"The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday overturned a nearly century-old ruling that prohibited manufacturers from dictating the minimum prices retailers must charge for their goods, saying such agreements could spark competition rather than stifle it.
The 5 to 4 opinion, delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, found that minimum-pricing requirements by manufacturers do not constitute an automatic violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Instead, the agreements must be judged on a case-by-case basis according to a "rule of reason" to determine whether they interfere with market competition."
I have several problems with this.
Since when has our legal structure ever used such a thing as reason? I mean when you really get down to it the only way a true monopoly can exist is if it is legitimized and protected by the Federal Government. In a market where entrance into and out of the market is it entirely possible for an entrepreneur to knock a so-called Monopoly down a notch and in the process capture a portion of market share.
the fact that there happens to be one business that seems to dominate a given market at this time in NO way makes it a monopoly. In fact, if you look at many of the so-called (I say so-called because I honestly believe that "monopoly" is just a modern anti-capitalist buzzword) "monopolies" do not ACT like the microeconomic models tell us they should. Strange how they act like firms in a competitive market...
But here are the other issues and these both bother me a lot!
1.) What is wrong with allowing producers of a good to contract with a seller and say 'You buy this from us and you don't sell it below a price we set'? First off no self respecting retail store will go for it. They need those sale prices to clear out inventory. You see it all the time when you walk into a clothing store. Now some carriers of VERY expensive luxury goods might just go for this, but I wouldn't expect to see the price of Hanes T-Shirts skyrocket.
"Justice Stephen G. Breyer filed a dissenting opinion with Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, arguing that little has changed in the U.S. economy to warrant overruling a decision that has held up since 1911."(emphasis mine)
WHAT IN THE HELL!?! Are they really this dumb? Is 4/9 of the ruling court of our land legally retarded? The Economy hasn't changed? Or is just that it hasn't changed enough for the sainted wearers of black robes to decide that we are fit for government to cease regulating our lives and businesses?