The usual argument is that monopolies (or big trusts) are bad because they allegedly make too much profit at the expense of other stakeholders.
Our host argues here the monopolies _don't_ make enough profits, because there's no discipline. The free buying and selling of shares would help provide that discipline, because new owners can install new management.
(Buying and selling with 'only' the consent of the old owners and willing buyers, but without the consent of the old management, which is supposed to have a fiduciary duty to the owner!, is needlessly cast in martial language like 'hostile' takeover or 'corporate raiders'.)
The attack on profit and perfect competition is Christian communism taken as science. And govt-protected monopoly is not temporary market monopoly always threatened by actual and potential competition. Alcoa kept prices low to keep potential from becoming actual.
"“But hostile takeovers are heavily regulated!” you protest? You’re right. But who’s fault is that? Roughly speaking, the same people who lament that “Big corporations can do whatever they want.”"
You make no reference to what the specific regulations are, who passed them, or who lobbied for them.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was the anti-market Left. But I also wouldn't be surprised if it was the allegedly "pro-market" corporations themselves, or a mix of the two.
A group that can be convicted without evidence can be acquitted without evidence.
Short sellers are the other guardians of capitalism. They are also often lambasted.
Is this a definitive argument against anti-trust? Gov't could solve monopoly by allowing raiders, rather than enforcing anti-trust.
Bryan's colleague Robin Hanson once proposed that government ONLY engage in anti-trust:
http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/regprivlaw.html
The usual argument is that monopolies (or big trusts) are bad because they allegedly make too much profit at the expense of other stakeholders.
Our host argues here the monopolies _don't_ make enough profits, because there's no discipline. The free buying and selling of shares would help provide that discipline, because new owners can install new management.
(Buying and selling with 'only' the consent of the old owners and willing buyers, but without the consent of the old management, which is supposed to have a fiduciary duty to the owner!, is needlessly cast in martial language like 'hostile' takeover or 'corporate raiders'.)
The attack on profit and perfect competition is Christian communism taken as science. And govt-protected monopoly is not temporary market monopoly always threatened by actual and potential competition. Alcoa kept prices low to keep potential from becoming actual.
"“But hostile takeovers are heavily regulated!” you protest? You’re right. But who’s fault is that? Roughly speaking, the same people who lament that “Big corporations can do whatever they want.”"
You make no reference to what the specific regulations are, who passed them, or who lobbied for them.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was the anti-market Left. But I also wouldn't be surprised if it was the allegedly "pro-market" corporations themselves, or a mix of the two.
A group that can be convicted without evidence can be acquitted without evidence.