RAND PAUL: I just stopped a big government power grab that would hurt businesses and consumers

Fox News ^ | Dec 9 | Sen. Rand Paul

[RandFan]

The proponents of antitrust laws are famously zealous in their desire to eradicate "the curse of bigness." To them, big is always bad. Except, of course, when it comes to the size and scope of government.

These antitrust activists tried to rush legislation through the Senate that would give government more power over the economy. The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act wouldn’t just give government more power, it would also be bad for consumers.

I stood up and stopped it.

The same people who supposedly fear the concentration of power in the marketplace celebrate the concentration of power in a state that inserts itself into and nullifies private contracts, breaks up companies it deems too large, and inflicts punishment on those that succeed in the competition for consumers.

In short, antitrust seeks to cap the amount of success any business can enjoy and the benefits reaped by customers.

As the economist Yale Brozen wrote, antitrust law "seems to say that firms should compete but should not win. Firms should be efficient enough to survive but … should not share the fruits of that greater efficiency with their customers."

And that is the fatal defect of antitrust policy. Antitrust fails to accept the lessons of economic history: that voluntary exchange is a win-win proposition and that consumers are incredibly powerful in a free-enterprise system.

A company that continuously rewards its customers with superior products and innovations will, in turn, be rewarded with a greater market share than its competitors.

But no company can achieve a strong position in the market and rest on its laurels. Consumers are too demanding, and competitors will arise to steal customers away from any firm that ceases to treat its clients well.

[DannyTN]

Don't we already have anti-trust laws on the books? Dating back to the Sherman act? They just aren't enforced.

But we need protective tariffs. Foreign companies that aren't under such regulations should not be allowed to compete against our domestic companies without some sort of equalizing penalty.

[RandFan]

Is he right or wrong Freepers? Some say he’s wrong about this

[Pollard]

Little over the top with the gateway pundit style title.

[Chad C. Mulligan]

Concentration of power in the private sector is just as bad as concentration of power in government. As usual Rand Paul makes no sense at all.

[Westbrook]

If monopolies are bad, why is a government monopoly good?

[bitt]

p

[RandFan]

MinorityRepublican reported there was green crap in there.

It’s probably a win.,

On the broader theme some here say he is wrong but Rand sounds proud doesn’t he...

[MinorityRepublican]

As Americans for Tax Reform correctly points out, this legislation "would give the Biden Administration hundreds of millions in new funds to pursue a progressive social agenda."

I didn't even read the article until now. But I knew where they were going with the bill. So it was an easy educated guess to make.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

When technological innovation was relatively slow, then even if one company achieved a monopoly and started exploiting it there would be time for competitors to come in and undercut or outperform the monopoly.

However, technological innovation is happening so quickly that a monopoly can exist throughout the entire lifecycle of a product or industry.

Look at what happened with CDs and "jewel cases". Did anyone ever purchase a "jewel case" that wasn't a complete POS? A "jewel case" is supposed to be tough so that it can protect what is inside, but instead it was the jewel case that broke either while the too-tight plastic was being ripped off or soon after.

But CDs came and went before any competitors appeared to provide decent products.

This was not a really big deal, but we see where Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, etc. lasted well past their Sell By date and did a lot of damage with their quasi-monopolistic positions. We also see where companies like Walmart used their monopsony position to help shift lots of manufacturing to China as companies who couldn't manufacture their products for a low price set by Walmart would be denied shelf space.

Sylvania sold its lightbulbs below cost throughout Europe in order to corner the market. The Swedes saw this, created lightbulb manufacturing co-ops and were able to outlast Sylvania's monopolistic practices.

We are told that as long as a monopoly is "vertical" then it is OK because it doesn't have a monopoly on any one aspect of its business. However, if a corporation has a bit of everything from cradle to grave for its products then it can limit innovation. There might still be competition, but for example it can screw up major franchises like Star Wars, Star Trek, and Marvel Comics and no one can do anything about it because they own everything from inception to crapping it out on movie screens.

[vivenne]

I think he’s wrong.

[Sequoyah101]

A monopoly is not good. Its incentive to respond to customers is all but eliminated. We learned this once before. Do we really have to learn it again?

As for more money for the xiden regime for social programs and to socialize everything in sight, NO. A resounding NO!

[Vaduz]

He’s spot on

In short, antitrust seeks to cap the amount of success any business can enjoy and the benefits reaped by customers.

[ridesthemiles]

The BIDEN Admin must have an entirely different dictionary than anyone else on earth has.

[Amendment10]

Sen. Paul is doing the right thing imo. But post-17th Amendment ratification Paul may not know the following argument why it is the right thing to do.

While I understand Walmart predatory power for example, noting that I am not familiar with the problems of 19th century monopolies, the Sherman Antitrust Act needed an appropriate amendment to the Constitution before becoming law imo.

More specifically, since neither of the words competition or monopoly are found in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment automatically makes the power to deal with monopolies a state power issue imo.

Next, the Sherman Act seems to ignore that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave Congress the express power to reward inventors with temporary monopoly power in the form of patents, as opposed to Congress now demonizing "evil" monopoly power.

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries [emphasis added];"

But now, regardless that Congress grants temporary monopoly power which inventors use to build fortunes to buy other companies, Congress later "takes back" the monopoly power that it awarded by discouraging mergers with a tax with no express constitutional justification to do so imo.

Otherwise, just as politicians are now using government power to allegedly unconstitutionally prohibit free speech in election races, the very corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress is arguably working with businesses to weaponize federal government power against their competitors imo.

Or maybe constitutionally indefensible (imo) federal anti-trust laws are Congress's way of forcing inventors to share their profits with lawmakers.