• 809 days Will The ECB Continue To Hike Rates?
  • 809 days Forbes: Aramco Remains Largest Company In The Middle East
  • 811 days Caltech Scientists Succesfully Beam Back Solar Power From Space
  • 1,210 days Could Crypto Overtake Traditional Investment?
  • 1,215 days Americans Still Quitting Jobs At Record Pace
  • 1,217 days FinTech Startups Tapping VC Money for ‘Immigrant Banking’
  • 1,220 days Is The Dollar Too Strong?
  • 1,221 days Big Tech Disappoints Investors on Earnings Calls
  • 1,221 days Fear And Celebration On Twitter as Musk Takes The Reins
  • 1,223 days China Is Quietly Trying To Distance Itself From Russia
  • 1,223 days Tech and Internet Giants’ Earnings In Focus After Netflix’s Stinker
  • 1,227 days Crypto Investors Won Big In 2021
  • 1,228 days The ‘Metaverse’ Economy Could be Worth $13 Trillion By 2030
  • 1,228 days Food Prices Are Skyrocketing As Putin’s War Persists
  • 1,231 days Pentagon Resignations Illustrate Our ‘Commercial’ Defense Dilemma
  • 1,231 days US Banks Shrug off Nearly $15 Billion In Russian Write-Offs
  • 1,234 days Cannabis Stocks in Holding Pattern Despite Positive Momentum
  • 1,235 days Is Musk A Bastion Of Free Speech Or Will His Absolutist Stance Backfire?
  • 1,235 days Two ETFs That Could Hedge Against Extreme Market Volatility
  • 1,237 days Are NFTs About To Take Over Gaming?
Is The Bull Market On Its Last Legs?

Is The Bull Market On Its Last Legs?

This aging bull market may…

Another Retail Giant Bites The Dust

Another Retail Giant Bites The Dust

Forever 21 filed for Chapter…

  1. Home
  2. Markets
  3. Other

Blame Government, Not Markets for Monopoly

When Time-Warner announced it planned to merge with another major communications firm, many feared the new company would exercise near-total monopoly power. These concerns led some to call for government action to block the merger in order to protect both Time-Warner's competitors and consumers.

No, I am not talking about Time-Warner's recent announced plan to merge with AT&T, but the reaction to Time-Warner's merger with (then) Internet giant AOL in 2000. Far from creating an untouchable leviathan crushing all competitors, the AOL-Time-Warner merger fell apart in under a decade.

The failure of AOL-Time-Warner demonstrates that even the biggest companies are vulnerable to competition if there is open entry into the marketplace. AOL-Time-Warner failed because consumers left them for competitors offering lower prices and/or better quality.

Corporate mergers and "hostile" takeovers can promote economic efficiency by removing inefficient management and boards of directors. These managers and board members often work together to promote their own interests instead of generating maximum returns for investors by providing consumers with affordable, quality products. Thus, laws making it difficult to launch a "hostile" takeover promote inefficient use of resources and harm investors, workers, and consumers.

Monopolies and cartels are creations of government, not markets. For example, the reason the media is dominated by a few large companies is that no one can operate a television or radio station unless they obtain federal approval and pay federal licensing fees. Similarly, anyone wishing to operate a cable company must not only comply with federal regulations, they must sign a "franchise" agreement with their local government. Fortunately, the Internet has given Americans greater access to news and ideas shut out by the government-licensed lapdogs of the "mainstream" media.  This may be why so many politicians are anxious to regulate the web.

Government taxes and regulations are effective means of limiting competition in an industry. Large companies can afford the costs of complying with government regulations, costs which cripple their smaller competitors. Big business can also afford to hire lobbyists to ensure that new laws and regulations favor big business.

Examples of regulations that benefit large corporations include the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulations that raise costs of developing a new drug, as well as limit consumers ability to learn about natural alternatives to pharmaceuticals. Another example is the Dodd-Frank legislation, which has strengthened large financial intuitions while harming their weaker competitors.

Legislation forcing consumers to pay out-of-state sales tax on their online purchases is a classic case of business seeking to use government to harm less politically-powerful competitors. This legislation is being pushed by large brick-and-mortar stores and Internet retailers who are seeking a government-granted advantage over smaller competitors.

Many failed mergers and acquisitions result from the distorted signals sent to business and investors by the Federal Reserve's inflationary monetary policy. Perhaps the most famous example of this is the AOL-Time-Warner fiasco, which was a direct result of the Fed-created dot.com bubble.

In a free market, mergers between businesses enable consumers to benefit from new products and reduced prices. Any businesses that charge high prices or offer substandard products will soon face competition from businesses offering consumers lower prices and/or higher quality. Monopolies only exist when government tilts the playing field in favor of well-connected crony capitalists. Therefore those concerned about excessive corporate power should join supporters of the free market in repudiating the regulations, taxes, and subsides that benefit politically-powerful businesses. The most important step is to end the boom-bust business cycle by ending the Federal Reserve.

 


Buy Ron Paul's latest book, Swords into Plowshares, here.

 

Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment