A popular fallacy that has become part of the tradition of anti-trust law is Predatory
Pricing. This where a big company that is out to eliminate its smaller competitors and take over their share of the market will lower its prices to a level that dooms the
competitor to unsustainable losses and forces it out of business.
A remarkable thing about this theory is that those who advocate it seldom provide
concrete examples of when it actually happened.
A company that sustains losses by selling below cost to drive out a competitor is
following a very risky strategy.
Even if our would-be predator manages somehow to overcome these problems, it is by no
means clear that eliminating existing competitors will mean eliminating competition.
Even when a rival firm has been forced into bankruptcy, its physical equipment and the
skills of the people who once made it viable do not vanish into thin air. A new
entrepreneur can come along and acquire both.
Bankruptcy can eliminate particular owners and managers, but it does not eliminate
competition in the form of new people, who may either take over an existing bankrupt
enterprise or start their own new business from scratch in the same industry.
Genuine plunder of one nation or people by another has been all too common throughout human history. During the era before the First World War, when Germany had colonies in Africa, only 4 of its 22 enterprises with cocoa plantations there paid dividends, as did only 8 of 58 rubber plantations and only 3 out of 49 diamond mining companies. At the height of the British Empire in the early twentieth century, the British invested more in the United States than in all of Asia and Africa put together. Quite simply, there was more wealth to be made from rich countries than from poor countries. For similar reasons, throughout most of the twentieth century the United States invested more in Canada than in Asia and Africa put together. Only the rise of prosperous Asian industrial nations in the latter part of the twentieth century attracted more American investors in that part of the world. Perhaps the strongest evidence against the economic significance of colonies in the modern world is tha
Comments
Post a Comment