In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act to battle anticompetitive practices, reduce market domination by individual corporations, and preserve unfettered competition as the rule of trade ("Antitrust: an overview," 2011).The antitrust investigation that I am looking at is against several major baby formula brands. Companies that were involved in this investigation include Mead Johnson Nutrition of the United States, Dumex which is owned by Danone, Wyeth which is owned by Nestle, Abbotts and Friesland Campine, Biostime, and Beignmate. These companies are being investigated by the National Development and Reform Commission. They are accused of violating Article 14 of the Anti-monopoly law by limiting the lowest prices offered to their …show more content…
The government has put a limit on the amount of milk powder that can be purchased by Chinese who travel to Hong Kong. The People’s Daily, the official publication of the Communist Party, said in a commentary that since 2008, foreign milk powder companies had increased their prices in China by around 30 percent (Edward, 2013). Foreign milk powder has 60 percent of the market share in China compared with 30 percent before 2008, the commentary said (Edward, 2013). Since August 2008 when the enactment of the antimonopoly law the Chinese government have really been going against foreign companies for antitrust …show more content…
There are only a few firms that make up this industry and they have control over the price. These companies have high barriers to entry the market. The products they produce are similar which cause competition. There is both good and bad when it comes to oligopoly and monopolies. Some good things about oligopoly are by developing product innovations and taking advantage of economies of scale. With oligopoly it is more likely to expand production capabilities, promote economic growth, and they develop change that advances the level of technology ("Oligopoly," 2000). Some bad things about oligopoly is that they tend to be inefficient in the allocation of resources and promotes the concentration of income and wealth ("Oligopoly," 2000). They charge much higher prices and end up producing less of an output than the efficiency benchmark of perfect competition. One of the good forms is natural monopoly. Natural monopoly exists when economies of scale encourage production by a single producer (Mayer). An example of this is your local electrical utility. As a power plant increases, the cost per kilowatt hour of electricity falls (Mayer). If we were to all use small generators to run our homes the cost of each household would be ridiculous. The total fixed cost of generators for the community would be high and the variable cost of running it would also be high. Another form of monopoly that is good is
✓ It could be strategic because, often governments will forbid foreign companies from selling products to its citizens, so as not to take away sales from local industry.
A monopoly is advantageous to the society and is encourages by the government if there are high fixed costs and very strong economies of scale. At the same time, it could also lead to unequal distribution of wealth; containment of consumer choice; lobbying and unethical spending.
Finally is the allowance of these monopolies to rise in the first place. Since there were no regulatory agencies back in the second industrial revolution, big businessmen with the idea of trimming fat in their companies could conquer any competitor by using hardball tactics of purposely
Monopolies are quite dangerous economically, and are usually broken up by the federal government, with only two exceptions- electricity, and gas. These are modern examples. A monopoly is the economic term for when a company that makes a product has no competition, and can raise the prices as high as they want. For example, the most obvious and powerful monopoly of the industrial revolution was the railroad monopoly. They made money quite quickly as a shipping company, and destroyed any and all competition as the only transcontinental railroad at the time. It’s leader, Cornelius Vanderbilt came to be considered one of the most powerful people of all time, due to his control over who he shipped for.
Before 1890, a few companies completely dominated major industries. Stockholders’ trusts eliminated competition and created monopolies, which in turn hurt American consumers and the economy as a whole. However, this all changed in 1890 when Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It was the first regulation of American businesses, outlawing monopolies and trusts, which created a way for the government to control the economy. Congress should have passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act because it protects consumer rights, controls the economy, and eliminates monopolistic business practices.
The Sherman (related to preventing one company from becoming too powerful) Act 1890, the purpose of the act was to destroy (companies with too much power) that were using their power to harm (community of people/all good people in the world); and (one company that controls too much) is someone that has total control over a clearly stated/particular company). In the 1800s there were a many amount of businesses growing in the United States. The U.S was making people pay for products (that are bought and sold) or services they gave/given at high price that put pressure on people because some people didn't have the money to pay for everything other people have. The congress passed the act in 1890 it was the first to be passed. The Act had to go
A natural monopoly is an industry in which one business already exists is not economical because the competing business would not be able to reduce their prices as low as the price of the natural monopoly and therefore wouldn’t be profitable. Natural monopolies are established when multiple firms startup costs are too high to enter the industry.
The Sherman Act of 1890 as referenced in McConnell and Campbell (2011), consists of two main regulations;
The Sherman Antitrust Act is a law that Congress passed to prevent any one company from gaining a monopoly over a market. Additionally, this law helps protect new businesses from being crushed by larger corporations. For example, when the government stepped in to force Pac Bell Telphone Services to separate due to the company having to much control of the market. Now, these anti-trust laws are easily enforced in the present day, however in the early 19th-century lack of technology and payoffs made the implantation of these statutes tough. For example, when a large corporation wanted to buy a smaller one they could simply use a shell corporation to make the purchase without anyone being able to link the acquisition back to the original company.
In 1907 a federal court ruled that American Tobacco had a monopoly on licorice, a flavoring, and that the company was guilty of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. After a long trial, the court prohibited the company from enjoying interstate trade until conditions were corrected. It went through the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided on May 29, 1911 that the company had to be dissolved. On Nov. 16, 1911 the Supreme Court issued a decree that the company had to be divided into three major parts: American Tobacco, Liggett and Myers, and P. Lorillard. The control of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company of Winston-Salem was also relinquished. James B. Duke, a multimillionaire by then, retired from active management of the American companies and turned
The first antitrust law passed by Congress was the Sherman Act, in 1890. In 1914, Congress passed two other antitrust laws: The Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the Federal Trade Commission, and the Clayton Act. With some revisions, these are the most important federal antitrust laws still in effect today. Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions when the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." (ftc.gov) The antitrust laws proscribe unlawful mergers and business practices in general terms, leaving courts to decide which ones are illegal based on the facts of each case. For over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up. The enforcement authorities of the federal antitrust laws are The Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division (ftc.gov).
A preliminary question is what are antitrust laws? They are a series of laws designed to protect competition in the marketplace. Antitrust laws prevent restrains of trade or commerce. Black’s Law Dictionary defines antitrust laws as “[t]he body of law designed to protect trade and commerce from restraints, monopolies, price-fixing, and price discrimination.” The main law regulating antitrust is the Sherman Antitrust Act, which makes it illegal for individuals or groups to restrain trade or commerce. Besides the Sherman Act, the other law that factors into Dental Examiners is the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits any “[u]nfair methods of competition.” This law serves as the basis for the majority of Federal Trade
Antitrust plaintiffs have many different remedies available to them under Federal antitrust law. Plaintiffs can receive damages for any loss they sustained from the antitrust activity. For example, if an antitrust activity prevented a salesperson from conducting their normal profession then that person would likely be able to recover damages for that loss. In antitrust law, plaintiffs receive “treble damages,”
Finally, you may be asking “Are oligopolies harmful or beneficial to the consumer?” There are some economists who view oligopolies as negative, stating that they artificially inflate prices and inhibit healthy competition between companies. They claim oligopolies are one step away from monopolies, and that without restriction placed upon their activities, oligopolists will tend toward monopolistic price fixation. However, these statements are normative, and completely unfounded. The fact is that firms do not strive to be monopolies. They prefer some healthy competition. It keeps them current and innovative, and provides the framework for cutting costs, finding more efficient production methods and developing new products. Most importantly, it keeps them out from under government scrutiny, as a monopoly would be. Consumers benefit from this in the form of lower prices and more variety. In fact, as you look at our current economy, you can see these points supported everywhere. First, the competition
They have obtained civil consent decrees that will contribute to lower prices and improved quality for such products. In addition, they have also worked with businesses to restructure mergers in order to protect competition in the American marketplace.