General comment on the "I don't see consumer harm because prices aren't that high" argument. It fails to capture the true danger of monopoly, namely:
-lack of competition leads to lack of innovation (Stoller's argument)
-lack of innovation results in less spending on R&D
-less innovation means the most efficient way to maximize profit is to find "efficiencies" in the business
-those "efficiencies" manifest as:
-less spending on R&D because
there is no need;
-lower salaries to employees;
-fewer employees overall;
-worse quality:
-Squeeze suppliers and
contractors, putting more
pressure across the board to
consolidate and reinforcing the Cycle across the entire chain
If left unchecked (as the "consumer harm" doctrine has for the past 40 years or so), the results are:
-overall concentration of power and wealth
-greater wealth disparities
-less investment and innovation
-fewer choices that provide worse consumer experience
This pattern has been pretty well documented across many industries, from shipping to cheerleading
-lack of competition leads to lack of innovation (Stoller's argument)
-lack of innovation results in less spending on R&D
-less innovation means the most efficient way to maximize profit is to find "efficiencies" in the business
-those "efficiencies" manifest as: -less spending on R&D because there is no need; -lower salaries to employees; -fewer employees overall; -worse quality: -Squeeze suppliers and contractors, putting more pressure across the board to consolidate and reinforcing the Cycle across the entire chain
If left unchecked (as the "consumer harm" doctrine has for the past 40 years or so), the results are:
-overall concentration of power and wealth
-greater wealth disparities
-less investment and innovation
-fewer choices that provide worse consumer experience
This pattern has been pretty well documented across many industries, from shipping to cheerleading