[M203M4]

Since when should companies be forced to sell products from all providers? If I own a grocery store and refuse to sell Kraft products (for whatever reason - maybe I don't like the name!), no crime has been committed. But if I do the same thing at the behest of payment from Nestle, we are now both guilty of collusion (despite the consumer being in the same position as when no payment was involved, Kraft being in the same position, and Nestle actually being in a WORSE position by virtue of having paid me).

Though a much different principle is taught, this analogy connotes a similar theme to that in "the fallacy of the broken window" (Bastiat). Namely, that some economists speak of economic benefit being derived via the actions of a young boy who breaks a window (because the owner of the window must then pay the glazier for a repair, which presumably has a "stimulative" effect upon the local economy - neglecting the potential uses the owner would have put that money toward in the absence of the accident), but most universally identify it to be a crime if the glazier had in turn paid the young boy a small fee to break the window in the first place.

[wolf78]

Since when should companies be forced to sell products from all providers?

The problem is when a monopoly hinders others from entering a market. One example: Let's assume I run a fictional autoworkers union and have valid contracts with both some big Midwestern automakers and suppliers around the county. Now let's assume a Japanese competitor, Toyohonda want's to build a factory in non-unionized Texas, but needs suppliers. But due to my contracts I can prevent these suppliers from cooperating with Toyohonda, either forcing the Japanese out or forcing them to get unionized.