Within the oil and electricity industries in particular, the spectre of a coercive monopoly developing in the absence of government intervention was used to justify coercive, monopolistic behavior by the government in the “common good,” be it by the Texas Railroad Commission or by government electrical utilities. This article challenges the mythology of the Standard Oil case and, more broadly, the notion that a coercive monopoly can arise in the absence of government intervention. By implication, it illustrates that there is nothing standing in the way of a truly free, competitive energy market--an energy market free of antitrust law.
We fear monopoly as we should - it carries with it the spectre of high prices, whereas we know that competition drives prices lower and quality up (If you don't know that, you have my pity).
Curious, then, that we keep pushing for monopoly control over health care - but that's a digression.
The linked article dives into the myth of Standard Oil and monopoly busting, and what it will show is that Standard profited by providing a better quality product at a lower price than any competitor - and that Standard's competitors retaliated using the power of the Federal Government. In the process, consumers were hurt; but not by Standard, by the intervention against Standard.
No comments:
Post a Comment