accordingly.
The real trick in my opinion is to have AS FEW laws/regulations as possible. The US started out pretty damn well like that but has been slowly corrupted over the years. I'm fairly certain the Founding Fathers would be among those that speculate a revolution or civil war in the US within the next 100 years. Considering the level of military might the US has, that is a pretty damn scary thought.
DOJ Was 3 Hours Away From Violating Google's Rights
There, fixed that for ya.
But the point of the Free Market economics is that if the consumer is getting boned, it's his responsibility to do something about it if he wants change.
If you want something done right, do it yourself.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" -Voltaire
The free market relies on companies not *leveraging* their monopolies.
Not quite. The free market relies on governments not propping up monopolies. Until politicians decide to stop heeding special interests, destructive monopolies (e.g. telecom) will continue to thrive. The free market does not guarantee that monopolies won't exist at any given time, but it does guarantee that if the monopoly's services are poor enough, the demand for better service will be so great that better service will be provided, by another company if necessary. Only when a force-backed entity comes in and prevents another company from providing competing service, or implements selective restrictions on competition (e.g. taxes / tax breaks), does an unjust monopoly exist. To my knowledge the only force-backed entity in the US is the government.
Yes, I'm sure government barriers are the reason monopolies form in a market system with limited resources.
*eye roll*
When left to their own devices, the businesses will try to fuck the consumer
That would be dumb of them. Don't those employees have any interest in keeping their jobs and putting food on the table? How can they stay in business if they screw over their customers. What stops a customer from switching to another service provider?
and the consumer who has virtually no individual power
Their wallets are all the power they need. Don't like a company? Pick another? If another doesn't exist, persuade everyone you know to demand better service and another company will come along to provide that service (if the demand is high enough, of course).
So when Microsoft eventually mops up Yahoos' 361 patent, that won't be an antitrust violation ?
davecb5620@gmail.com
The free market also relies on a voluntary exchange of goods or services - which requires government "regulation" to prevent theft and other involuntary exchange. Government is also needed to provide things such as tort resolution and contract enforcement.
Of course. A force-backed entity is always necessary in order to punish theft and other violations of individual rights. That is quite different from the discussion at hand however. These people imagine they have a right to Google's search engine, and if Google starts to voluntarily buy up other search engines (who ALSO voluntarily sell to Google), and then decides they want to flood their site with huge flash ads, and sell out the top 10 search results to the highest bidder, these people would demand the government intervene to destroy this monopoly. Such an action by the government could only mean one thing: violating the rights of each and every Google employee to do with their property and product as they decide. There is no right to a search engine. If a monopoly's services are bad enough, a second service provider will naturally emerge to provide better service. The only thing that could prevent such an emergence is force, and the only force-backed entity in the US is the government.
You're confusing Serge with billg .. :>
davecb5620@gmail.com
You might think it would be dumb, but if you're providing something like an Operating System for computers everyone buys, who cares if you provide what the consumer wants or not when you can essentially force them to purchase it anyway?
People who believe in truly free markets often ignore the barrier to entry for competition. Competition is not a given, and competition may be essentially impossible under some circumstances (the local telco's owning all the copper and poles and rights thereto and new competition not having the right to erect new poles).
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
You forget entirely about price collusion. When everyone is screwing the customer, what business can customers turn to?
Because of who pays off the most federal employees of course.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
To people who think antitrust law are not really harmful because they are used rarely, this should be a reminder.
(those who think they are helpful, I'm not even talking to you)
\u262D = \u5350
You might think it would be dumb, but if you're providing something like an Operating System for computers everyone buys, who cares if you provide what the consumer wants or not
Computers that everyone buys, but nobody wants???
when you can essentially force them to purchase it anyway?
How do you force (or "essentially force") someone to buy something, exactly? Does the computer manufacturer/dealer have no interest in maintaining its userbase, by providing what its customer wants? Does the OS maker have no interest in maintaining its relationship with the computer dealer, by providing what the dealer wants, in order to maintain their userbase?
People who believe in truly free markets often ignore the barrier to entry for competition.
Correction: people who oppose the free market often tout a barrier to entry for competition. However the largest restrictions (e.g. the local telco's you mention) are created and maintained by the government.
Correction: people who oppose the free market often tout a barrier to entry for competition. However the largest restrictions (e.g. the local telco's you mention) are created and maintained by the government.
Bah, that's a bullshit libertarian fantasy. The largest barriers to entry are cost-related. Let's pretend that governments didn't get involved in providing easements for laying copper. Now, you go start an ISP. Okay, first, you gotta get rights to lay copper from all the property owners. Then you have to outlay millions upon millions of dollars to dig up the ground and lay said infrastructure. And then you've gotta actually deploy the service.
Yeah, I'm sure a little ol' startup can handle all that. *snicker* Hell, large telcos can barely afford it (Verizon has blown enormous dollars to roll out fiber, and they've only been able to afford it because they were sitting on a truly enormous pile of cash).
Of course, there are many *many* other types of barriers to entry (for example, monopolies leveraging their position to cut out competitors), and some of them are government-induced (eg, health and safety regulations), but resource limitations are some of the most profound.
...and here I went out and bought one, damn! He just hangs around all day now, staring at me, judging me.
You forget entirely about price collusion. When everyone is screwing the customer, what business can customers turn to?
The newly-created one that has the huge incentive of customer demand for cheaper products.
The problem with this whole debate is the pragmatic, unprincipled approach taken by everyone opposing the free market. According to this approach, nobody has a right to any of their products, services, or property - the customer instead has all those rights. Unfortunately for that argument, individuals have rights, regardless of how popular it has become to violate those rights. By promoting the violation of Google's employee's rights through government intervention, you promote the violation of your own rights.
Okay, first, you gotta get rights to lay copper from all the property owners. Then you have to outlay millions upon millions of dollars to dig up the ground and lay said infrastructure. And then you've gotta actually deploy the service.
That is chump change to existing large companies that provide similar services in other areas. The biggest hindrance now is not cost, but getting every local government to permit them to use their public property in the same way it is used by existing providers.
Yeah, I'm sure a little ol' startup can handle all that.
A "little ol' startup" would obviously supply to fewer customers. There goes your whole "millions upon millions" shock and awe argument. Please try to stay in context next time.
Verizon has blown enormous dollars to roll out fiber
That's because the huge demand for fiber is not a huge demand. Corn ethanol suddenly comes to mind.
You still have not, and could never, justify the individual rights violations that would occur if the government forced a company to break up or change its practices, against its own intentions.
Thought again... And again... Nothing... What predation are you talking about? Microsoft's is well known:
What has Google done to justify being called equally predatory?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
By that logic, if you load a gun and point it at someone's head, it's totally fine just so long as you have no plans to threaten, extort or shoot that person. Which means, of course, that if accidentally happens, can you be held responsible?
I'm not a super big fan of slippery slope arguments, but you have to pretty much assume that if you give someone an option, and based on their value system it will beat out any other option, you have to assume they'll take it.
[Ego]out
Seriously, like M$ does not count as a search engine on its own?
That would count as the competition.....no?
So this would have gone to courts, made stocks drop even more, and left lawyers with alot of money,
google with another case of jealousy for not buying their stocks while they were small time, and
M$ hurt for being considered competition to google's search engine.
I am sure M$ had something to do with it though, it smells too fishy....Balmer fishy!
TFA says microsoft may have had a hand in this.
Why am I not surprised?
I think one thing you are overlooking is foreign markets. Yahoo has a larger market share for some of its services in some nations outside the US: for example, Yahoo Search in Japan. When you look at that market it almost seems like the consumer prefers some of these "inferior" services. The most popular sites there don't usually resemble the clean minimalist design that Google services tend to have. That is until you consider that they are usually viewing the mobile site on their cellphone, and services like web mail are often used quite differently. Even really closed services that run contrary to Google's philosophy continue to do quite well there: iMode.
A mere three hours! Imagine had it been just 30 seconds! Or two weeks after!
Does it matter? No deal means no antitrust case. The numbers are just noise. Once recognized, they just get in the way, and dissuade me from bothering with the rest of the article.
Thanks, Mr. Blogger, for trying to make this exciting. Better luck next time.
I'm not arguing for 'Free Market', but it is government regulation that prevents other phone/cable/internet companies from putting up poles and running new cable. It is the regulation that prevents competition in the data transmission space.
... they were in different time zones and didn't realize it was still ok to do so?
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
Yeah, there is no history of any company trying to fuck their customers. Because "it would be dum of them". Right.
Oh, and that vote with your wallet gig really has worked out quite well too - that *always* keeps those companies in line.
Perhaps you should take off your IBM coloured glasses?
Yeah, there is no history of any company trying to fuck their customers.
What does that have to do with anything? How is that a sound argument? There is a history of people killing other people. Does that mean every person should be considered a criminal? Please try to stay in context.
Because "it would be dum of them".
Actually, I spelled dumb correctly. The reason it would be dumb of them is because they would lose business.
Oh, and that vote with your wallet gig really has worked out quite well too - that *always* keeps those companies in line.
What are you talking about? You've constructed a sentence, but conveyed no information. Please provide some argument or evidence next time.
Perhaps you should take off your IBM coloured glasses?
I have perfect vision thank you very much. And I hate sunglasses.
Well, perhaps you should pay attention to what you post, then.
My statements are a rebuttal of the assertions you made.
Since you are being either an asshat or a pendant, let me reiterate the whole convo I replied to below:
When left to their own devices, the businesses will try to fuck the consumer
That would be dumb of them. Don't those employees have any interest in keeping their jobs and putting food on the table? How can they stay in business if they screw over their customers. What stops a customer from switching to another service provider?
and the consumer who has virtually no individual power
Their wallets are all the power they need. Don't like a company? Pick another? If another doesn't exist, persuade everyone you know to demand better service and another company will come along to provide that service (if the demand is high enough, of course).
Now that we have that out of the way, perhaps you can tell me where you went wrong yourself? No?
Then let me.
The OP was stating that businesses will try to fuck the consumer.
You go and say Nyah, they won't!
I then joined in and said(colloquially); given the preponderance of evidence of past actions of businesses, it is relatively certain that, left to their own devices, the businesses will try to fuck the consumer.
Is that clear enough for you? You are wrong and refuse to acknowledge it. Well, that's ok, I speak truth to idiocy, too.
Second point.
You stated that all the protection from businesses consumers need comes from their wallets("Their wallets are all the power they need.")
I replied, in effect, that historically, this *is not* all the consumers need. The thinking persons follow on observation may be seen as - perhaps that's true today, too!
If my post conveyed a lack of information to you, the reason is you refuse to see the information contained therein.
Cheers.
The OP was stating that businesses will try to fuck the consumer.
Agreed.
You go and say Nyah, they won't!
No, I did not.
I then joined in and said(colloquially); given the preponderance of evidence of past actions of businesses, it is relatively certain that, left to their own devices, the businesses will try to fuck the consumer.
You're arguing against the free market, but your evidence of bad behavior is not from a free market system. A free market is a market free of forced intervention. It should be obvious that, so long as politicians are willing to hold up signs reading, "Will manipulate the economy for money" , as soon as one person or company starts buying favorable laws, competitors will respond in the same way. The end result is a system in which government manipulation of the economy is so common and integrated as to make it difficult to untangle. With each manipulation, individual rights are violated. No matter how common these violations become, though, they will never be justifiable.
You stated that all the protection from businesses consumers need comes from their wallets("Their wallets are all the power they need.")
Agreed. I did say that.
I replied, in effect, that historically, this *is not* all the consumers need.
Again, please provide some specific examples, and then for each of those examples, show why you believe the system at that time was a free market.
If my post conveyed a lack of information to you, the reason is you refuse to see the information contained therein.
Another possibility is that there was no information to begin with.
"The newly-created one that has the huge incentive of customer demand for cheaper products. "
wow..simply..wow.
completly ignorant of reality to say that.
OK, your create said company. Now you need to crack the monopoly. What's that, you look like you have a shot? ok, now the coluding companies drop there price below your, you go away, and they jack up there prices.
You should really study up an large company behavior during the beginning of the 20th century to see where this leads.
Ther was a time when there was no regulation, regulation came about becasue of monumental abuse.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Why is this tagged "blackmail"?
Enforcement of anti-trust law should happen, as monopolies are bad whether its the public or other businesses who get screwed, because it all comes back to bite everyone otherwise. (case and point: apple and other CE manufacturers compelled to cave on "screen-blanking" because of monopoly power)
And don't say "only monopoly abuse is bad". Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and any monopoly will result in a dead weight loss, heavily weighted toward niche market participants who are no longer serviced.
It is inconsistently and hypocritically enforced, but you should attack the government for instances where it has NOT enforced it rather than when it has.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The newly-created one that has the huge incentive of customer demand for cheaper products.
Oh yes, I forget that in Free Market Theory, a new company will spontaneously spring into existence regardless of any barriers to entry either inherent in the industry or set up by the trust in question. And, despite the fact that in this universe the SEC doesn't exist, this new company isn't immediately purchased, or simply bribed into colluding with the others.
Reality doesn't work that way. Maybe, eventually, that will happen, but in the mean time a great deal of damage has been done. Damage that could have been prevented just by eliminating the broken corner case.
The problem with this whole debate is the pragmatic, unprincipled approach taken by everyone opposing the free market
Principles without pragmatism are worse than useless, not only do they as a matter of course fail to achieve the principled objective, they frequently result in the opposite outcome. For example, the principle behind anarcho-capitalism is maximal freedom for all with minimal restrictions, but it's a system that essentially turns into feudalism very quickly. When contract law is the only law, creating a serfdom is as easy as finding people who don't have the option to leave and negotiate with someone else for the necessities you provide.
By promoting the violation of Google's employee's rights through government intervention, you promote the violation of your own rights.
But I don't think I have the "right" to form an abusive trust any more than I think I have the "right" to own slaves, so I'm not worried if violating that "right" of the people Google means I will lose that "right" too.
Or is this a slippery slope argument? If anti-trust laws are enforced, if banks and securities are regulated, then naturally this means I'll lose my freedom of religion? What is the basis for that? Is it not more likely that this would only encourage the violation of some related rights, which many of us may not consider to be rights at all?
The enemies of Democracy are
ok, now the coluding companies drop there price below your, you go away, and they jack up there prices.
Assuming the customers were dumb enough to fall for that, would you want those customers' business anyway? You cannot argue moral principles based on contrived situations. The underlying reason for arguing for the free market is it is the only system in which individual rights are not violated.
You should really study up an large company behavior during the beginning of the 20th century to see where this leads.
Would you care to give any specifics, or are you assuming you know what you're talking about. I'd suggest checking out Murray Rothbard's America's Great Depression, or the book by the chief architect of the New Deal, Raymond Moley, titled After Seven Years, if you want to "see where [government manipulation of the economy] leads."
Ther was a time when there was no regulation, regulation came about becasue of monumental abuse.
Abuse of whom? What time was this? You need to give some specifics if you want to be taken seriously. If people were killing other people, polluting their land, forcing them to use their services, obviously the government should step in to prevent those rights violations from occurring, and to punish the guilty. That is the purpose of the government. If you are not talking about rights violations when you say, "abuse", then what are you talking about?
Oh yes, I forget that in Free Market Theory, a new company will spontaneously spring into existence regardless of any barriers to entry either inherent in the industry
> Why would a new company have to spring up when an existing similar company with enough equity can see the huge demand and desire to fulfill it?
or set up by the trust in question.
How does this trust set up barriers that prevent a company from doing with its property what it wishes... without government intervention?
And, despite the fact that in this universe the SEC doesn't exist, this new company isn't immediately purchased, or simply bribed into colluding with the others.
And that would be another irrational move on their part. Your point?
Maybe, eventually, that will happen
Where did I say it would happen overnight?
but in the mean time a great deal of damage has been done.
What damage? Be more specific.
For example, the principle behind anarcho-capitalism is maximal freedom for all with minimal restrictions, but it's a system that essentially turns into feudalism very quickly.
Who's promoting anarchy? The government has its purpose. Economic manipulation is not one of those purposes. Anyone can label a belief a "principle", it doesn't mean that it's a coherent belief and does not lead to a contradiction.
But I don't think I have the "right" to form an abusive trust
Again, what is this "abuse" that you would be performing? Are you hitting someone with a bat? Then you're violating their rights and should be punished. If that's not what you mean by "abuse", be clearer next time.
Yahoo finance is quite a lot better than any other stock market site I've seen.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Antitrust? The government is a monopoly. :)
Inventor, Artist http://www.Rubber-Power.com
Proof please.
Being big does not equal being predatory.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Without government interference, property rights would be a bigger problem. Someone owns the land where those poles go after all.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Don't misunderstand. I get what the problems of total non-regulation are. I'm just saying that in data transmission, the government has mandated that it be monopolized. After all, you can't run new lines down public streets either.
Ok, so you start a small ISP, sign up 100 customers, now you need to get them internet access... oh crap, to do that you need to set up a peering/connection agreement with the company who has a monopoly you are endangering... I wonder how much he will charge me for a connection? (most people would call that a barrier to entry)
Indeed.
Yes. If I'm a business, I want customers. Very few customers are 'smart' anyway, so you take what you can get. Besides there are very few customers who will buy a product on ethical principle; there is a HUGE contingent who will buy on price point though. So when the colluding companies/monopolies drop their prices, the customers will jump ship back and the new company will lose. To keep operating, you will need enough customers or charge enough to keep your business going. Through your 'competition' you eliminate the possibility to charge enough, and you won't be able to get enough customers through the aforementioned mechanisms.
Assuming the customers were dumb enough to fall for that, would you want those customers' business anyway?
Yes. If I'm a business, I want customers.
I didn't ask that.
Very few customers are 'smart' anyway
Is it necessarily the case that it would always be that way? Or would people be more likely to read contracts, understand what they're buying, and research their purchases, if they didn't have the inevitable government "safety net" to dumb them down?
So when the colluding companies/monopolies drop their prices, the customers will jump ship back and the new company will lose.
And if the new company tells those customers that the colluding companies are just going to raise prices again, you don't think the customers will listen? And again, for the people who don't listen, would you have wanted their business anyway? They'll soon realize their mistake.
Through your 'competition' you eliminate the possibility to charge enough, and you won't be able to get enough customers through the aforementioned mechanisms.
You haven't shown that your example is realistic. You assume that the only possible competitor starts out with little to no money, and that every customer he gets will jump ship once the price fluctuates a little. If that were the case the stock market would crash every day, wouldn't it?
And most importantly, you haven't shown how you can justify the rights violations that must occur if the government steps in to manipulate the economy itself.
oh crap, to do that you need to set up a peering/connection agreement with the company who has a monopoly you are endangering...
Your fallacy is in treating the existing system as if it is representative of capitalism. Such a monopoly as you mention could not be maintained under a capitalist system. There would be no governmental force, or any other force, preventing the small startup from laying competing lines. Read up on how Edison got his start. He had to go through the exact same thing. Only when local governments started labeling such services "public utilities" were these monopolies created and enforced.
Do you know what a peering agreement is? As an ISP you will need it to transfer data to the other companies network unless you only plan to have the neighbors networked to each other and not the world wide web. These agreements are not mandated by the government in any way, the network companies devise the agreements between themselves. Edison had a very different problem, as he only needed right of way which is easy enough to get in my example so I omitted it. Edison could generate power pretty much on location and didn't have to connect to the entire world's electrical network for his system to work. So you see, pure unregulated capitalism would fail here.
So you see, pure unregulated capitalism would fail here.
Fail at what? The purpose of capitalism is to permit people to voluntarily trade between eachother, to mutual benefit, without any use of force. If a larger provider rejects the connection request of a smaller provider, it is not a failing of capitalism. No force was applied, and no rights were violated. The failings, if any, are restricted to the larger provider - for acting against their rational self-interest - or the smaller provider - for investing their money in an unprofitable endeavor.