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:

Context October 26, 2017, 10:55 am

Killing the Competition

Monopolization of our public markets is first and foremost a political crisis

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

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2018

The Bodies in The Forest

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Minds of Others

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Modern Despots

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Before the Deluge

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Notes to Self

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Within Reach

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Pushing the Limit·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the early Eighties, Andy King, the coach of the Seawolves, a swim club in Danville, California, instructed Debra Denithorne, aged twelve, to do doubles — to practice in the morning and the afternoon. King told Denithorne’s parents that he saw in her the potential to receive a college scholarship, and even to compete in the Olympics. Tall swimmers have an advantage in the water, and by the time Denithorne turned thirteen, she was five foot eight. She dropped soccer and a religious group to spend more time at the pool.

Illustration by Shonagh Rae
Article
The Minds of Others·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Progress is impossible without change,” George Bernard Shaw wrote in 1944, “and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” But progress through persuasion has never seemed harder to achieve. Political segregation has made many Americans inaccessible, even unimaginable, to those on the other side of the partisan divide. On the rare occasions when we do come face-to-face, it is not clear what we could say to change each other’s minds or reach a worthwhile compromise. Psychological research has shown that humans often fail to process facts that conflict with our preexisting worldviews. The stakes are simply too high: our self-worth and identity are entangled with our beliefs — and with those who share them. The weakness of logic as a tool of persuasion, combined with the urgency of the political moment, can be paralyzing.

Yet we know that people do change their minds. We are constantly molded by our environment and our culture, by the events of the world, by the gossip we hear and the books we read. In the essays that follow, seven writers explore the ways that persuasion operates in our lives, from the intimate to the far-reaching. Some consider the ethics and mechanics of persuasion itself — in religion, politics, and foreign policy — and others turn their attention to the channels through which it acts, such as music, protest, and technology. How, they ask, can we persuade others to join our cause or see things the way we do? And when it comes to our own openness to change, how do we decide when to compromise and when to resist?

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Within Reach·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a balmy day last spring, Connor Chase sat on a red couch in the waiting room of a medical clinic in Columbus, Ohio, and watched the traffic on the street. His bleached-blond hair fell into his eyes as he scrolled through his phone to distract himself. Waiting to see Mimi Rivard, a nurse practitioner, was making Chase nervous: it would be the first time he would tell a medical professional that he was transgender.

By the time he arrived at the Equitas Health clinic, Chase was eighteen, and had long since come to dread doctors and hospitals. As a child, he’d had asthma, migraines, two surgeries for a tumor that had caused deafness in one ear, and gangrene from an infected bug bite. Doctors had always assumed he was a girl. After puberty, Chase said, he avoided looking in the mirror because his chest and hips “didn’t feel like my body.” He liked it when strangers saw him as male, but his voice was high-pitched, so he rarely spoke in public. Then, when Chase was fourteen, he watched a video on YouTube in which a twentysomething trans man described taking testosterone to lower his voice and appear more masculine. Suddenly, Chase had an explanation for how he felt — and what he wanted.

Illustration by Taylor Callery
Article
Before the Deluge·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In the summer of 2016, when Congress installed a financial control board to address Puerto Rico’s crippling debt, I traveled to San Juan, the capital. The island owed some $120 billion, and Wall Street was demanding action. On the news, President Obama announced his appointments to the Junta de Supervisión y Administración Financiera. “The task ahead for Puerto Rico is not an easy one,” he said. “But I am confident Puerto Rico is up to the challenge of stabilizing the fiscal situation, restoring growth, and building a better future for all Puerto Ricans.” Among locals, however, the control board was widely viewed as a transparent effort to satisfy mainland creditors — just the latest tool of colonialist plundering that went back generations.

Photograph from Puerto Rico by Christopher Gregory
Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner

Percentage of Republicans who said they prioritized gun control over gun rights in 1999:

53

The kangaroo’s tail is a fifth leg.

Trump tweeted that he had created “jobs, jobs, jobs” since becoming president, and it was reported that Trump plans to bolster job creation by loosening regulations on the global sale of US-made artillery, warships, fighter jets, and drones.

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

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today