Is anti-monopoly anti-big? Prevent the expansion of anti-monopoly and harm innocent people

Anti-monopoly should focus on anti-unfair competition, to prevent the expansion of anti-monopoly and harm innocent people——

Anti-monopoly is anti-big?

　　Wang Tokyo

　　Today, many countries in the world have promulgated relevant anti-monopoly laws, and most of them are directed at large enterprises.

I was puzzled by this before, wondering why legislators think that a large business is a monopoly.

What confuses me even more is that Western governments all want domestic companies to become stronger and bigger, but at the same time they oppose the strong and oppose the big. Does this not make companies at a loss?

　　About 20 years ago, I spent three months studying U.S. economic history.

It is said to be studying, but the research is actually not deep, and the main thing is reading.

However, I have done some thinking about the anti-monopoly laws in the United States.

I found that the US anti-monopoly was also aimed at big companies at first, and it was only around the new century that they turned their guns away from anti-big companies and turned to anti-unfair competition.

Why is there such a big change before and after?

To answer this question, we need to understand the background of the antitrust law in the United States.

　　The second half of the 19th century saw the emergence of some giant corporations in the United States.

By virtue of their dominant market position, these companies crushed small and medium-sized enterprises and exploited consumers. All walks of life were strongly dissatisfied, and public grievances were boiling.

Under the pressure of strong public opinion, the United States passed the first anti-monopoly law in 1890, the Sherman Act.

The Sherman Act as the parent law, along with the later Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, formed the basis of U.S. antitrust law.

　　It is conceivable that the anti-monopoly law introduced by the United States under such a background is of course anti-big, and the focus is on three types of so-called "predatory pricing" behaviors: First, large enterprises collude with each other to obtain huge profits and reach behind-the-scenes agreements. Controlling output to raise prices; second, large enterprises do not collude with their peers, but they are large enough to dominate the market and crowd out small and medium-sized enterprises by drastically reducing prices; third, large enterprises sell the same commodity to different consumer groups at different prices This is what economics calls "price discrimination" today.

　　It seems that the anti-monopoly law has clearly defined which behaviors are illegal, but it is not clear at the operational level.

For example, there are no corresponding provisions in the law to explain how many companies will face sanctions and what is predatory pricing.

I have thought about this issue, the reason why the law does not explain it is because it is difficult to explain.

Although a company has a high market share in the local market, it may be insignificant from the perspective of the international market.

The reasons why big companies raise or lower prices are very complicated, and it is not easy to assume that they are all "predatory pricing".

　　There are also many economists who have criticized the "anti-big".

The first to support big business was Schumpeter.

He pointed out in "The Theory of Economic Development" published in 1911: "Continuous innovation is like beating the strings, playing the wonderful movement of economic growth, and it is those giant companies leading the market that are plucking the strings. What reason do we have to accuse our musicians?" Later, the Chicago School, represented by Stigler, also held the same view, believing that the concentration of production resources in large enterprises is conducive to improving economies of scale and production efficiency, and should be reduced Intervention in big business.

　　Look back at U.S. antitrust.

As mentioned earlier, the direction of US anti-monopoly in different periods is different.

Nearly a hundred years after the Sherman Act was promulgated, the United States has always been "anti-big."

The turning point was the 1970s.

At that time, the United States faced an unprecedented crisis.

Politically, the prestige of the United States in the Western world no longer exists; economically, the "little lamb" that was submissive in the past has become a strong competitor today; and militarily, the Soviet Union is again posing an aggressive stance.

Faced with this situation, there has been a debate on antitrust in the United States.

At this time, the Chicago School gained power, and its representatives held important positions in the government, so they adjusted the anti-monopoly policy.

　　In the following 20 years, the U.S. government has uncharacteristically changed its previous practices based on the consideration of improving the international competitiveness of enterprises.

Not only is it no longer "anti-big", but it has contributed to the merger of large enterprises.

In 1997, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas married to form the "Big Mac" in the aviation industry.

In 1998, the Exxon and Mobil brothers reunited after an 87-year separation.

In 1999, National Bank merged with Bank of America, creating a new financial empire.

　　To explain here, in 1997, the US Department of Justice pushed Microsoft to the dock, and the final court ruling divided it in two.

It seems that the United States is still "anti-big".

Not really.

The Justice Department sued Microsoft not because of its size, but because it prevented other software vendors from entering the market and hindered fair competition.

At that time, the Deputy Attorney General of the US Department of Justice stated clearly: "The law will not prevent you from monopolizing, but if you abuse your monopoly power, the law will resolutely stop it."

　　Readers should ponder this sentence carefully.

Indeed, monopoly does not mean abuse of monopoly power.

In economics textbooks, monopoly is usually divided into three categories: administrative monopoly, natural monopoly, and technological monopoly.

Undoubtedly, the first two types of monopoly will restrict competition to a certain extent, and it is easy to abuse monopoly power, so it needs to be watched closely; but technological monopoly is different, and technological innovation of one enterprise cannot exclude the innovation of other enterprises.

Respecting the price-seeking right of innovative companies can encourage innovation, but of course it cannot be opposed.

　　Finally, I would like to talk about the enlightenment brought to us by the US antitrust.

There are two main points: First, monopoly cannot be simply defined based on the size of the enterprise or market share. Anti-monopoly is not "anti-big".

The United States has learned a lesson, which is a lesson from the past. Second, anti-monopoly should focus on combating unfair competition. The price-seeking behavior of innovative companies should not be punished as "abuse of monopoly power" or "predatory pricing", and anti-monopoly should be prevented. Amplify and hurt innocent people.

　　[The author is the former vice president (dean) of the Central Party School (National School of Administration)]