Ranting to /dev/null

I'm having trouble with his initial premises. He writes, "One of the basic premises of the free-market system is that actors are free to buy from or sell to a variety of other actors." To be honest, I've never heard that before. My understanding is that the actors are to be free to decide whether or not to buy from or sell to a particular actor. Is there a phone monopoly? Then don't buy regular phone service. Use cell phones. Or voice-over-ip via cable. Most ideas of monopoly depend upon a drastic failure of imagination.

Then he keeps saying "but is this true in the real world?" To be honest, I haven't a clue what that might mean. No free market economist has ever said that "an actor is free to charge whatever he wants" means that, in the real world, he can charge anything and survive as a business. That's never the case.

Besides, all these arguments forget that the power of Wal-Mart is simply due to the free individual votes of millions of consumers. Is Wal-Mart killing the suppliers? Then perhaps they need to figure out a way to cut out the middle man. I really don't know. But my inability to imagine the solution doesn't mean that Wal-Mart is somehow doing something wrong. Personally, I think it's pretty darn cool that they got Coca Cola to change their formula. That just means that Wal-Mart does a better job of getting Coke's product to consumers than Coke does.

Anyway, I haven't read the whole article. Perhaps he'll qualify himself some more. Regardless, I'm uncomfortable with how he sets up the discussion in the first place.

Actually, your objection contains his premise. By saying that if you don't like local phone service you should just get a cell phone, you are asserting the freedom to choose from a variety of sellers.

You've also gone the same direction he says is inappropriate in antitrust considerations: that any activity short of gouging consumers is permissible.

The discussion is indeed a different approach to antitrust law than currently enshrined in the public imagination, but he argues that this imagination was dramatically affected by Reagan-era reforms. From a historical perspective, I think he's right.

The reason we oppose monopolies isn't because they're successful free-market players but because they're a perversion of free-market principles. The free-market is neither an end in itself (at least I don't think so) nor is it, in my view, a moral good. It's merely the most efficient and productive economic system of which we are aware. Extremes of free-market principles, like extremes of any principle, wind up compromising the goals for which the free-market exists, namely a healthy, growing, productive economic system.

I'd like to be able to make the argument that a situation in which four of ten top suppliers to Wal-Mart have had to seek bankruptcy protection suggests at least some issues which do not bode well for long-term economic vitality.

I tend to think that guns (that is, physical force) ought never to be used to control economic exchange, unless somebody is stealing or breaking contract. I think this is a matter of principle. I'm willing to accept a whole lot of negative consequences in order to keep the people with the guns from being involved. When I hear "anti-trust legislation," I also hear "bring in the cavalry." In my opinion, that's not cool. I don't think that a particular ideal of "level paying field" should be enforced coercively, except where theft and breach of contract occur.

In this case, where theft and breach of contract haven't occurred, then all I see Wal-Mart doing is effectively weeding out less-efficient suppliers, which ultimately helps everyone.

I should add, if we don't like how Wal-Mart treats suppliers, then Target and Best Buy and Kohls are all available, offering slightly higher priced (and often higher quality) stuff. Vote with your feet. Vote with your dollars. But it wouldn't be right to use coercive force to stop Wal-Mart. It's unfair to them, and it's unfair to all of those who prefer to shop and work there.