Whether monopolies require government help depends on what you mean by help. Standard Oil had no significant help from government in achieving its monopoly, except that government didn't impede its growth. Google benefited from government research money to create the forerunner of the internet, but so did every other internet user.
As a traditional conservative, my inclination is with the Borkians, as I don't see that this merger will protect consumers much, and limiting who is deciding the lion's share of what gets published could be a road to some level of censorship. However, I also see the dangers of big tech, and can see the appeal of the Brandeisians in that arena. It's a conundrum I haven't been able to solve in my own mind. I can imagine it's the same for most of us. Government can't always protect us from ourselves and expecting it to is folly.
What's the purpose of antitrust law?
H. W. Brands
https://hwbrands.substack.com/p/bork-v-brandeis
(Nor sure this link works for anyone by me. I think it link to my
inbox in gmail.)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?zx=kd4l9dnkkhp0#inbox/WhctKKXPdhGfMxkNjGKnzkSFzLwZMhgFclkrXNqMrqKHWszVrtQZpbPrXFlRBQbrRJpfTqB
You describe only two possibilities: Borkian or Brandeisian. As far
as I know, all economists agree that monopolies are bad. I suggest
the unlimited power to tax (the 16th Amendment) of the federal
government is an out of the box weapon that can
protect both consumers and producers from all monopolies.
I think Brandies/Bork is a false dichotomy.
I challenge you, your readers and I to come up with
a simple rule based only on the unlimited power to tax that could
arbitrarily steepen the slope to monopoly power. Such a rule must
make both producers and consumers
equally annoyed or equally happy.
My understanding of monopolies is they can only be created and
sustained with government help. That was true with all of the
railroad monopolies as far as I can determine. Same for steel,
telephones, aluminum, oil. More recent monopolies, I haven't
studied but 100+ year copyrights are an obvious example of
government help. Patent laws also - especially when the shoulders
upon which those idea were built were funded by US tax
dollars or someone else.
Ed Bradford, Ph.D. Physics, retired from IBM
Pflugerville, TX
egbegb2@gmail.com
PS Excellent article!
Whether monopolies require government help depends on what you mean by help. Standard Oil had no significant help from government in achieving its monopoly, except that government didn't impede its growth. Google benefited from government research money to create the forerunner of the internet, but so did every other internet user.
As a traditional conservative, my inclination is with the Borkians, as I don't see that this merger will protect consumers much, and limiting who is deciding the lion's share of what gets published could be a road to some level of censorship. However, I also see the dangers of big tech, and can see the appeal of the Brandeisians in that arena. It's a conundrum I haven't been able to solve in my own mind. I can imagine it's the same for most of us. Government can't always protect us from ourselves and expecting it to is folly.