Monopoly

This book cuts through the confusion, fallacies and ignorance surrounding antitrust policy. With scholarship and rigor, it analyzes classic antitrust cases to argue convincingly that antitrust law is wrong in theory and disastrous in practice. Its argument is nothing less than that antitrust laws should be repealed.

A summary of its contents may be helpful to prospective buyers: Its first fifty pages are concerned with theory, first discussing the rationale, legality and legitimacy of antitrust policy; then presenting and critiquing neoclassical competition theory, offering alternative theories, based in Austrian economics, in the process. The next 220 pages (including endnotes) are taken up with studies of more than 35 classic antitrust cases, organized into six topical chapters: monopoly under the Sherman Act; monopoly in busines history; price conspiracy and antitrust law; price discrimination and the competitive process; tying agreements and public policy; mergers, competition and antitrust policy. In each chapter, subsections explain the theory behind the analysis that follows and restate the chapter's conclusions at the end. The last chapter (ten pages) reviews the book's major findings, critiques both antitrust's enthusiasts and conventional critics and arrives at a radical conclusion from its examination of theory and history: "Nothing less than an extreme opposition in principle to all antitrust laws appears justified by the facts." An appendix (three pages) excerpts relevant sections of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.

One observation made in its concluding chapter is that many antitrust critics do not reject antitrust law entirely, believing that there was at one time a "golden age" of antitrust when it was needed to curb monopoly and that today antitrust policy is often simply misguided. For those of you of this view: You are mistaken. Antitrust has never been justifiable, has never worked. Ever. And this book goes a long way toward proving it. This is why this book is important. It should be read by economists, students and anyone who would dare assert the realistic possibility of monopoly's arising in a free market: if you would assert this, you don't know as much as you think you do.

Dr. Armentano has written another book, *Antitrust: the Case for Repeal*; it is shorter and analyzes more recent antitrust cases (the most recent case in the book under review is from 1977), such as the one against Microsoft. I have not read it yet, but I expect it to be of comparable quality to *Antitrust and Monopoly*. For a philosophical and moral case for capitalism in general, see Ayn Rand's *Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal*, especially chapters 1 ("What is Capitalism?") and 3 ("America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business").

I remember reading this book in an advanced micro economics course at the University of Maine. It struck a chord and helped me turn the page to start questioning the standard fare served up by my professors. The Austrian analysis continues to make the most sense with respect all economic situations and it is books like this that need to be distributed to serious students of economics and philosophy.

In this book, Armentano presents a stellar case against antitrust. Using air-tight Austrian theory, he first refutes common fallacies inherent in the relevant aspects of today's popular economic theory. Afterwards, he goes through the history of antitrust prosecution, dispelling myth after myth. As a whole, this book proves without a doubt that antitrust is, and has always been, a dangerous and unnecessary set of laws.

With all the various information available concerning the Microsoft monopoly, it was wonderful to find an objective source that followed the events before and during the Microsoft case, analyzed the monopolistic tendencies of the software market in general, and compared this information with previous monopolies. The best characteristic of this book is that it explains the events and legalities of the case in such a way that it is not at all difficult to understand.

The contributions to this work are all excellent, well written articles by the most respected experts on the leading edge of antitrust analysis.

The Goodyear Story: An Inventor's Obsession And The Struggle For A Rubber Monopoly by Richard Korman (Senior Editor, Engineering News-Record, McGraw-Hill) is the amazing and informative biography of Charles Goodyear, the man who in the 1830's began his efforts to create rubber -- a material, in his belief, which would forever alter the world and the course of human civilization. His dream cost so much that his family lived in poverty and he suffered in debtor's prison. Yet his dream was not only to make rubber, but also to reap the wealth of controlling its creation and distribution; when others tried to lay claim to the manufacture of his miracle, only a lawsuit as argued by the famous Daniel Webster could settle the dispute once and for all. The Goodyear Story is a fascinating, true-life tale of science, business, and the striving of human nature against great odds and adverse circumstances.

Korman hits a home run with his portrait of the inventor Charles Goodyear and his self-destructive mania surrounding finding a way to make rubber a useful industrial product. The craziness continues when Goodyear claims the credit for the invention (and the royalties) as his own.

The book is a time-traveling glimpse into industrial revolutionary America and England and the swirling energy surrounding the changes happening at the time.

A must for ambitious business people and basement tinkerers!

Conventional wisdom says that America needs tighter campaign finance rules to level the political playing field. A recent book suggests the opposite is true. Existing rules give enormous advantages to certain political players, and proposed campaign finance "reforms" would solidify their grip even further.

"Monopoly Politics" (Hoover Press, 1999; 157 pages), by James C. Miller III, describes a system so stacked in favor of congressional incumbents that challengers have little hope of defeating them in the voting booth.

More likely than not, the vast majority of congressional incumbents who run for re-election this year will win, and win big. In 1998, voters re-elected 98.3 percent of all incumbents who sought to remain in the U.S. House of Representatives. Three out of four of these incumbents won re-election with more than 60 percent of the vote. Believe it or not, that was fairly typical for a congressional election. Since 1950, incumbents seeking re-election to the House won 93 percent of the time. Senators fared nearly as well, winning 80 percent of their re-election bids.

In explaining these overwhelming percentages, Miller juxtaposes political markets with commercial markets. In the latter, anti-trust laws exist to prevent businesses from colluding to keep new competitors from entering the marketplace. But in the political marketplace, elected officials routinely engage in monopolistic practices with impunity. After all, Congress writes the election laws.

Miller, who once served as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, and who was himself a challenger in two Senate primaries, believes incumbents often win re-election because they have access to the formidable resources of their political offices. For instance, incumbents routinely bombard their home districts with mass mailings at taxpayer expense. They have free use of the Capitol's television and radio studios. They use the appropriations process to lavish their districts with pork-barrel spending. They provide "constituent services" to the voters who will ultimately decide their political fates. Few challengers can easily overcome such advantages.

Federal election laws also provide congressional incumbents with a substantial edge. For example, the law allows incumbents to maintain multi-million-dollar "war chests" from one election cycle to the next. These discourage would-be challengers from entering the race. And because incumbents with large war chests are thought more likely to win re-election, many challengers find it difficult to raise money for their underdog campaigns.

Reform-minded readers will enjoy Miller's lengthy discourse on campaign finance reform. Although several reform proposals are competing for Congress' attention, most are based on the assumption that money has corrupted the political marketplace. Predictably, the leading reform proposals would further restrict a candidate's ability to raise or spend campaign money.

Miller advocates an entirely different point of view. He believes the political marketplace is suffering not from too much money, but from too little competition. While incumbents are generally well-known in their home districts, most challengers must spend an inordinate amount of time and money to introduce themselves to the electorate. Further restricting a congressional candidate's ability to raise or spend campaign money would only make it more difficult for challengers to become known in their districts.

"Monopoly Politics" offers 15 specific recommendations for increasing competition in the political marketplace. Among other things, Miller would eliminate the legal ceilings on campaign contributions and require campaigns to disclose their contributions fully. He would impose term limits, eliminate "pork" in the budget, prohibit war chests, and end the free use of Capitol television and radio studios.

Some of Miller's recommendations are more practical than others. (Indeed, fiscal conservatives have tried unsuccessfully for decades to purge wasteful pork projects from the federal budget.) But on the whole, Miller's recommendations would likely inject much-needed competition into the political marketplace. For that reason, expect incumbents to offer fierce resistance.

As interesting as Miller's book is, even more interesting have been the reactions to it. Inside the Washington Beltway, people nod in agreement with Miller's description of how politicians engage in anti-competitive behavior, as though that is the way the system is supposed to work. Outside the Beltway, people have trouble seeing what the controversy is all about. They could care less about competition among politicians. After all, aren't politicians pretty much the same? In fact, politicians aren't all the same. But if we don't change the system, we might never be sure.

(James Carter is an economist with the U.S. Senate. Patrick Chisholm is managing editor at KCI Communications, an investment newsletter publisher.)

Thanks to an advance copy of "Monopoly Politics" I have had a chance to read and review a book that takes a much needed new look at a tired problem. Too many reformers have offered the same explanation and remedies for the ills of the political markets. Namely limit the money, control the money, track the money. But Dr. Miller dives straight into the heart of the problem, the lack of competition in the political markets. Hopefully this book will be the start of a new debate that addresses the real problem, so that effective reform can begin.

Jeffrey Bauer really knows what he's talking about. All it takes is one trip to the clinic or hospital, and you know there's something drastically wrong with the delivery of health care in America. If you're insured, it's scary. If you're not insured, God help you!

Bauer offers a commonsense solution that will lower cost and increase service. And we know he's right. Since this book was originally written four years ago--although recently updated--much of what he's advocated has already (but slowly) begun to occur.

Every health care professional should read this book. It should be a required text in every allied health care provider school in the country. It should be a required text in every medical school in the country as well. But it won't be, for although it is not anti-doctor it challenges the status quo. And that always scares those on top.

An empowering book for those who want to see real change in health care.

If physicians are not already in fear of losing their medical monopoly it's because they have not been paying close attention. The greed of many (not all) doctors is the root cause, as they have lost their patient-centered focus in pursuit of huge finacial gains in the health care market.

I believe that tax-payers are now in the process of revolting, evidenced by proposed changes in federal regulations (Healthcare Finance Administration). Costs are unbelievably high and the country still has a large number of people who are uninsured. Healthcare in america is in serious trouble, and the physician empire is crumbling. I say, the sooner the better.

This book gives more insight into healthcare problems and solutions than any I have read. Please read this book and start trying to find ways to implement the proposed changes in your state law. I know from personal experience that the primary care offered by advanced practice nurses is as good as any offered by a physician. This book will give you the confidence and insight required to help usher in meaningful healthcare reform for the 21st century. Please read it, and pass it on to a friend.

This book is more timely today than when it first appeared. I cannot say it better than reviewers of the time:
"...Kreig deserves a place on the required reading list of any ethics class ... The book offers enough specific examples to stimulate class analysis for several semesters." (Journalism Quarterly)
"Anyone who has been a reporter will recognize the characters in this compelling book, whether or not they've worked for a chain. The arrogance, pretentiousness and downright cowardice so common to newspaper management appear here in bold relief." (John R. MacArthur, Publisher, Harper's Magazine)
"....a pretty chilling tale...very well reported." (Jonathan Alter, Senior Editor, Newsweek)
"...beg, borrow, buy or steal a copy of Spiked." (Willimantic Chronicle).
I agree! A must read!

Spiked provides an insider's account of the economics and politics that shape the newspaper industry -- excessive bending for profits, prizes and pacification. As indicated by the overwhelmingly positive response to this important book, this continues to be an enduring analysis of the most important trends in the news business, affecting the forces at work that shape our democracy.

Health care is often characterized as a sector in which market rules, which optimize production and distribution elsewhere in the economy, should not apply. The author of this trim volume, a professor at UC Santa Barbara, has devoted his career to health economics. He turns a spotlight on hopsital monopolies, physician monopolies, and health insurance monopolies which, aided and abetted by government, have made health care way too expensive. The account includes clear explanations of important concepts, such as "moral hazard," "adverse selection," and "supply-induced demand." Nearly all relevant theoretical and empirical studies in health economics are cited and reviewed. The book is analytical and apolitical -- a gold mine for anyone wishing to understand the health economy. Health sector monopolists may feel naked if they continue to hide behind the banners of "quality" and "ethics" in the future. Their "rents" and "administrative slack" are fully expose

This book is an important book for our time. Everyone who is concerned about problems besetting the public schools should read this book. A main theme of the author is that schools will not improve unless we break up EFM, the "educational finance monopoly," and instead give more power to parents. The author lays out some powerful arguments. He shows how school choice is already working well in many places, including in several European countries, and in the USA. He points out that the G.I. Bill has produced the best higher education system in the world, but our K-12 system is one of the worst in the world. Opponents of school choice charge that it will increase extremism or racism, that the government will take over private schools, or that school choice will destroy public schools. This book addresses these and other charges, demonstrating clearly that they aren't valid, but are instead "smoke screen" arguments promoted by the educational establishment. This book also includes the actual proposal for the Washington D.C. voucher system passed by Congress this last year ('98), but vetoed by Bill Clinton. If you are thinking school choice might have some merit, but have not known what to make of the arguments against it, read this book. But be careful, like myself, you may decide to become active in getting your state to beat Florida in becoming the first state to adopt a school choice proposal. Another good book on this subject is "School Choice: Why You Need It, How You Get It," by David Harmer.

quite goo

For all Marxists, and most non-Marxists, this book is simply unique. Professors Ross and Trachte have designed a framework accounting for the change in the class balance of power resulting from the globalization of capital. They then apply this framework to three case studies, thereby showing how the owners of capital have become stronger vis a vis the state and labour, with the result being an intensification of class struggle on a global scale, resulting in the rollback of many of the gains made by the working class earlier on in this century, (such as the welfare state, minimum wage laws, etc..) They also explain why earlier theories, (monopoly capitalism and world systems,) are inadequate insofar as explaining the global economy of the 1990's is concerned. Their own theory of global capitalism, on the other hand, does this brilliantly; for anyone who wishes to understand the fundamentals of the international economy, this book is invaluable.