Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Regulator Bullies
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


"John, you should do a story on the Whole Foods/Wild Oats merger and the FTC's continued bizarre bullying of us over a year after we completed the merger. Is Whole Foods a monopoly? The answer is obvious to everyone with common sense: "Of course not!" We are less than 1 percent of the retail food market in the USA and less than 10 percent of the organic foods market. No one is compelled to shop at any of our stores, and our competition is everywhere."

That's the start of an angry email I got recently from John Mackey, Whole Foods CEO. I don't know the intricacies of antitrust law or the secrets of this case, but I think Mackey has a point.

Outside the Federal Trade Commission building in Washington, D.C., twin sculptures sum up the government's attitude toward economic freedom. They depict a muscular figure heroically holding back a wild horse that presumably would wreak havoc if let loose. The title is "Man Controlling Trade."

How typical of government. Trade is an activity in which two people realize mutual gains through voluntary exchange. It's win-win -- or else it doesn't occur. Commerce is cooperation. It's the essence of civilization.

Yet the FTC likens trade to a wild animal that someone -- government, of course -- must control.

I thought the Microsoft prosecution was just the usual excesses of regulation-loving Democrats, but apparently not. Even with Republicans in charge, bureaucrats bully businesses.

A year ago, the FTC ordered Whole Foods to stop its merger with Wild Oats Markets. A federal judge refused to go along, and the merger was completed. This summer, however, an appeals court reversed that judge, and now the FTC has reopened its case.

The FTC believes that since "Whole Foods and Wild Oats [were] each other's closest competitors in premium natural and organic supermarkets," the merger means "higher prices, reduced quality and fewer choices for consumers."

But why do the bureaucrats look only at Wild Oats? The supermarket industry is crowded. Even the submarket for natural and organic foods has vigorous competition.

I understand why people think antitrust law is necessary. They fear that businesses will collude to raise prices. But if the government has not created barriers to entry, even a lone seller of a product can't charge whatever he wants because unwarranted high prices and profits will draw competition. What counts is not the number of firms in a market but the potential for competition.

The only "antitrust" policy we need is repeal of all government barriers to entry. Government can't assure competition. Competition happens when government stays out of the way.

The FTC lawyers believe that the Whole Foods-Wild Oats merger is costly to consumers. But they seem oblivious to the costs their own policies impose. As Mackey told me:

"Whole Foods has now spent over $35 million in legal expenses battling the FTC ... We do not know how much of taxpayers' money the FTC has wasted. With the FTC continuing to bring anti-trust actions, we will spends tens of millions in additional legal expenses and waste enormous management time dealing with the FTC instead of creating value for our customers.

"This thing will now likely drag on for many years into the future before all the legal options are exhausted by both sides."

Taxpayers and consumers will pick up that tab, just as they did when the Justice Department spent 13 years prosecuting IBM, before finally dropping monopoly charges in 1982. What a waste of time and money. If IBM had monopoly power, why wasn't it able to dominate the PC market? And why is it now smaller than Microsoft?

The problem Mackey cites goes beyond the FTC. Despite media talk about the Bush administration's "handcuffing" regulatory agencies, regulators pass more rules and file more lawsuits every month. After all, they're regulators. If they're don't regulate, they're not doing their job.

Now that the media is screaming "economic crisis" and politicians of both parties are bashing business, I assume we'll see even more destructive regulation.

If America's professional bureaucrats have their way, they will regulate until they kill off just about everything America creates.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
A Much Larger Issue.
Stossel and Mackey are so off-base here. They should be going after this lazy Congress for not passing laws outlawing home vegetable gardening. See, if that got done, the market for fresh, wholesome foods would be quite expanded -- no one allowed to produce their own -- and, so on and so forth.

Unintended Effects, Part 2,998,415
A delicious irony: the main beneficiary of the FTC's zeal is likely to be Walmart, the largest corporation in the world, which has jumped into the organic market with both feet.

How right you are Stossel
America is in the grip of a gigantic bureaucratic tyranny. It's too late to reverse their unending quest to justify their parasitic existence.

Most of our industries have long since left our shores seeking friendlier business environments like those in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and just about everywhere else.

We have taxed and regulated our corporations out of business. California is a good example of this: bankrupt financially, economically, morally and spiritually, with a credit rating on a par with that of Bolivia!

Our four largest industries are presently taking their last breath :

1 - Healthcare - Trial lawyers have killed this industry, provoking insurance premiums both business and individuals can't afford.
2 - Housing - Government meddling has ruined this industry for at least the next 20 years.
3 - Financial Services - NY used to be the world's center, now it's being diluted to other markets such as London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Zurich and others. Our credibility has been lost forever.
4 - Agriculture - Taxed and regulated to a point where even all the subsidies and market protection can't help it anymore. Brazil's free market agriculture, without market restrictions and no subsidies, is taking over on a global basis.

Oblahma-Bin-Biden can't be trusted to run a shoe-shine parlor!

Freedom From government
There once was a time when Liberals advocated freedom from government. Today's liberals want more and more government in our lives.

The Founding Fathers tried to give us freedom from government. They never promised us efficent government.

Every few years we all see stories about wastful Pentagon spending, Medicare fraud, Social Security fraud, welfare abuse, Transportation kick-back scams, wasteful grants to wacky organizations, Federal regulators not doing their job. Osha Inspectors, Food and Drug Inspectors demanding payoffs from businesses they are inspecting. Dept. of Interior employees taking payoffs to favor one Indian tribe over another.

No intelligent - rational person would want more and bigger government after living the past 30 - 40 years.

Perhaps this is why Obama's greatest appeal is with younger, less experienced, less educated voters.

Microsoft???
John cited Microsoft as an abuse of Government regulation. Poor example.

Microsoft was convicted after a trial where evidence from both sides was submitted of violation the anti-trust laws.

The anti-trust laws are there to prevent someone or some business who reaches the top, from using it's position of power preventing others from reaching the top.

In our land of opportunity, this is a good thing.

What Microsoft did was to use its position of power or dominance in the market to prevent others from rising up and competing in the market. That hurts all of us. That is un-american. To deliberately deprive others the opportunity to succeed.

There are those who believe that the only reason the Clinton Justice Department went after Microsoft is because they had all that money and did not donate to any political party.

Incidently, It was a Reagan appointed Federal Judge who ordered the break of Microsoft and Clinton appointed Federal appeals judges who overruled the decision to break up Microsoft.

So much for Republicans being for big busness.

Microsoft
I have no more love for the Dominion than does anyone else who's ever replaced Vista with XP. But I'm even less fond of the unexamined foundation of the case against the company: every innovator starts out as a monopolist by definition, for he offers something unique and therefore unavailable elsewhere. For a time, the Wright brothers were the only people on the planet making heavier-than-air craft. Imagine how much poorer the world would be had the state barged in and squashed them, _circa_ 1904, for the sake of competition.

Crats Rule
This is just another example of something I have been pounding on here for years. The lawmakers can write a law, in this case all the way back to T. Roosevelt, but it is the nameless bureaucrats who actually write the rules that you have to live by.

The example I always use is the definition of wetlands. Most reasonable people are all for protecting what the perceive as “wetlands” but when you tell them a farmer’s field 10 miles from the nearest stream is considered a wetland because he dug a drainage ditch through it to another drainage ditch that eventually connects to the stream they would say ridiculous.

Don’t like it and go to court. Well the government has plenty of lawyers paid for with your tax dollars and as shown here, they will keep it up all the way to SCOTUS if need be.

Sorry, Ken, the facts are against you
Microsoft is an excellent example. By your reckoning O.J. Simpson is a model citizen.

Anti-trust laws were designed ostensibly to protect the consumer from monopolies. But Microsoft NEVER met EITHER the economic or legal definition of monopoly (as ample competition has existed, and continues to exist, in every one of its markets).

And its practice of offering browser software as part of its overall operating system package ultimately REDUCED prices for consumers.

As has happened in EVERY application of antitrust laws, they were used by competitors in the marketplace who could NOT achieve a better position merely thrugh competition to penalize the company that achieved the dominant position WITHOUT government interference.

Despite all of the legal activity about Microsoft's activities, competition with Microsoft has increased ONLY in areas unaffected by the legal activities and Microsoft has learned the lesson that was REALLY behind the attacks...

...now Microsoft, which had spent practically nothing on lobbying activities before, now pumps as much or more money into Washington as its competition. Wow, I bet THAT helps the consumer...

[BTW, is anyone really so completely disconnected from reality as to believe that judges typically act in a way consistent with the powers that appointed them?!?!?]

Partners In Crime
The people who run this country are dangerous criminals. All of them. They attack private property, private business, private citizens...etc. Do we really have a government that is telling two companies they cannot merge?! If this doesn't frighten you people, I don't know what will.

Common sense in government?
John: You are asking for the impossible in governmen - common sense! Why don't we tell all government to take a long walk on a short pier. Let them sue us or have hearing! Then refuse to show up in court or the hearing; or perhaps send in the mail room clerk to answer their stupid questions! What are they going to do, put us all in jail, fine us? Think of all the lawyers they will have to try to hire to prosecute us? There are not enough lawyers to do this, at lesst in our lifetime! Just a suggestion! Ha!

The prophet
I am reminded of a campaign phrase Ronald Reagan used while running for office. It was a description of liberal economic policy.

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps on moving, regulate it. If it ever stops moving, subsidize it."

Our crisis du jour exemplifies this mentality.

Tibby

Regulation and the courts
If you want to see regulations' and the courts' complicity in killing business, look no further than the construction industry.

Working together, regulators (their intense regulation on contractors) and the courts gather enormous sway through the media and do as much to assassinate reputations, raise prices, and drive contractors into bankruptcy as anything experienced by Whole Foods who has the money to fight the problem.

Independent contractors suffer more than this food purveyor, and nobody speaks for them.

Young contractors quietly leave, go into government work, because it is just not worth the hassle.

Think about that the next time you put a project up for bid and choke on the estimates.

Awesome
Reminds me of a recent exchange with a friend of mine.

"All I know is that my grandmother's SSI check doesn't cover her meds, and my dad makes up the difference. That's one place your capitalism fails."

When I politely pointed out that capitalism is the only reason that medicine ever made it to the market in the first place, he pulled thy typical socialistic lemming illeracy so common in today's society. "Oh bull stuff."

I'm still waiting for the rest of the comment. See, you can't have a conversation with these people. They go on the offensive, find themselves in a corner when faced with a rational thought, and think that calling bull stuff unleashes a super weapon or something that ends the exchange in victory.

Ah well. What more can we expect for a generation of men addicted to World of Warcraft?

Microsoft and the Anti Trust laws
FTech,

The Anti-Trust Laws do not require a company to be a monopoly to kick in and apply. The law only requires that a business be a "Dominate" force in the market place.

Once a business is a "Dominate" force in the market place, preditory practises are no longer permitted.

Microsoft was convicted of engaging in preditory practises that included threats, fear, and intimadation of the market place if computer retailers installed competators applications on custormer's computers.

Microsoft also used it's dominance with the operating system to undercut the true value of applications like Internet Explorer, Media Players, etc etc.

The result has been higher prices for consumers for the operatiing system in and industry where all other prices, I.E. hardrives, memory, periferals contine to decline.

Now you may disagree with the law and subsequent conviction but the fact remains it is the law. What I find atonishing is how long it took the Federal Government to get around enforcing it.

John Gotti and Martha Stewart broke Federal law and went to jail. Bill Gates and company broke Federal law and got a slap on the wrist.

De-regulation
One thought about De-regulation. Just because someone supports de-regulation does not mean they support no regulation.

McCain and other republicans have sucessfully allowed Obama and the democrats to protray them as opposed to any regulation.

This is not the case by any measure.

Once again the republicans are their own worst enemy.

Still wrong, Ken
The overriding legislation applies to those (typically formed as trusts "who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize" trade. It flatly DOES NOT require simply a "dominant position. Further, the phrase "predatory practices" is without practical, legal or economic meaning. In neither case, did the scope of the actual law bear on the activities being adjudicated.

Microsoft's "intimidation" was nothing more than a voluntary decision to discriminate between which vendors should be permitted to distribute their products - a practice engaged in by essentially EVERY business every day. Their "threat" was that they would sell their products through OTHER vendors if their proprietary software was overridden by someone - nothing more than an execise of existing risghts.

Further, the price of operating systems was ALSO in styeady DECLINE in real terms throught the period and Microsoft was offering their browser for FREE as part of the package (which cannot possibly be construed as harmful to consumers). The statement that the result was higher prices is unequivocally wrong.

Yes, I disagree with the law, but I also understand it and it neither applied nor can be construed in the way that you have chosen.

Ken
So you believe that as soon as a company is successful, they should basically give their product away for free?
I remember a "world before Windows" and computing was not pretty for the "average Joe" then. Microsoft deserves every dollar they made.
Martha went to jail for lying to a Grand Jury - so you believe that Bill Clinton should be in jail as well?
Consumers are not allowed to have low prices for everything. Demanding low prices is what got our manufacturing jobs shipped overseas (or across the border).
As long as Americans have the view that business is inherently evil and they need the "protection" of the government we will continue with stupid legislation. I was once in a conversation with someone who believe that without regulation we would all be dying from bad products. When I pointed out how killing your customers would not be good for business they simply replied "look at all the people that have died from products in the past". Its true that safety issues, serious safety issues, show up in products - but companies would fix those without government force. Unless you believe the American people are stupid enough to continue to use unsafe products.
One of the biggest problems with product safety today is the average person doesn't think about their own safety because they feel "the government wouldn't let it on the market if it wasn't safe" instead of thinking "wow, this design doesn't make sense, maybe I won't buy this product after all - it could be dangerous.

Ftech - Unfortunate for you
Ftech,

Unforunately for you several Federal Judges, both liberal and conservative, disagree with your point of view.

That is why Microsoft's conviction was upheld on appeal.

Microsoft was never a "Monopoly" yet was convicted of violating Federal Anti-Trust laws.

So deal with it.

I AM delaing with it
I simply am not foolish enough to believe that the concurrence of a select few federal judges has any relation to the actual text of the law, the economic issues under discussion or the motivations behind those who pressed the suit in the first place.

Anyone who DOES believe that has not been paying attention to ANYTHING that has gone on in the realm of Constitutional law since AT LEAST the passage of the New Deal.

Free??? I never said Free
Stbmom,

You would do well not to try and put words in peoples mouth. I never suggested any business should give away its product for fee.

I am a conservative. I dislike govenment intrusion into the lives of the people. That does not mean I oppose all Federal laws and regulations.

When Standard Oil, which was not a monopoly, violated the Anti-Trust laws the solution was the forced breakup of standard oil to again put competition back into the marketplace.

I expect our government, right or wrong, to treat all citizens and businesses fairly.

If Martha Steward went to jail for lying to a grand jury then yes Bill Clinton should also have gone to jail for the very same conduct.

If Standard Oil was broken up for violation of anti-trust laws then yes Microsoft should also be broken up for violation those same laws.

Its called equal justice under the law.


Ken
Please don't threaten me, there really is NO reason to go there. So, you don't think their products should be free. Okay, how much "should" they be able to charge.
What makes a company "big" or in need of being broken up?
But again, no need to "you would do well" comments, they sound like threats. I took it as a threat. If you did not mean it as a threat, that is how it came across - to me.
Kind of reminds me of Obama lecturing people on not speaking about Michelle. You really can make a comment to me without the "father/daughter" tone.
But, I digress, the point for ME is that punishing a company for success makes no sense. And to the point of the actual article at hand, how can Whole Foods be punished when there are plenty of places to buy organic produce.

I suggest
I suggest that everyone who wants to obtain a good understanding of Capitalism and of the role of Government intrusion into the marketplace in destroying our economy go read Ayn Rand's book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Alan Greenspan's article The Assault on Integrity found within this great book is perfect for this discussion. In it he shows how government intervention and regulation actually makes products LESS safe than they would be otherwise.

Standard Oil
"When Standard Oil, which was not a monopoly, violated the Anti-Trust laws the solution was the forced breakup of standard oil to again put competition back into the marketplace."

Standard Oil is another horrible example as they, too, were attacked entirely for political purposes in the absence of monopoly condition, a real "dominant" position or actual harm to the consumer. Quite the opposite, Standard Oil vastly DECREASED the price to the consumer by bringing a better product to the marketplace and by creating efficiencies (such as the distilling of kerosene) to the benefit of consumers. There isn't a single example of an anti-trust action that has ever actually benefitted consumers...

...which is the whole point.

Amazed at people who want more gov.
Brainocapitalist,

A while back John Stossel did a 20/20 report on Osha and its regulations.

He outlined how in the beginning of the 20th century how work place injuries were commonplace and as time went by workplace injuries declined without any government intervention. Then they created Osha, Occupation. Safety, and Health Administration. The effect being no change in the decline of workplace injuries. Yet the cost to taxpayers was enormous. The loss of good paying jobs to overseas, the added expense to conduct business in this country. The endless paperwork and overhead to comply with O.S.H.A. regulations.

If you recall, the Clinton's Adm. O.S.H.A. department insisted they had the right to go into peoples homes if they were using it as a home based business to perform safety inspections. Only after enormous public outcry did O.S.H.A back down but still insisting it maintained the right.

It is well known among many small businesses how O.S.H.A government inspectors will come into their business and accept payoffs not to cite them for made up violations.

And yet there are those like Obama and Pelosi who want more government.

ACORN/STALIN TACTICS
The article below reveals how Acorn and these other groups are using scare tactics to bully the masses into accepting Obama's presidential bid...does it remind you of Stalin's tactics? The groups involved with these ACORN crazies are tresspassing and using intimidation...

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20 080926/NEWS01/809260375&s=d&page=1#pluckcomments

You would do well....
to stbmom...

you would do well not to take offense to something written as simple as "you would do well".

btw-this is not intended in any threatening or intimidating way....feel safe now?

Here's My Take On It...
How prescient was Ayn Rand? As every day passes, I believe "Atlas Shrugged" is becoming a reality.

We must keep Obama the Communist out of the White House.

Back to column - Whole Foods
Somewhat in sync with poster mentioning walmart - I know that Whole Foods won;t move into markets where even there are several walmarts! If they were such a monopoly threat, then I would expect they have no problem doing so. The nearest whole foods is 2 hours away - but the 2 major supermarket chains seem to be in great competition with expanded organic/natural foods sections.

Maybe the jokers in DC need to be sent home for real where they then go shopping, see the doctor, get a loan at the bank, etc etc Unfortunately I know that too many of them will still be clueless. Oh well.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.