SCOTUS Case May End Sale Prices 527
An anonymous reader writes "If you own a mom & pop store and can't get rid of some of your inventory, you can always clear out some shelf space by holding a sale. If the Supreme Court sides with business interests in a case they heard today, however, such sales may no longer be possible. Since 1911 it has been illegal for manufacturers to force retailers into setting a price floor for products — individual retailers get to decide how much they sell products for. But today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case seeking to overturn this longstanding rule. Should the Court do so, it would drive up consumer prices across the board. This case is particularly salient in the era of Internet shopping: consumers are now easily able to shop around to multiple retailers to find the best price. The Court could wipe out this advantage." From the article: "Should the Court abandon the... rule against minimum resale price maintenance... it would send a signal that the Roberts Court will continue to narrow the application of the antitrust laws and that the Court may disregard settled precedent and Congressional will in other areas of the law as well."
Isn't this the definition of the Free Market? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this the definition of the Free Market? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good news for the black market (Score:3, Insightful)
This impacts botique items the most (Score:2, Insightful)
Ditto vendors who have a lock on their product, such as Microsoft. As it is, it's very difficult to find MS-Windows below MSRP. Under these rules, it would be impossible.
There are other ways. (Score:5, Insightful)
Another solution? Retailers who thrive on competitve pricing all become like Costco, and sell things "wholesale" to their member customers. It's sort of like those bars where you have to become a "member of the club" (for $0.01) in order to have a drink poured.
This effort will flop, or there will be a legislative cure anyway. Wal-Mart alone would lobby that one right into the stratosphere.
Questionable (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the submitter suggesting that the periodic sales by mom & pop storesare responsible for keeping retail prices in check "across the board?"
Anti - price fixing laws are actually becoming quite a real problem or manufacturers and retailers, because they have to juggle the retail channel (which really needs 30%) with the online channel, which can be profitable on only about 6% margin. Preventing online from undercutting retail means giving them less margin, which is fair, but even then they can undercut until their margin is absolutely microscopic and still make money, whereas the retailer can not.
If you're happy with a world where brick and mortar retailers just can't exist, then by all means keep the current system and they will die, and not because of free market forces, but because manufacturers can't control their street prices.
For an example of what will happen with this... (Score:5, Insightful)
goodbye eBay! (i.e. wont happen) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:adam smith is rolling in his grave (Score:1, Insightful)
It's become obvious that the Republican elites are concerned only with installing an oligarchy. They support a free market less than many "dirty hippies".
Re:Good news for the black market (Score:5, Insightful)
They do, however, make excellent fodder for populist politicians and the pathologically uninformed. Bread and circuses, anyone?
Re:No minimum price? Fine. No product for you. (Score:3, Insightful)
Blame the Victim (Score:5, Insightful)
The apologists for the Nanny State routinely trot out antitrust as an example of where the free market doesn't work, but in reality it's the industries with the most regulation by government that are the most monopolized. Take telecommunications. For most of the history of telephones, it was illegal to compete for customers. That monopoly was enforced by local governments. But I guess as long as you control the government schools that teach the history of 'Robber Barons', people will believe the propaganda.
I'm OK with it (Score:5, Insightful)
Grocery stores would still exist, as would convenience stores. Clothing shops might do OK since people like to try things on. There are always impulse/emergency items, in many categories. I can see the need for a handful of electronic/computer retailers in a large city.
Can you give me a good reason we should prop up an obsolete business model besides nostalgia or personal preference?
The way I've shopped in the last 10 years is: Online comparison/research. Online purchase unless shipping is more expensive than local, I want an easy return, I need to touch/smell/hear/taste the item first, or I'm in a big hurry.
I always assumed that eventually everyone would adopt this model of shopping and we'd see a massive collapse of brick-and-mortar retailers. Retailers that are smart will be able to adapt. Lots of opportunities, like partnering with an online retailer, offering amenities that aren't possible online, etc.
Re:No minimum price? Fine. No product for you. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, then you're entering the murky world between the pure capitalism of a commodity market, and the non-price-sensitive premium product space which is driven by marketing.
For example, if Apple wants to lock the price of iPods, there isn't going to be a more efficient producer of iPods that will undercut their price lock. Another type of MP3-player, sure, but the premium consumer product space is not one that responds in the normal way. It's completely different, than say, selling gasoline.
Re:Isn't Apple doing this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Move it to the internet sales, and its the same story. internet retailers survive off 5-10%. 8% isn't really that high a margin. Even if someone wanted to discount it to sell for cost and make up the money on upsells, WOO HOO, they sell it for 12$ off. Not much there in the way of discounting now is there?
Sure, the larger retailers can sometimes cut a slightly better margin deal with apple if they agree to purchase pallets at a time, and they do. But that is their competative advantage, and there is no reason for them to sell below MSRP (or a dollar below) when all their competitors are barely breaking even. It is much better for the Best Buy's of the world to bundle a free product like iTunes card or accessory discount with the full priced iPod.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What About Apple, Bose etc. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bose doesn't circumvent it, but instead applies a (perfectly legal) MAP (minimum advertised price) contract to its resellers. This way you still follow the law (retailers can sell for whatever price they want) but they can't advertise any price below MAP. This is why you see stuff like "add to cart to see price" because they are contractually obligated to only show you the discounted price once you have "decided to buy it" per se.
Lots of brands do this, seinnheiser, bose, and lots of AV and other companies have done this type of thing for a long time.
Pair this MAP with extremely low margin opportunity, and you see why nobody sells below MSRP (because the image of bose is that you pay MSRP and nothing less). Most stores make probably 10% max on a bose system if sold at MSRP so there is not any room for them to move any lower.
Now, at the end of the quarter, if you make your sales projections and all sorts of other fancy stuff, you can get a quarterly rebate on your revenue (kindof like car dealerships get) but that is only for higher volume shops. And you can't built that into your price because you don't know for sure your sales will be up.
Hope that explains a little bit for you.
Re:adam smith is rolling in his grave (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it makes a lot of sense. See, the free marketeers/libertarians are really into contracts. These are basically the manufacturers only selling to people who are willing to enter into a contract where they only sell for what the manufacturer mandates.
How is this anti-free market? If the stores don't want to accept the terms, they're perfectly able to go elsewhere for those types of products.
Re:Until you consider Patents and other G. Monopol (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh boy, this sounds like a big business plan to get more of the pie. I guess the computer simulation is finished running, and has proven that by fixing prices, big bussiness will get more pie. Why else would the courts be thinking this?
Re:Questionable (Score:3, Insightful)
They may be, but the point they should be making is that internet retailers are responsible for offering a much lower price to consumers who don't want to pay for the benefits of a brick and mortar store. If you let manufacturers dictate pricing, you eliminate the ability of internet retailers to undercut brick and mortar stores, and we're all forced to pay more money for an inefficient (as defined by what the market is willing to spend resources on) means of distribution.
Libertarians (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There are other ways. (Score:2, Insightful)
In all things, Walmart would win.
Re:I'm OK with it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:adam smith is rolling in his grave (Score:5, Insightful)
Although most manufacturers do set a minimum advertiseable price. But again, many major retailers refuse to follow such rules, and most small ones aren't really subject to scrutiny.
Re:I'm OK with it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm OK with it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Until you consider Patents and other G. Monopol (Score:5, Insightful)
That same Adam Smith is the same Adam Smith who is the origin of pretty much everything that has historically been considered a free market.
In Smith's day state monopolies were a common means of raising revenue. Smith demonstrated that such restraints on trade have hidden costs that are much greater than were imagined at the time. The cost of the tax is much greater than the amount paid raised in revenue.
In libertopia they do things differently of course, the only evil that can ever exist in libertopia is the result of people consipiring together through the government. The fact that a large corporation has a similar coercive power to government is inconvenient ideologically and is thus ignored.
Nothing is going to happen here. At worst the SCOTUS redefine the interpretation of the anti-trust acts. But that might well be the best outcome long term for consumers since if Congress revisits price maintenance agreements making them explicitly illegal they wil probably act on advertised price maintenance as well.
I don't see an argument being made that prohibiting retail price maintenace is unconstitutional. Even though many members of SCOTUS are notorious partisan hacks I don't see that as being very likely.
Re:Blame the Victim (Score:5, Insightful)
And I think I have the counter example to your telephone system
story. The computer industry. Used to be pretty open.
Lots of players. Now, there are many fewer, and larger
corporations involved. Almost like it was natural for them
to do this.
The telephone system example is not a very good one, in my
opinion. According to wikipedia, AT&T had competitors in
the very early days and ( I presume ) no regulations aside
those any company might have. Then they bought out competitors
until they became regarded as a monopoly. Then came the
regulations and government interference.
On the SEC, I take it you disagree with the assessment that
rules and regulations bring additional investor confidence,
increasing investment and growth for everyone? What happened
in the depression? People put their money in their mattresses.
Why? Lack of confidence in financial systems.
And on the government schools, it almost sounds like a conspiracy.
They control the schools so they can control the curriculum with
the intent of making good little socialists out of everyone?
They are doing a remarkably bad job of it, considering how many
conservatives there are.
Re:Blame the Victim (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There are other ways. (Score:4, Insightful)
Supplier: No one can sell our product for fewer than X dollars.
Maybe this will be made illegal, but until then, this is how it will work. Walmart is the one with the power in this situation.Wal-Mart: We want to sell it for X-1 dollars. If we can't, we won't bother stocking it at all.
Supplier: Oops, we meant to say that no one can sell our product for fewer than X dollars, unless they're Wal-Mart, who can sell it for X-1 dollars.
Re:There are other ways. (Score:3, Insightful)
Substitute the name of your favorite local mom-n-pop for 'WalMart.'
In Corporate America, you substitute WalMart for your local 'mom-n-pop'.
Re:Blame the Victim (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you have your history backwards - perhaps whichever non-government school that left out the part about the "Robber Barons" when teaching you history also forgot to mention that bit about how the telephone industry only became so highly regulated because it was already actively abusing its monopoly status. To my knowledge all the stuff about not competing for customers was merely a restriction on Ma Bell to keep them at less than 85% market dominance, as per the anti-trust settlements at the time. Even the most hardcore of free-market types realize that leaving monopolies alone is downright stupid - no theory of economics can reasonably make the claim that a monopoly is good for anyone but the monopolist.
In fact, the subject of this article is most dangerous in the context of monopolies and near-monopolies. I remember when I was little getting a few bucks in the mail from Nintendo because it had come out that they were pulling this kind of price fixing crap with all the retailers, and they got caught. So don't pretend that this is just paranoia - if this becomes legal, companies will use it to screw over customers, especially in situations where the item in question is not a commodity but rather a highly branded item in an industry with very little substantial competition like a Nintendo (back when there was no real competition, that is - now the field is too crowded to mess around too much with the customer) or an iPod (since the Zune sucks, Apple can do just about whatever it wants).
Re:adam smith is rolling in his grave (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that there's only one Wal-Mart, and what will happen is that Wal-Mart will dictate that they get a price floor that is 75% less than everyone else's, and they mop up their competition.
Personally, I think that contractual price floors are repugnant, not because of antitrust concerns, but because it's a contract that affects me directly without permitting me to have any negotiation rights or to even agree to it.
Re:Isn't this the definition of the Free Market? (Score:2, Insightful)
Fixed that for you.
Re:Until you consider Patents and other G. Monopol (Score:5, Insightful)
If I browse in a bookstore and find something interesting I am very likely to buy it right there and then, because I'm excited by it. I'm not thinking about how I could order it online for less because I want to read it now. I don't want to wait a few days while Amazon packs it and sends it to me, and maybe it's not in stock at Amazon and I'll have to wait a week or more.
If I am going out on the town tonight and I need new shoes I don't have the luxury of waiting while some online store delivers them to me.
Maybe there are people who plan all their purchases days or weeks in advance, but for a large number of people most small to medium purchases are done on impulse or at short notice.
For goods like cars or high-end stereo equipment which require research, trial and considerable investment, I can see more of a problem. If I can't test-drive a car, there's no way I'm going to buy it. I think I would be willing to pay 0.5 - 1% of purchase price to test-drive a car for a couple of hours, or listen to an amplifier and speaker combination to decide that I'm happy with it.
Also, Borders has found a way to make money from browsers, by having Starbucks in their stores, and caffeine-addled shoppers are more likely to spend.
The manufacturers have a big interest in making sure retail outlets survive - because people are more likely to buy something they can touch and test. Maybe manufacturers can subsidise retail stores to make them more competitive.
Finally, the advantage of purchasing online isn't just about price. I have access to a much wider choice of products from the comfort of my keyboard, I can do research on specifications and customer experiences, and I can make my purchase more quickly (and more economically) than if I have to drive to various stores to inspect there offerings. Maybe retailers can do some work here to level the playing field - like providing internet access so I can check if this wireless card works in the latest Ubuntu, or whatever. That last item is one of the biggies for me, I've walked out of stores where I might have a purchase because it's not possible to get all the information about a product from the shop floor, and shop assistants are rarely knowledgeable about their products or my needs.
Re:Until you consider Patents and other G. Monopol (Score:2, Insightful)
I always like to point out that corporations are chartered by the government; discussion of reducing government power to interfere in the marketplace should start with the revokation of most corporate charters (along with government-issued copyrights, patents, and land and resource deeds).
This gets interesting reactions from people who identify as "libertarian capitalists".
Wolves guarding the Sheeple (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of slashdotters who have had to implement SOX requirements. They impose more costs on new entrants. Who is in the better position to fill out all the forms and satisfy the regulators, AT&T or the ClassMyAss Telephone company?
And once you've empowered your new agency to regulate Big Bad Business, who do you think goes to work there? High-minded reformers, or people who have actual experience in those very businesses? Look at your state agencies that regulate utilities, and find out how many of their staff members used to work for the utilities. The federal agency that was created to regulate the Evil Railroads was heavily dominated by railroad people, until it morphed into the Surface Transportation Board that also regulates trucking. Now it has a lot of people from trucking companies too.
Re:Until you consider Patents and other G. Monopol (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that consumers disagree. (Score:5, Insightful)
What's your point?
People vote with their wallets every day, and they've pretty clearly indicated that they don't value these type of establishments, in most cases, enough to pay their premiums. The "value added" in other words, of the local butcher, just isn't enough to most people, to cover the increase in cost versus prepackaged meat from the megamart.
I'm sorry that you don't like the way it's worked out -- and if it helps, I agree with you, and I refuse to shop at Walmart (or Target, or Home Depot) when there's an alternative -- but I think it's fundamentally wrong to try and keep obsolete businesses alive at a direct cost to consumers who have clearly voted with their feet and their wallets and said they're not interested. That's at best regressive, and at worst tyrannical.
Re:Until you consider Patents and other G. Monopol (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now, people can have both. They can go to the boutique to speak to knowledgeable staff, try the product, etc. Then they go home and google the best price. Trouble is, the boutique doesn't get compensated in this transaction, despite having rendered the superior service.
This has always been an issue, as the boutiques already compete with the walmart's, costco's, and the bestbuy's who'll under cut them, hell, who have a policy of undercutting them, but competing with online venders is worse. The online vendors have even lower costs than the bigboxes so the price difference is more pronounced, and you can access the online venders from home so after picking what you want, finding it online is fairly trivial and it gets shipped to your door. You don't have to drive around any more or hope the local BB has it in stock, etc.
Re:Isn't this the definition of the Free Market? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously. Stop imagining conspiracies of collusion between cutthroat competitors. For example, suppliers today *could* collude to aggressively collect on unpaid accounts, and put the screws to mom-and-pops. But they don't, because it would drive business into the arms of suppliers who don't. If SCOTUS rules in favor of this silly idea, it would be no different. A few wholesalers may decide to act like imperious assholes, but they'll end up like SCO wondering what happened to their revenue stream.
Re:No minimum price? Fine. No product for you. (Score:4, Insightful)
My point was not anti-copyright. My point was that copyright is inherently a monopoly and thus there cannot be free trade, furthermore, interoperability requirements and DMCA mean that this government sanctioned monopoly can be extended to hardware. Imagine that you want to put a song onto a mobile player and that song is only available through iTunes (it is not even available in a CD form from which it can be legally ripped). You no longer have a free choice on your purchase of player. If one player cannot be substituted for another, is there a free market?
Re:adam smith is rolling in his grave (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your scenario is that it relys on a market that has a "high barrier to entry", or a market whose barrier to entry is so high that no other players can enter, no matter what. The reality is though, in a true free market this is never the case. No matter how high the barrier to entry, there is always room for another player.
There are two things that can help overcome high barriers to entry. Large companied with lots of capital, and innovation of new technologies. Large companies help because, for example, if every widget company decided to start selling their widgets for double the price that they should, then some other rich company with lots of capital to invest in making widgets is going to come in and start selling widgets for less.
The most important equalizer to high barriers to entry though is innovation. No matter what, new technologies will always be invented, and no monopoly can ever rest on its laurels forever. The market may be unbalanced for a short while, but it will even itself out, quicker and fairer than slow moving anti-trust laws can.
The only way that there can be a market with an infinitely high barrier to entry is when the government is involved, through patents, copyrights, subsidies, and other protectionist laws.
Re:adam smith is rolling in his grave (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with your scenario is that it relys on a market that has a "high barrier to entry", or a market whose barrier to entry is so high that no other players can enter, no matter what. The reality is though, in a true free market this is never the case.
You don't need to achieve a pure monopoly to dictate to retailers or charge near monopoly rents. Look at the example I cited, ie. the PC OS market Sure you can point to MacOS, and Linux, but these don't seriously dent Microsoft's power, especially in regard to small business computer retailers (maybe someone as big as Dell can get away with shiping PCs without that OS installed ...). Note the barrier to entry here isn't capital expenditure, as it is in chip manufacturing for instance, but primarily network effects.
The most important equalizer to high barriers to entry though is innovation. ... The only way that there can be a market with an infinitely high barrier to entry is when the government is involved, through patents, copyrights, subsidies, and other protectionist laws.
While I'm against the overweening IP regime we are currently subjected to, we should not loose sight of the necessity of IP regulation. IP addresses another market failure, namely the 'free rider effect,' (again demonstrating the necessity of some limited state intervention for a functioning capitalist economy). For innovation to be an effective equaliser to barriers to entry, it requires that very IP protection you decry! Otherwise the innovator will simply have their innovation taken from them by the established players in the market. The innovator bears the research costs, while big guys use their market power to cut that innovator out from the profits of their own innovation. Not a good look.
The market may be unbalanced for a short while, but it will even itself out, quicker and fairer than slow moving anti-trust laws can.
That is a very romantic notion ... unfortunately history demonstrates the exact opposite.
Re:Questionable (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're happy with a world where horse carriage manufacturers just can't exist, then by all means keep the current system where car manufacturers are not being regulated so that horse carriages can still compete with cars.
Re:Isn't this the definition of the Free Market? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this the definition of the Free Market? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're forgetting about cost of entry. If the top 3 x86 chip vendors started colluding, the market wouldn't respond because the costs involved in designing and manufacturing a fast x86 chip are stupendous. Intel/AMD/etc would damn near have to withdraw their products from the market to stimulate competition and it'd still take years for the newly founded company to catch up.
Markets aren't perfect at all, that's why they're regulated in the first place ...
Re:adam smith is rolling in his grave (Score:3, Insightful)
If you get to an accident at a lonely road late some night, and I happen to pass by and agree to call an ambulance if and only if you sign a contract giving me all your property - and if we're going with total contractual freedom, selling yourself to slavery to me too - in exchange for this service, should the contract be enforced ? You did enter it willingly, and does fill all the requirements of a contract (you pay me, I perform a service calling the ambulance on your behalf); your other choice was to bleed to death, but that was no fault of mine.
And if the above contract shouldn't be enforced, should I be forced to pay the bill for food I bought on credit - after all, I can't survive without food, so I only entered that particular contract on pain of death ?
Total contractual freedom sounds good on paper, but has far too much potential for abuse to work in the real world.
Re:Isn't Apple doing this? (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, most stores aren't even in MAP agreements with Apple. I could see if maybe the large retail chains were, but I would be surprised if they were. And even if they were, there is nothing stopping them for selling the product for whatever they want, without the threat of pulling advertising funding.
You are trying to make it like Apple will pull all funding and be uncooperative if someone sold below their dream price. They wouldn't. If they are paying for their marketing (and with MAP agreements typically they are) then they are the ones who determine what will and will not go into that marketing. There is nothing "wrong" or "creepy" about it in my opinion.
Re:No minimum price? Fine. No product for you. (Score:3, Insightful)
Ownership of my land does not interfere with you and the use of your land. Just because I own my land I can't suddenly sue to to prevent you from using your land effectively.
This notion that you "own" a creative work is pure bullshit because it's based on the bullshit notion that you are it's sole creator. You're not. You take advantage of 10,000 years of combined human effort in the arts and sciences. It's fine to whine about how inventions are like land except eventually someone else will need to make the next and better mousetrap. Those naieve ownership concepts you advocate WILL PREVENT NEW WORK FROM HAPPENING.
The next guy that tries to make a space western will be sued by the estate of George Lucas.
That idea was absurd 30 years ago but it is becoming increasingly less so. Fools like you are eager to jump on the corporate bandwagon.
Your notion of copyright is best summed up as: exploit the work of others and then prevent others from doing likewise.
Naptser et all should be FULL of everything that would be rightfully in the public domain already. THIS is really what the MPAA and RIAA are worried about. Traditional copyright would liberate the vast bulk of works that are currently being milked as cash cows or hidden from view and effectively destroyed.
The current drek wouldn't be able to compete.
Re:Until you consider Patents and other G. Monopol (Score:4, Insightful)
It is true that colonialism was, on the whole, more harmful than beneficial to those formal colonies which are now independent nations. However, it is also true to say that not everything about colonialism was necessarily a bad thing. The railroads, port facilities, and other colonial improvements made by the British throughout their former empire, notably in India, were reverted to the ownership of the newly independent nations and that windfall of improved infrastructure did partly compensate for the less desirable effects of colonialism in that the new nations began with something of a head start with regard to roads, ports, government buildings, railroads and the like.
However, even when the negative effects are accounted for, and most nations are now 50 years out from their colonial pasts, it does not fully explain why these now independent nations have failed to seize the day and produce for their citizens 50 years of economic growth and progress that was, in theory at least, possible once the colonialism ended.
In fact, modern third-world governments do a fine job of protecting property rights - of multinational corporations. It's actual citizens who lose out.
I would compare this with the dictator offering a good friend or family member, or indeed a foreigner with money to spend, special privileges that fall outside of the laws of that country or not covered by those laws because of the power of the dictator. This is not the same thing as an impartial and independent judiciary enforcing the private property rights of multinational corporations within the framework of the rule of laws. It should not therefore be used as an argument against the efficacy of protecting property rights in per se since it it in fact nothing more than the will of the dictator dressed up in words like "protecting the legitimate property rights", "freedom", and "democracy".
Then property becomes a tool for hoarding the resources of the planet, for concentrating control of capital into the hands of a state-backed owning and ruling class, then we need to realize that ideas that can usefully be applied to guitars, cannot necessarily be usefully applied to large tracts of land, natural resources, or ideas - and certainly not to shares in control of, and profit from, the actions of immortal fictitious citizens created by government fiat.
I suppose that this simply comes down to a basic disagreement on the means to best achieve the same goals. We both of us agree that we would like to own some land with a dwelling and perhaps a car and other personal possessions and amenities of our choosing, but we disagree on the best means to achieve those goals. If you believe that everyone should have an equal share of a smaller total pie then by all means vote for government control of markets and capital and we will all be equal in our misery. On the other hand if you believe in yourself and the rights of yourself in others to invest your capital in business and to work to increase that capital without the government swooping in and confiscating the fruits of your labor at whim then you should not be against the sort of concentration of capital that tends to occur in the later rather than the former system. If private property works for your guitar then why should it not work equally well for say generation of electricity or steel or other more "vital" industries, what Lenin called, the "Commanding Heights" of the economy? The answer is that it does and should not therefore be restricted. In fact, the only industry where the government should maintain complete monopsony [wikipedia.org] control is in the defense industry. The history of the twentieth century proved these assertions conclusively with the collapse of communism and the abandonment by China of any pretense of Marxist economic policies.
Mistaking property
Re:Until you consider Patents and other G. Monopol (Score:3, Insightful)
If a mugger points a gun at me and says "your money or your life", and I choose to give him my money instead of my life, that is in some sense a voluntary act. I could have just decided to live (brieflly) with the consequences of doing otherwise; but being robbed seems like a better deal than being killed, so I'd choose that instead. But we still call that coercion, and choices made thus are, in a very important sense, not voluntary. I don't want to choose between losing my money and losing my life.
The economic case is not so extreme, but similar qualitatively similar. It's still a case of someone with disproportionate power over another presenting the other with either a bad deal or a worse deal. In an ideal market, nobody has this sort of disproportionate power - if you don't like the deal you get from one person, you take a better offer from another. But real markets are far from ideal, and monopoly or monopsony status is the economic equivalent of the mugger's gun - you either take the bad deal you're offered, or you take the worse deal that's your only alternative. And such dilemmas can hardly be called free or voluntary choices.
This is why even Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, said that a well-regulated market was necessary. He was talking more particularly about regulations limiting violent coercion, but it seems to me that an extension of that to economic coercion is perfectly logical as well. A free market is great, yes. But a market with monopolists or monopsonists is little more free than a market where the mob makes sure nobody buys pizza except from Fat Tony.