The argument right here shall be acquainted to many MR readers, and it now seems in a Bloomberg column of mine. Excerpt:
I say this as a longtime advocate of abstention, so make of it what you’ll, however: If Southern Glazer’s actions are limiting the availability of alcohol and boosting its value, then a lot the higher.
There’s an amazing physique of proof that ingesting alcohol results in extra site visitors fatalities, lowered productiveness and better charges of violence, to not point out the unquantifiable price in ruined lives. Authorized prohibition of alcohol proved unworkable, however among the advantages of lowered consumption may be gained by permitting costs to rise and to remain excessive. One NIH investigation estimated the prices of alcohol use amounted to 2.6% of US GDP.
If a monopoly has some optimistic social penalties, all of the extra purpose to let it persist. I’d even be happy, for instance, by a monopoly in non-medical marijuana.
There are a lot of cases of illegal monopoly energy in market economies, and most of them are finest ignored. The FTC, like most elements of the federal government, doesn’t have limitless sources.
There are quite a few different arguments within the piece.
The publish Do we want antitrust motion towards “large alcohol”? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
