The Sherman Antitrust Act

Price fixing is illegal under the competition act of 1998. When participants on the same side of the market (such as the big 4 in the UK supermarket sector) agree to sell a service, product or commodity at a fixed price it’s the consumers who must pay while retailers and suppliers reap the benefits. There are extremely heavy penalties for price fixing in the UK You can be fined, disqualified from being a director - or even sent to prison (Business Link No Date).

The paper will serve as a historical background overview of how the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC) came into existence. The paper will also break down the key components for which the FTC covers, such as deceptive advertising, baiting and switching and consumer fraud. There will be examples

The questions that remain in people heads is did the federal government do its job in regulating business? Or was it overstepping its boundaries with these acts? During the Progressive Era Reforms it was thought to address issues that occurred during the Glided Age. Regulating business can be tricky, my thought is that to regulate means the US Government would make laws to oversee, adjust, fine tune and correct the unfair business tactics in industry and big business, not to run

It required that all prices must be reasonable and just, rates must be publically posted, outlawed all secret rebates and deals, and price discrimination against smaller companies was now made illegal. While the act promised many changes to reduce the domination of the railroad monopolies, it was not enforced as pro-railroad commissioners were appointed by most of the later presidents. The next act passed by congress in 1890 called Sherman Antitrust Act. The objective of the act was to ban trusts and other contracts that restrained free trade. Much like the Interstate Commerce it was not enforced at all. In fact it was used to help the railroad monopolies even more by regulating labor unions. The very pro-business Supreme Court would rule that strikes violated the prohibition against “a conspiracy in restraint of trade.” In the act. This was the opposite intent of the act, and would not be properly enforced until the early

With the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890, the government set out to limit the power of large corporations who were monopolizing good and controlling the economy. Small businesses struggled to stay afloat in the midst of these economic superpowers. The aim of the Sherman Antitrust Act was to make monopolization illegal. This was significant because it made the American economy rich with competition and increased monetary circulation. This in turn made the economy more favorable for smaller businesses.

When Woodrow Wilson was inaugurated in 1913, he stated in his address that, “We shall deal with our economic system as it is and as it may be modified, not as it might be if we had a clean sheet of paper to write upon” (First Inaugural Address, online). He did just that when he passed the Clayton Antitrust Act in October 1914. The Sherman Antitrust Act was passed in 1890, but it was very vague in the way it described monopolies (Clayton Antitrust Act, online). Big business took advantage of the loopholes, which diminished competition (Clayton Antitrust Act, online). Although Roosevelt and Taft successfully busted about 150 trusts, big businesses continued to grow and our entire economic system remained in the hands of a few men (Taft Biography, online; T. Roosevelt – Section 8, online; Clayton Antitrust, online). Wilson requested Congress to modify the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the Clayton Antitrust Act was born (Clayton Antitrust, online). It is “An Act To supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes” (HR 15657, online). The Sherman Act simply declared monopolies illegal, while the Clayton Act declared activities linked with monopolies to be illegal (Clayton Antitrust Act, online). Such activities include mergers and acquisitions that are intended “substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly” (HR 15657, online). The Federal Trade Commission Act, passed about a month before the Clayton Act, banned

There was an increase in technology, factory production, production of steel and oil. This industry produced a lot of wealth for businessmen like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Henry Clay Frick. These trusts were huge economics forces and had the power to manipulate prices. In response to these trusts, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibited trusts and was based on the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. However the Sherman Antitrust act did little to stop the growth of trusts, but instead was used against labor unions. The act restricted labor unions by cease and desist orders against strikers and their unions. Cease and desist prohibited a person from doing a certain activity, and in this case it meant that laborers could not strike. By not allowing a worker to strike is not letting them achieve their full citizenship rights. The Sherman Antitrust act did more to restrict human rights than ban

Reformer Ida B. Tarbell was a muckracker who wrote for McClure’s Magazine in the 1920s. As a muckracker, Tarbell would bring to light issues affected the American people. More specifically, in her “History of the Standard Oil Company”, Tarbell documented how Rockefeller ruthlessly squeezed out competitors with unfair business practices. With Tarbell’s writings, the middle class was able to respond with great moral exhortation. In addition Tarbell exposed the corruption of these companies such as Rockefeller’s oil company to a large audience of citizens and placed politicians under great duress to serve the interests of the people. For example, President Theodore Roosevelt fought to end the trusts and was known as a “trust buster” (Doc. A). Roosevelt was adamant about getting rid of the bad trusts and keeping the “good trusts”. In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in an attempt to break up massive monopolies dominating the American economy. The Sherman Antitrust Act was unsuccessful because it did not include a method of enforcement; however that was not the last attempt to bring about an end to bad trusts. In 1914, President Wilson gained passage of the Clayton Antitrust Act. This act was more strict than that of the Sherman Antitrust Act barring companies from creating a monopoly on products (Doc. E). President Wilson was ultimately successful in the passage of

As Document E illustrates, the Clayton Antitrust Bill claims it unlawful to "lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce". Although Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson established reforms to stop monopoly, they still had many holes in their trust-busting campaign which severely limited the full effects of trust-busting. Similar to antitrust reforms, women's rights reforms had significant, but limited

The Sherman Anti-trust Act in1890 aimed to stop monopolies from their unfair practices: The standard oil company being one of the government’s first attempts to stop. The government’s actions demonstrated their attitude towards monopolies. “ In 1887, congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act, which outlawed railroad rebates and kickbacks and also established the Interstate Commerce Commission to ensure that railroad companies obeyed the new laws” (“Sherman”). Both the Sherman Anti-trust and Interstate Commerce Acts were established to minimize the control monopolies had over the economy.

In all three degrees of price discrimination firms are able to make more profit and eliminate any excess capacity they may have. Firms are able to do this by charging higher prices to those consumers with a more price inelastic demand for their product. The firm is reducing the welfare of these consumers by changing them at the maximum price they are willing to

Despite its good intentions, the Act didn't hit all its targets. The Act emerged as a somewhat tenuous plan to break up the "big business" monopolies. The weaknesses of the Act are described by Chief Justice Stone: "The prohibitions of the Sherman Act were not stated in terms of precision or of crystal clarity and the Act itself does not define them. In consequence of the vagueness of its language, perhaps not uncalculated, the courts have been left to give content to the statute, and in the performance of that function it is inappropriate that courts should interpret its words in the light of its legislative history and of the particular evils at which the legislation was aimed." Ultimately, "there [was] no question that nearly everyone wanted to

Predatory pricing is a tool that is used to achieve market power. It is the practice of pricing below cost. This can foster market power in three simple ways, by eliminating rivals, by disciplining rivals who refuse to cooperate in keeping prices at monopoly levels, or by depressing the market value of rivals' assets so that a predator can purchase these assets at below market prices. Predatory pricing does not allow the market to work freely. It is a way of controlling the market.

pricing closely, as being out of step with the market can cause dramatic market share changes in a

Superficially, one cannot imagine how cheap prices could ever do any wrong. The customer gets to save plenty of money, and the store gains more profit from new customers searching for a good deal. Even though this may be the common notion, most people cannot see the damage being done to companies around the globe. Countless numbers of businesses have been forced to bankruptcy because of the demand of big chain companies, such as Wal-Mart, forcing them to cut their prices. Because big chain companies that sell low prices, like Wal-Mart, cause business to file bankruptcy, lower their prices to unprofitable lows, and outsource their jobs overseas cheap prices can easily have harsh consequences.