Eva Durant suggests (below) that monopoly is 'what the system is
about.' If by 'the system' she means capitalism, then she is, in my
opinion, profoundly wrong. There is monopoly capitalism but there is also
competitive capitalism.
In the U.S., for example, some 1/3rd of the economy is effectively
monopolized, with the other 2/3rds being effectively competititve. And it
is precisely that 2-to-1 capitalist tilt in favor of competition over the
past century that has made capitalism the overwhelming winner in its
struggle with communism. The Soviet Union--and every other Marxist
state--allowed no competition in the economic sphere. Every industry and
market was monopolized.
And monopolies--whether privately or publicly owned--yield the same
results everywhere and at all times, namely, the dry rot of dulled
incentive, suppressed innovation, inflated costs, inflated prices, shoddy
products, redistribution of income/wealth to the monopolists, and so on. By
choosing economic monopoly as their organizing principle, then, Marx and
Lenin condemned every society that embraced their model to failure and
poverty--and their economic model itself to the 'dustbin of history.'
Suppose, though, that the U.S. and the other capitalist countries
had had no antitrust laws. Suppose that the great capitalist drive for
monopoly in the late 1800s had been unopposed and allowed to run its course,
fulfilling the Marxist prophecy of ever-increasing monopolization in the
capitalist countries like the U.S., ending in a single 'trust' for each
industry and market. Suppose, in other words, that Lenin's late
20th-century successors--Khruschev et al--had confronted a U.S.
that was, economically, as monopolized (and thus as crippled) as their
Soviet Union? Would that last chapter of our century's history have been
different?
Eva Durant, as I understand her, is a Marxist, an adherent of an
economic system that has not just failed but has done so on a spectacular
scale, one spanning nearly the whole of a century and costing more than 70
million lives worldwide. She is, I gather, unimpressed by that long and
costly lesson of history.
The problem in 1998 is not to change 'the system,' to repeat the
follies of those of the past decades who so fervently believed in economic
collectivism. The problem, rather, is to make the remaining 1/3rd of that
'system' competitive, to rupture the massive flow of stolen wealth to the
world's economic monopolists. Can it be done in the world's democracies?
Probably not without the help of virtually all people of good will,
including those like Eva Durant.
Charles Mueller, Editor
ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller
*************
At 11:13 AM 1/14/98 +0000, you wrote:
>So big fish eats little fish, thats what
>the system is about. If you are not
>bothered about this unjust system of
>winners and loosers, should't get worked
>up by one fairly minor detail.
>
>Eva
>
>
>>
>> Too busy doing what? Beating up on antitrust plaintiffs whose hands
>> are tied behind their backs by U.S. judges appointed by Reagan/Meese--and
>> then 'educated' at Henry Manne's primitive pro-monopoly 'Sunshine Seminars'
>> in Florida? Antitrust in America in 1998 resembles nothing so much as the
>> Rodney King beating--helpless victim on the ground, club-swinging bullies
>> smashing him for the fun of it from above. Brave men, right? Same thing
>> when our 1,000 judges clamp handcuffs on the country's small enterprise
>> owners and you and your law firm club them into bankruptcy. You ought to be
>> ashamed of yourself for not having found an honest job somewhere.
>>
>> Could Howrey & Simon win a parking-ticket antitrust case in Burning
>> Stump, Kansas, if it didn't already own the courthouse? If there's been an
>> honest antitrust trial in the U.S. during the past 20 years, I haven't heard
>> about it. You win solely under the gun of a biased judiciary--via summary
>> judgment, rigged jury instructions, directed verdicts, and overturned jury
>> verdicts. To suggest that you win antitrust cases anywhere on the 'merits'
>> reflects the kind of hubris that currently disgraces American antitrust
law.
>>
>> You don't believe the number of antitrust cases filed in the U.S.
>> courts has shrunk from 1,600 to 400? That the membership of the ABA
>> Antitrust Section has shrunk from 25,000 to 5,000? Then why don't you have
>> Howrey & Simon check those numbers and 'educate' the group's members here?
>>
>>
>> Charles Mueller, Editor
>> ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW
>> http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller
>>
>> ***************
>>
>> Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> From: BriggsJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "'charles mueller'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: RE: How Not to Maximize Profits?
>> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 19:27:35 -0500
>> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> I think a lot of the antitrust lawyers are maybe just too busy to deal
>> with your screed.
>>
>> 1. My firm has tried to juries a great number of antitrust cases in
>> recent years, including some very large plaintiffs' cases. We have tried
>> an even larger number of such cases for defendants. The system is alive
>> and well for the most part, although sensible law and economics have
>> shut down the plaintiffs' extortion machine that existed in the '70's,
>> when, among other things, many a simple dealer termination found it's
>> way into court as a treble damage antitrust case.
>>
>> 2. I very much doubt that private antitrust cases have gone from 1600
>> per year to 400, especially if you look at state court filings under
>> unfair competition statutes and the like. Such state cases have captured
>> cases that, in the '70's, might have been brought pre-Illinois Brick and
>> pre-Brunswick and Cargill. I believe that if you peruse the CCH and ATRR
>> reporters, would will find that the actual number of filings is much
>> higher than 400. Someone surely has the 1997 stats from the
>> Administrative offices of US Courts. Perhaps you should check them out
>> yourself and let us all know what they say.
>>
>> 3. The ABA Section of Antitrust Law surely never had 25,00 members, even
>> in the mid-70's; I believe 12-13,000 was tops. When I was Chair of that
>> Section in 1994-95, membership was just under 10,000, about where I
>> believe it stands today. There are many lawyers in that Section who do
>> work for plaintiffs. Indeed, much of the antitrust litigation involves
>> very large enterprises suing each other.
>>
>> 4. A decent argument can be made (and in fact has been made from time
>> to time) in support of the proposition that many antitrust cases are so
>> complex and confusing that to provide a jury trial under the 7th
>> Amendment would deny the defendant(s) their due process rights as
>> guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The argument has never been accepted,
>> at least in any reported decision, but it has some powerful elements to
>> it. Do you think that the Seventh Amendment trumps the Fifth Amendment?
>> Should juries be allowed to as "fact" matters that are flat wrong as a
>> matter of economics?
>>
>> 5. Why are you so concerned about the incomes of antitrust lawyers? What
>> about investment bankers? Rock Stars? Athletes? Mobsters?
>> Industrialists? Economists? Scholars? ...What is your point?
>>
>>
>
