The antitrust bugaboo

Altantic blog has some thoughts on Calpundit's assertion that one of things capitalism does poorly is 'deal with' monopolies.

First, are monopolies really the threat that Kevin says, or are they temporary affairs? Second, are the antitrust laws better at eliminating monopoly (but at what cost), or are they better at creating or preserving monopoly? I actually wrote a paper a few years ago exploring the assertion that antitrust is primarily about protecting politically influential constituency groups. It is fair to say that antitrust's near obsession of with industrial concentration, particularly in the post-war period up to the eighties, was seriously damaging to consumers, who paid higher prices than needed, and primarily served to protect inefficient producers and enrich the antitrust bar.

Why was I never taught that in school? Nice poem at the end, too.

Share this

I've blogged on that

I've blogged on that horrendous post by Kevin as well.

But you are right, a very fine post. I'm always amazed at how many on the left have such a simplistic view of monopolies.

Steve, Yeah, that post by

Steve,

Yeah, that post by Calpundit has been beaten up pretty thoroughly. You gotta give him some props though - he takes it like a champ without resorting to namecalling or personal attacks, and for that reason he's one of my favorite lefty bloggers.