Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - RE: Part 1 - RE: Double Dipping- by Martha Stevens, Hatfield,Missouri

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rick Williams" <mrfarm AT frontiernet.net>
  • To: "Market Farming" <market-farming AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Part 1 - RE: Double Dipping- by Martha Stevens, Hatfield,Missouri
  • Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 19:42:10 -0500


Jay Gee wrote:
> This is not a legal or jurisprudence discussion list as I understand it.
>
> Nor did I interpret the contents of the post I responded to as
> being a legal argument for promoting or disallowing meat
> packing industry consolidation. Are you attempting to shift
> the discussion from the harsh realities of industry consolidation
> to some esoteric nonsense because you have no good response
> to what I have said?

Could you be just a little bit less contentious? Legal issues are at the
forefront of any discussion on monopolies.

The main point that I tried to make was the the courts have long ago decided
that monopolies are legal, and that the only time you can do much about them
is IF and ONLY IF you can show that the consumer is being hurt by the
concentration.

> Industry consolidations occur in response to bad management
> or sea changes in markets. When poor management brings
> about industrial consolidation it has typically been in response
> to one successful competitor innovating and making it very difficult
> for the others in the business to compete. A well known, non
> agricultural example is Andrew Carnegie's steel business being
> acquired by J.P. Morgan, whose only other choice was to
> bankrupt the steel companies he controlled.

And it is extremely difficult for a new upstart to crack that market as it
becomes a mature market. But every so often someone comes along and is able
to out-innovate the old and sometimes fossilized company. A good example is
what happened with IBM. But then IBM realized their peril and "reinvented"
the organization and were able to survive.

> So the short answer Rick, is Yes. Courts have to rely on
> factual consequences as much as any other reason when
> they look at industry consolidations. But as the Microsoft
> cases should have taught you, lawyers and judges are
> among the first to dismiss real world consequences of
> undesirable corporate behavior as mere aberrations
> rather than endorsed behaviors.

I tend to consider going after Microsoft as being a bit absurd. I realize
that there is tremendous hate and dislike of the company, but generally, the
business decisions that they made were the best they could make. They have a
rocky road ahead in my opinion due do worldwide factors. But the capitalist
system is a brutal system when it comes to sifting and winnowing.

Sincerely,

Rick Williams





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page