Commentary — March 14, 2012, 1:34 pm

The DOJ’s Misguided Antitrust Attack

The Obama Administration tackles the victim in the fight over America’s book market

Barry C. Lynn is the author of Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction. He directs the Markets, Enterprise, and Resiliency Initiative at the New America Foundation. His feature “Killing the Competition: How the New Monopolies Are Destroying Open Markets” appeared in the February 2012 issue of Harper’s Magazine, and is available for free online. A previous article, “Breaking the Chain: The antitrust case against Wal-Mart” (July 2006), is also available.

In 1890, Congress passed America’s first federal antimonopoly law, the Sherman Antitrust Act, by an overwhelming margin. The intent was to protect the nation’s markets and break up its concentrations of economic and political power. But almost immediately, the very plutocrats targeted by the law figured out how to turn it to their advantage. It was the unions of the workingman, they said, and the cooperatives of the farmer, that were the truly dangerous cartels. And with some help from business-friendly courts, the big man was made free to use the Sherman Act against the little man.

After twenty years, the American people at last regained some control of this powerful set of laws. And although, in the century since, administrations have often chosen not to enforce those laws, they have also generally resisted attempts to once again turn these laws against the actual victims of power.

Last week, however, President Obama’s Justice Department weighed in on the ongoing fight over who gets to price America’s books—the people who write and publish those books, or Amazon. And rather than target Amazon, which has captured de facto monopoly control over the U.S. market for books, the DOJ threatened the publishers subject to Amazon’s power.

The supposed crime of these companies? To insist on their right to price their own products and compete freely and openly with one another, without being manipulated by a giant trading company serving its own private interests.

What makes the DOJ’s approach especially sad is that its antitrust enforcers apparently mean well. Unlike the appointees of, say, George W. Bush, many, if not most, Obama Administration employees actually seem to want to serve the public interest. Unfortunately, these men and women find their ability to do so warped by an ideology they do not fully understand.

For America’s first 200 years, the aim of our antimonopoly laws was to ensure the safe distribution of power. This was true even during those periods when the law was not being enforced. Then, in the 1970s and 1980s, a strange alliance of corporate libertarians, Galbraithian socialists, and consumer activists concluded that it was better to promote “efficiency” instead, as measured mainly by lower prices.

The real-world result? Ever since, every would-be monopolist in America has been largely free to concentrate power at will, right up to complete control over an entire market. The only requirement was the ability to claim that lower prices would result. And so it was proved again the other day: Amazon promised the American consumer a few pennies in savings, and the DOJ, in the name of the people, signed away some of our most fundamental liberties.

Getting ourselves out of this mess will require two minor revolutions, one intellectual and one political.

First, the time has come for America’s antitrust “experts” to face up to the fact that the original and primary purpose of these laws was not to serve the consumer by promoting “efficiency,” but to protect the liberties of the American citizen through the safe distribution of power.

Second, those citizens directly affected–every American writer, editor, publisher, and reader–must decide where they stand. Those who prefer to work in a system where a single private boss micromanages the book business are free to do nothing. But those who believe it best to organize this vital activity in an open and transparent market have a duty to act now.

Sure, Amazon will retaliate. But even this Goliath shall fall, once enough little people stand up for the same open markets and liberties that served us so well for our first 200 years.

Share
Single Page
undefined

More from Barry C. Lynn:

From the November 2015 issue

The New China Syndrome

American business meets its new master

Commentary February 3, 2012, 1:58 pm

Obama’s Big Shtick

From the February 2012 issue

Killing the Competition

How the new monopolies are destroying open markets

Get access to 165 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

September 2016

Land of Sod

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Only an Apocalypse Can Save Us Now

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Watchmen

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Acceptable Losses

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Home

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Tennis Lessons

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Post
 
Andrew Cockburn on the Saudi slaughter in Yemen, Alan Jacobs on the disappearance of Christian intellectuals, a forum on a post-Obama foreign policy, a story by Alice McDermott, and more
Artwork by Ingo Günther
Article
Land of Sod·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Nobody in academia had ever witnessed or even heard of a performance like this before. In just a few years, in the early 1950s, a University of Pennsylvania graduate student — a student, in his twenties — had taken over an entire field of study, linguistics, and stood it on its head and hardened it from a spongy so-called “social science” into a real science, a hard science, and put his name on it: Noam Chomsky.

At the time, Chomsky was still finishing his doctoral dissertation for Penn, where he had completed his graduate-school course work. But at bedtime and in his heart of hearts he was living in Boston as a junior member of Harvard’s Society of Fellows, and creating a Harvard-level name for himself.

Photograph by Mike Slack
Article
The Watchmen·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Nobody in academia had ever witnessed or even heard of a performance like this before. In just a few years, in the early 1950s, a University of Pennsylvania graduate student — a student, in his twenties — had taken over an entire field of study, linguistics, and stood it on its head and hardened it from a spongy so-called “social science” into a real science, a hard science, and put his name on it: Noam Chomsky.

At the time, Chomsky was still finishing his doctoral dissertation for Penn, where he had completed his graduate-school course work. But at bedtime and in his heart of hearts he was living in Boston as a junior member of Harvard’s Society of Fellows, and creating a Harvard-level name for himself.

Illustration by John Ritter
Article
The Origins of Speech·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

"To Chomsky...every child’s language organ could use the 'deep structure,' 'universal grammar,' and 'language acquisition device' he was born with to express what he had to say, no matter whether it came out of his mouth in English or Urdu or Nagamese."
Illustration (detail) by Darrel Rees. Source photograph © Miroslav Dakov/Alamy Live News
Article
Acceptable Losses·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Nobody in academia had ever witnessed or even heard of a performance like this before. In just a few years, in the early 1950s, a University of Pennsylvania graduate student — a student, in his twenties — had taken over an entire field of study, linguistics, and stood it on its head and hardened it from a spongy so-called “social science” into a real science, a hard science, and put his name on it: Noam Chomsky.

At the time, Chomsky was still finishing his doctoral dissertation for Penn, where he had completed his graduate-school course work. But at bedtime and in his heart of hearts he was living in Boston as a junior member of Harvard’s Society of Fellows, and creating a Harvard-level name for himself.

Photograph by Alex Potter

Chances that college students select as “most desirable‚” the same face chosen by the chickens:

49 in 50

Most of the United States’ 36,000 yearly bunk-bed injuries involve male victims.

In Italy, a legislator called for parents who feed their children vegan diets to be sentenced to up to six years in prison, and in Sweden, a woman attempted to vindicate her theft of six pairs of underwear by claiming she had severe diarrhea.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Mississippi Drift

By

Matt was happy enough to sustain himself on the detritus of a world he saw as careening toward self-destruction, and equally happy to scam a government he despised. 'I’m glad everyone’s so wasteful,' he told me. 'It supports my lifestyle.'

Subscribe Today