Is Aggressive Competition Anti-Competitive?
from the what's-the-difference dept
For any company, one of the most important decisions it has to make is the price of its goods or services. Straddling the line between competitiveness and profitability is a task that's made harder by the fact that from time to time, certain pricing decisions are deemed to be illegal, or at least the competition claims as such. We saw cries, earlier this year, that Microsoft's decision to sell its anti-virus suite at a cut-rate price was anti-competitive. Of course, while Microsoft's aggressive pricing may have been rough on the competition, it was a positive for customers, many of whom took to the offering. The Supreme Court is currently hearing an interesting case that involves paper and timber company Weyerhauser. The company is accused of buying too much lumber, to drive up the cost for their competitors, and then undercharging for the finished goods, again, to wreak havoc on their competitors profit margins and drive them out of business. It seems like the company has two valid defenses. The first is that you can't demonstrate the company's intent. Perhaps it really just wanted to buy up a lot of raw materials, and felt that it could still do well at that volume. The second is that even if the company took these actions for the express purpose of harming its competitors, then that's just aggressive business. Naturally a company wants to see their competitors pay more for raw materials. And as in the Microsoft case, it would seem like the end user benefits from Weyerhauser's actions, in the form of lower prices on end goods. Considering all of the questions surrounding intent, and the difference between being competitive and anti-competitive (which is an odd phrase), it definitely seems like a mistake to meddle in something as important as pricing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The most efficent, the daring, and / or the smart businesses are the one's who make the most profits. That is how it should be.
Personally I don't see a problem nor do I have one. If the other companies want to compete let them either make sound business decisions (like Weyerhauser) or make killer deals (like Microsoft)
Darwin's theory of natural selection works (be it in nature or business)... only the strong (i.e. smart) survive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good Point
I think this is a good point and one that needs to be understood. While this country (U.S.) seems to consider itself a capitalistic economy, we are in fact not. We are certainly the closest thing the world has to pure capitalism, but we are in fact a mixture of a capitalistic and collectivist political economy. In a pure capitalistic economy, things like; Anti Trust Acts, Taxes etc. would be considered government interference and quite a hindrance to the evolution of the economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
we say we have a "free" market, but we place restrictions on how business opperate.
we don't have a free or capatilistic market.
if we want everyone to play fair, we don't have competition (akin to comunism anyone?) and if we let people be "aggressive" it hurts small business.
well, what do you want? don't sit in the middle and claim one side is bad, while another is good, and you benifit from the middle.
if you want walmart and microsoft and the like harmed, pay out of the arse for goods, if you love cheap stuff, never buy a rolex. let's see how that goes. we love to get what we can for what we can. would you buy a pen from tiffany's to do random desk work? no. would you buy luxury watch (for excutive gifts) from walmart? no. but you'd spend the money deemed neccessary.
so, as i said, don't say one thing is bad, and then flock to it when it suits your needs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:i love wal-mart
I am in there 2-3 days a week, because they have what i want when i want it, at the right price
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:i love wal-mart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:rstr5105
Take for example Teachers. They are hurt by unions. The union is out for its own best interest. They are now a corporation that needs to support itself and profit. So they get teachers in a union and take dues. Teachers can only get paid what the union says they can get paid. Take away the union and teachers are free market. A school can decide that it wants the best test scores in the country. They then can recruit the best teachers by paying the best wage, like private companies. Then teachers could stop whining about low wages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:rstr5105
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:rstr5105
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:rstr5105
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:rstr5105
If there were better paying jobs, why would someone take a job at Wal-Mart? Oh, wait, I forgot, it's because Wal-Mart 'forced' the closure of all those 'mom and pop' shops that supposedly pay better. But wait, every time I read or hear about some politician wanting to raise the minimum wage, I read or hear that raising the minimum wage would hurt the 'mom and pop' businesses. That would imply that the mom and pop shops are paying minimum wage. So exactly where are the better paying jobs that would take these people off social assistance?
What you really mean to say is that Wal-Mart is reducing the cost of social assistance and is therefore creating a benefit to taxpayers. It is unlikely that someone was NOT on social assistance before getting a job at Wal-Mart since that would imply they left a better paying job. Plenty of jurisdictions allow social assistance recipients to top off any earned income on the premise that these people may start saving some money to get ahead and/or buy the things they require.
If I was on social assistance, and the local laws allowed me to get a job but receive a top off, I would jump at the opportunity to get ahead. But you would rather keep people down and on social assistance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Shoot, I did forget to drink my V8 today.... Sigh..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attn: Sarbo
This is absolutely untrue. First, you have to understand the meaning of anarchy, Society with out laws. Capitalism is not necessarily anarchy. If I ran a business and decided to shoot my competitor in the head, I would still be arrested for murder.
Capitalism removes government restraints from the economy, it does not allow people to do whatever the hell they want.
However, you are correct in that there has never been a truly capitalistic government. BTW, the terms regulated and capitalism are mutually exclusive. You cannot have regulated capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Attn: Sarbo
That is impressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Attn: Sarbo
b. I don't have the time to explain cpaitalism here, feel free to look it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Attn: Sarbo
Which is to say that some regulations remain in place. Because "eliminating" the competition is still the most efficient way of "eliminating the competition".
What do you think mob murders are all about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Attn: Sarbo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Classic Arguement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple definition...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple definition...
Time to rethink your definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Simple definition...
Most anti-competitive claims are exactly that:
"No Fair!!! He's doing something I can't/won't do!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haven't we seen this before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not about competitiveness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not about competitiveness
No offense AC, but what you said shows a real lack of economics. As I've briefly explained in my article the scenario you paint WILL NOT HAPPEN. A company may, and I stress MAY, eliminate it's competition, but it won't be long for others to enter into the market to make money off that product/service. It happens all the time.
What really hurts society and the economy is government meddling in the natrual laws of economics.
And when I say meddling I mean from both sides of the fence: 1) granting special priviliges to companies that hurts competition but gives the big companies with influence an edge; 2) passing regulations/restrictions/laws supposidly to "help" society against big business or some other so-called immorality of business.
You have to understand that most laws passed by government to restrict business were actually the ideas of big businesses...because they can afford to adhere to stricter laws whereas smaller businesses cannot, and they know this, so they push for those types of regulations under the guise of "We have to protect people".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not about competitiveness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not about competitiveness
Please give me an example of one or more of these companies from history that has caused such problems. I'm sure that your examples would be the same false examples that are taught in the classroom, but I'm still curious as to what companies have caused problems in the past that we're still "dealing with" today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awesome
I can't stand it when people moan and complain about how a big business is hurting it's competitiors. That's what businesses are supposed to do!
What business should NOT be able to do is use any type of physical threats or property damage or fraud against other companies to get ahead. But working with the market without physically harming someone's person or property should always be okay.
The other thing people need to understand is that the theory that one company will sell good/services at super low prices in order to drive compeitition out of the market even if that company loses money to do so...well that doesn't happen, and hasn't happened in history very often at all. The reason it doesn't happen (even though we're led to believe it happens a lot from history lessons) is that a business can't continually do such a thing.
Let me explain: Say a company drives all competitors out of business by utilizing this tactic. In order to drive them out of business they'll have to
1. Expand production, which means an increased investment in materials, space, labor, etc.
2. Then they have to lower their prices so they're making less of a profit (which business don't want to do, they want to make the most profit they can make).
3. Then they have to wait while they drive the competition out of business...which can take a long time. No business will go down with a fight.
4. Now let's say this strategy has worked, they just drove competitors out of business. Now they have lots more business, and they have to expand production further. However, if a company is making a profit at something others will come back into that same market to make some money also...so in comes MORE COMPETITION AGAIN.
So now this big company that expanded production and drove others out of business now has to deal with lower sales because competition comes back, as it always does, and they have larger overhead costs associated with all the expansion they did to drive out all the competition. So now they'll have to do the same tactic to drive out competition again...it's an endless cycle that companies just can't do over and over again because it's too costly.
Even Wal-Mart has competitors that do reasonably well against them.
If capitalism is followed it always will work to the benefit of society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shouldn't all company's be anti-competitive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another thing I know would happen if all governent controls were released is that two or three monopolies would eventually rise to the top, cooperate to dissolve all government so they can kill competitors, and become power-mad despots vying for world domination. Hiel Wal-Mart-AOL-TimeWarner-WB Inc.! For the good of mindless Darwinism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: spoon?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: spoon?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Distorting the Market
My contention with price competition, and over competition which turns anti-competitive, is that goods and services should be priced based on their value by the market (not a company), and when a company undervalues or overvalues a good something is wrong. Normally, the market will correct this problem in valuation, but when the company itself is able to manipulate the valuation placed by the market, and the market is no longer able to revalue the incorrect valuation, then the market and consumers are harmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Distorting the Market
A company is part of the market. Goods and services are priced according to what the company believes will maximize their profit. Competition may drive those prices down. Then again, it may not. One competitor may market their product as being superior and thus may charge more, when in reality there is no apparent difference in quality between their product and a competing product.
An "incorrect valuation" implies some type of value judgement: you believe the price being charge exceeds what the 'market' would value that product at. But If someone voluntarily pays the price charged by a company, how can the market or the consumer be harmed or how can that be considered an "incorrect valuation"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Distorting the Market
What you said makes no sense whatsoever. A company cannot manipulate the price of a good. Please give an example of how this is possible. If a price of a good/service is too high people will not purchase it, and will find an alternative.
If a company uses the government to manipulate, which they often do thanks to our huge government with special interests, then that IS wrong and should not be allowed.
But the free market will always win.
You're statements of how the markets fail lack examples, it's just anti-capitalistic rhetoric. The markets wouldn't "fail" in the pricing of forests, lakes, streams, etc. Actually the market would be best thing for the environment, not big government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Distorting the Market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once they're gone and there's one or two companies supplying water, are you going to be happy if they decide to slowly raise the price over time until you pay almost as much for water as you do for all other utilities combined?
Of course that's an extreme because we all NEED water but it's the same principle. Since only some people NEED lumber or specific goods for their business, it helps every person understand what they might experience if companies do these type of things with the wrong intentions.
It all comes down to trying to lawfully control someones morals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Walmart Vs. Microsoft
Walmart's employee treatment is a separate issue from it's pricing practices (I know employee costs could potentially drive up prices, although it could arguably drive them down too if employees were treated better and perform better, but that's another discussion). While Walmart has low prices that has made owning a mom and pop or general small business harder, it's forcing those businesses to reinvent themselves along a line that can compete with Walmart, which they can.
The problem with pricing occurs when (as I've said) a company manipulates the market and incorrectly valuates a good, which can't be corrected by competitive forces driving prices toward their proper valuation notably their marginal costs. Prolonged price competition kills innovation, and if competitors are forced to compete on price at the expense of innovation, then the other company is potentially manipulating the market, although not necessarily.
One can see the ripple effects of anti-competitive forces from the MS IE vs. Netscape battle. Microsoft understood that the internet was a valuable market, and underpriced it's product. However, because of its size, the market was not able to correct the problem, and competition was killed off. Now, the market around the internet has been hindered from years of a bad product manipulating the market and leaving an inferior poorly priced prodcut in control. MS broke the market and competition has taken years to come back into the picture, and during that time IE has done little to innovate or better the situation (because of a lack of proper competition which was caused by its price manipulation of the market).
Walmart isn't killing the market. It's reshaping it, and it's employment practices may be rather unethical and should be corrected potentially, but I think it's harder to argue that Walmart is miss pricing it's goods in a way that the market can't compensate for. In comparison, that's not true for the IE vs Netscape battle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Walmart Vs. Microsoft
"Microsoft is a nice example of having done some damage to a market because of anti-competitive pricing." - How has Microsoft "damaged" the market? What "anti-competitive" pricing are you talking about? Are you saying that consumers should be forced to pay MORE for MS products in order to make things fair?
"The problem with pricing occurs when (as I've said) a company manipulates the market and incorrectly valuates a good..." - How can a company manipulate the market? That's impossible without the help of big government, which is the ONLY way companies are able to manipulate anything unnatrually.
"which can't be corrected by competitive forces driving prices toward their proper valuation notably their marginal costs. Prolonged price competition kills innovation, and if competitors are forced to compete on price at the expense of innovation, then the other company is potentially manipulating the market, although not necessarily." - It's crazy to say that competition kills innovation. Competition is what DRIVES innovation. When computers were first introduced for example they were very expensive and offered very few features. After years of competition where other companies were coming up with ways to compete with each other, offering a better product at a lower price with more features, guess what happened? Amazing innovation! It happens in ALL facets of the market, Matt. When clothing was being made by hand back in the 19th century companies competed with each other for your dollars. Innovation caused someone to develop the loom and other great machinery to make clothing faster, higher quality, and cheaper. Your idea here is just plain wrong, Matt.
"One can see the ripple effects of anti-competitive forces from the MS IE vs. Netscape battle. Microsoft understood that the internet was a valuable market, and underpriced it's product." - How in the world did MS "underprice it's product"?!? Who's the judge of what a "fair" price is, Matt? You? The government?!? No, the true judge of what's "fair" is the consumer. Many consumers got angry about Microsoft beating Netscape out of the market, but not enough people really gave a crap, so Microsoft won out. And now look, there's MORE COMPETITION in the browser arena with Firefox, Opera, etc. It's false to make blanket statements about someone "underpricing" it's product. It may be YOUR opinion, but if people purchase it and don't go with alternatives then that product will win in the marketplace. And there's nothing wrong with that.
"Now, the market around the internet has been hindered from years of a bad product manipulating the market and leaving an inferior poorly priced prodcut in control." - This is just your opinion, not economic fact.
"MS broke the market and competition has taken years to come back into the picture, and during that time IE has done little to innovate or better the situation (because of a lack of proper competition which was caused by its price manipulation of the market)." - again, this is just YOUR opinion, not an economic fact. The gist of the matter is that, like I've said before, and is evident throughout history in a free market, competition will always come back to offer competing products/services where there's a public need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BUT
"2) passing regulations/restrictions/laws supposidly to "help" society against big business or some other so-called immorality of business."
The laws regulating businesses to "help society" were caused by the damage businesses were knowingly doing to their customers. Upton Sinclair's 1906 book The Jungle launched a government investigation of the meatpacking plants of Chicago, and changed the food laws of America.
I hope you think that was a worthwhile "help to society", and not unwarranted meddling in capitalism.
Based on history, including very recent history, we should have no expectation of "moral" business practices without reasonable regulations.
You only have to surf this very site or read the daily papers, to see what I mean.
PS
I am in business, and always have been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, it was the government responding to citizen demands that created the Dolphin Safe tuna laws.
Please check your facts, and while you're at it read up on how and why the unions came into being. (yes there are bad unions - but also good ones)
BTW, this has been a pretty reasonable discussion, for the most part. Why do you sound so angry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom and rules
So, yeah, a free economy needs rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom and rules
It seems so simple and yet, so many just don't get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom and rules
The only rules a truly free society needs is no murder, no stealing, and no slavery. Regulating a business so that they don't charge too little or too much is a form of slavery. Taking people's money via mob rule and calling it "taxation" is stealing. Using that stolen money to fund illegitimate wars in the middle east to kill thousands of innocent people is murder.
The real criminals are not businessmen, but politicians and the voters that support them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Freedom and rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Users are the problem
Avast Antivirus has always been free and kicks the bloody **** out of any other product out there. If you're looking for other free ones, I've heard good things about AVG and Comodo.
And these are just a few of the free AVs on the Windows platform. I'll let one of the Linux fanboys toot a horn about what's good on various Linux distros.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two Questions
1) What exactly is a market failure? Yes, Wikipedia has a very detailed entry on market failure, but it does use the phrase "on the other hand". There is even a discussion about the term.
People like to cite a monopoly as a market failure. Lets say I discover some mineral on my property that has unique properties. People look for the mineral on their property, but it seems that the mineral is only located on my property. I mine and process the mineral. I charge what the market can bear (yes, even monopolies are bound by supply and demand). I make lots of money. I'm not seeing the market failure?
2) Why does the government have to protect us from market failures?
This is a valid question. If were are allowed to benefit from market successes, why are we not allowed to learn from market failures? Why do we feel the need to have the government step in and fix or correct a supposed market failure? Aren't market failures an example of the market correcting itself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two Questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Market Failures
"Goods and services are priced according to what the company believes will maximize their profit. Competition may drive those prices down."
This is the essence of the pricing turning anti-competitive argument. When there is a failure from competition to create a market force that drive prices toward marginal costs (by offering a diversified product) there is a market failure. Companies SET prices and markets DRIVE prices (through competitive pressure), but when a market is unable to drive the price, there is a failure in that market. If that failure is caused by the main competitor by underpricing a good, then its anti-competitive pricing (because it causes a market failure), which is much much more effective at driving competition out in early stage markets than mature markets (think the IE vs Netscape) especially when the main competitor is well established elsewhere (Walmart doesn't fall into the IE/Netscape situation because it entered a mature market that is more capable of competiting even with extreme pricing forces).
"But If someone voluntarily pays the price charged by a company, how can the market or the consumer be harmed or how can that be considered an "incorrect valuation"?"
I think one of the disconnects is that while a company attempts to maximize it's profits, it's the overall market that's of interest. So, people will buy similar goods at various prices from different companies based on their own judgments. That's perfectly acceptable if you only look at the people willing to buy X from company Y. However, you need to step back and find out if the competition is also offering similar products at various prices that are not solely based on the pricing of company Y.
Now that doesn't mean that the pricing is anti-competitive. Maybe company Y has a revolutionary produce that is simply better and cheaper to make. Great! We all win and the competition is forced to change. However, if that's not the case, and company Y is just the largest company in the market (and maybe competes in other markets profitably) allowing it to drive prices down without considering of other factors, forcing competition in that market to follow suit, then you have anti-competitive pricing that harms the consumer because person X can only buy product Y at a set price at any company, and the market because competition can't thrive and diversify on other factors beyond pricing (which loops back and doubly hurts the consumer).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]