“With that distinction in mind, Paterson considers antitrust law, and concludes that, far from preserving the competition associated with contract society, it tends to resurrect the society of status. ... After exposing several infamous “monopolies” as either chimerical or the product of government privilege, Paterson turns her attention to the putative remedy for monopoly. Laws banning practices “in restraint of trade,” she argues, are meaningless: nobody can know in advance precisely what they forbid. Producers who charge more than their competitors, Paterson observes, can be accused of price gouging. Those who charge less are guilty of predatory pricing and unfair competition. Those who charge precisely the same must surely be engaged in price fixing. Any of these accusations might therefore be leveled against a firm by a competitor, making “status,” or political power, crucially important to commerce. According to Paterson, the malleability of the notion of “anticompetitive” practices means that in effect, firms will seek prior approval before innovating, merging, or splitting and selling off subsidiaries. The effect, ironically, is to inhibit competition.”
My Opinion
Isabel Paterson sums it up quite well if this article is correct. Antitrust is not much more than a very flexible legal notion to allow big government to do whatever it wishes.
The best remedy is in most cases to stimulate more competition.
Just one pertinent example why can I not buy health insurance from any company no matter where located in the world here in the U.S.?
