The History of Anti-Trust in the US

 Over the last several years, the "Chicago School" antics, espoused by "pro-business Republicans" have gained a lot of ground.  But there's a problem:  historically, the Republican Party has been ANTI-trust, ANTI-oligopoly, and most certainly ANTI-monopoly.

In other words, the Libertarians' endorsement of money-grubbing is a fine parallel to their endorsement of amorality.

Sheesh.

Fortunately, Jonathan Tepper published an essay in the January/20 issue of The American Conservative.  We'll recap a few parts which tell the tale.  (This is quoted from the book Main Street Conservatism so there's no link.)

....in 2016, .....Donald Trump appealed to working-class voters, telling them "It's not just the political system that's rigged; it's the whole economy."

There's a reason that Donald Trump is opposed by Big Business (e.g., Club for Growth) AND the Deep State, folks, and you see it above.  But Trump was echoing Republicans and genuine Conservatives going all the way back to the Founders.

...In part of his message, he promised to oppose mergers:  "As an example of the power structure I'm fighting, AT&T is buying Time Warner and thus, CNN, a deal we will not approve in my administration because it's too much concentration of power in the hands of too few."

It was a sharp departure from the speeches of recent Republican presidential candidates such as Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush, and George W. Bush [the Dumber.].......Trump was returning in fact to the American and Republican traditions of opposing monopolies and industrial concentration....

Oh, really?  Yes, really!

.....The Boston Tea Party was in response to the Company's monopoly on tea.  James Madison believed in economic rights; and in an essay, he warned against "arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies."  The Maryland State Constitution........declared, "Monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of free Government, .........and ought not to be suffered."  

Moving forward a century......

.....Republicans controlled Congress and the White House in 1890 when they passed the Sherman Antitrust Act.  ......Senator Sherman declared "If we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any necessities of life.  If we would not submit to an emperor, we should not submit to an autocrat of trade, with power to prevent competition and to fix the price of any commodity."

The several States are perfectly happy to 'prevent competition.'  In Wisconsin, for example, there are multitudes of license requirements for bars and hair-dressers, specifically in place to prevent (or at least, restrict) competition.  Do you think the Tavern League is around to raise funds for underprivileged children??

.,...IN 1953, the Eisenhower Administration filed the Oil Cartel cases, contending that the two Standard Oils and three other companies were fixing prices.  His administration also launched criminal price-fixing conspiracy cases against General Electric, Westinghouse, and a number of smaller electrical equipment manufacturers.  Unlike today, many high-level executives went to prison.  The message was clear:  antitrust compliance was a matter of critical importance. [Ed. Note:  the 'smaller companies' included McGraw-Edison and Allis-Chalmers.  All of them were colluding to drive Rural Transformer and Electric (RT&E) out of business.  Anyone familiar with Wisconsin business will recognize the name "RT&E"--which is now part of another ultra-large 'competitor' in electrical goods.]

So what the Hell happened??

.....In the early 1980's........the Republican platform has come to ignore antitrust and the danger of highly concentrated industries.  The Chicago School took over antitrust, and since then.............antitrust enforcement has thudded into the abyss....

Is there a foundation for anti-trust/anti-monopoly/anti-oligopoly policy?  Damn straight!  And there is  an excellent reason for that:

....Friedrich Hayek was a believer in free markets and railed against concentrations of power.  He believed that inevitably once economic power was consolidated, the monopolies and cartels would become "governmental instrumentalities to achieve political goals."

Gee.  Microsoft and Twitter 'became governmental instrumentalities,' as did the (very) few Big Healthcares, not to mention the (exceedingly) few "news" outlets.  And gee whiz, golly!  Didn't Fox News just become a 'governmental instrumentality to achieve political goals?  Or is Paul Ryan NOT on their Board and Tucker Carlson remains on his show?

Doh.

...........The stronger companies become [through monopoly or oligarchy] the greater their stranglehold on regulators and legislators becomes via the political process.  This is not the essence of capitalism.

When economists proposed mergers and monopolies would create efficiency, Hayek wrote "Personally, I should much prefer to have to put up with some such inefficiency than have organized monopoly control my ways of life."

Milton Friedman, the 'arch free marketer' wrote, "Economic freedom is an essential requisite for political freedom.  By enabling people to cooperate with one another without coercion or central direction, it reduces the area over which political power is exercised.......In addition, by dispersing power, the free market provides an offset to whatever concentration of political power may arise.  The combination of economic and political power in the same hands is a sure recipe for tyranny."....

And all that happy-talk about 'efficiency' .......well, how do you like the "efficiency" of the "Please hold!  We are servicing other customers!!"..........for 30 minutes?  Or the "efficiency" of giving you a phone-tree that does not include the particular problem you have?

Please Dial 1 and Drop Dead.

It's about time that the dead hand of Libertarianism was ripped from the throats of Americans by a Republican party which ........wants votes.........ain'a?