🎄🎅🏻🎄Jolly Kringle 🎄🎅🏻🎄 on Nostr: I’m saying that Bork isn’t wrong. I believe Bork would say that as long as the ...

I’m saying that Bork isn’t wrong.

I believe Bork would say that as long as the prices either remained low, or did not rise above predumping levels, it’s fine. The consumer benefits from dumping (lower prices), and if the prices return to predumping levels, the consumer is in no worse of a position than before. Why should the government protect, and how does the consumer benefit from, the continuation of an inefficient and uncompetitive business? If the monopoly increases prices (cutting services is effectively the same thing), then there is consumer harm and the government should intervene. So you see, Bork agrees with you there.

What Bork shrugs his shoulders at are monopolies where prices *don’t* increase, or even *decrease*. For example, big tech, or Walmart versus small businesses.

Now the argument can be made that having a single company or a cabal of companies dominate a market is bad for society, but that’s a political rather than an economic argument.