Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
monopolistic affects on the economy
monopolistic affects on the economy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: monopolistic affects on the economy
“The Antitrust Laws” Research Paper
There once was a time where dinosaurs roamed the earth. Some dinosaurs were stronger than others, making them the superior creatures. The Tyrannosaurus Rex is not that different from a corporate empire; both T-Rexes and monopolies ruled the land with little to no competition. They devoured the weak, crushed the opposition, and made sure they were king, but then, all of a sudden, they were extinct. The giants that once were predators became prey, whether it be a natural disaster or the Antitrust laws they no longer had control over the whole. The Antitrust laws have had a positive impact on American society through restricting monopolies; ensuring that no single business can control a market then using that power to exploit customers, protecting the public from price fixing, and producing new higher quality and innovative products through competition.
The “dinosaurs” that ruled the country at the turn of the 20th century were coming to a halt, JPMorgan, Andrew Carnegie, and Rockefeller would no longer have the grasp over the country like they once had. They all had their troubles building their massive empires, JPMorgan, Andrew Carnegie, and Rockefeller all had monopolies over one or more products, JPMorgan was a financial banker who controlled the electric, railroad and steel businesses, he acquired the steel monopoly from Andrew Carnegie, and Rockefeller controlled almost all of the oil business, producing oil products like kerosene and gasoline. The Antitrust laws would no longer allow the big businesses like theirs to grow and conquer like they did before. The lower class of the late 18th and early 19th centuries lived in filth and poverty that the monopolies had created through price fixi...
... middle of paper ...
...loit customers, protecting the public from price fixing, and producing new higher quality and innovative products through competition. Without these acts there would be more poverty than the United States would know what to do with, therefore making the acts, although created 100 years ago, still one of the most important acts of American history.
Work Cited
Letwint, William L. "Congress and the Sherman Antitrust Law: 1887-1890." Jstor: The University of Chicago Law Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
Lowenstein, Roger. “When Titans Tie the Knot.” Wall Street Journal. 14 Feb. 2014: A13. eLibrary. Web. 28 Mar. 2014.
"Monopolies and Combinations in Restraint of Trade." U.S. Code Collection. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Print. 28 Mar. 2014.
"The Antitrust Laws." Protecting Americas Consumers. Federal Trade Commission, n.d. Print. 28 Mar. 2014.
During the nineteenth and twentieth century monopolizing corporations reigned over territories, natural resources, and material goods. They dominated banks, railroads, factories, mills, steel, and politics. With companies and industrial giants like Andrew Carnegies’ Steel Company, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company and J.P. Morgan in which he reigned over banks and financing. Carnegie and Rockefeller both used vertical integration meaning they owned everything from the natural resources (mines/oil rigs), transportation of those goods (railroads), making of those goods (factories/mills), and the selling of those goods (stores). This ultimately led to monopolizing of corporations. Although provided vast amount of jobs and goods, also provided ba...
Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, and Vanderbilt all had something in common, they were all “Robber Barons,” whose actions would eventually lead to the corruption, greed, and economic problems of Corporate America today. During the late 19th century, these men did all they could to monopolize the railroad, petroleum, banking, and steel industries, profiting massively and gaining a lot personally, but not doing a whole lot for the common wealth. Many of the schemes and techniques that are used today to rob people of what is rightfully theirs, such as pensions, stocks, and even their jobs, were invented and used often by these four men.
Unfortunately, these monopolies allowed companies to raise prices without consequence, as there was no other source of product for consumers to buy for cheaper. The more competition, the more a company is forced to appeal to the consumer, but monopolies allowed corporations to treat consumers awfully and still receive their business. Trusts were bad for both the consumers and the workers, but without proper representation, they could do nothing. However, with petitions, citizens got the first anti-trust law passed by the not entirely corrupt Congress, called the Sherman Act of 1890. It prevented companies from trade cooperation of any kind, whether good or bad. Most corporate lawyers were able to find loopholes in the law, and it was largely ineffective. Over time, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, and the previously passed Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, which regulated railroad rates, grew more slightly effective, but it would take more to cripple powerful
“Processor Editorial Article - Antitrust Laws: Not Just For The Big Boys.” Editorial.Processor 19 Nov. 2004: 27+. Processor.com. Web. 29 Nov. 2011 .
Since this debate still rages on, many people argue both sides of the story of the pros and cons. Many would argue that not breaking up monopolies actually increase the competition of companies that are attempting to break into some of the market share that the monopoly already has, more so than the free market that exists now. Proponents of the Sherman Anti-Trust act argue that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Martin, 1996) as originally quoted by Baron Acton. The idea that no competition within the business world establishes no risk and reward that is all part of the entrepreneur spirit of the U.S. spirit.
United States has several laws that ensure that competition among businesses flow rely and new competitors get free access to the market. These laws intend to ensure fair and balanced competitive business practices. However, there are times when some businesses will do anything to gain competitive edge. USA has strong antitrust laws that prohibit fixing market price, price discrimination, conspiring boycott, monopolizing, and adopting unfair business practices. The history of Antitrust laws goes back to 1890 when Congress passed Sherman Act. In 1914, Congress passed two more acts: Federal Trade Commission Act, and Clayton Act. With some revisions, these three acts are still core antitrust acts.
...he government to the ordinary people as explained in July 5, 1892 by the Omaha Morning World –Herald (Doc F). Lastly, the laws for the regulation of businesses was enforces until President Theodore Roosevelt had also contributed by suing companies that violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
During the rise of industry and unions in the United States, society, politics, and economics were all developing into what we know as life today. Some influencers of these reforms were businessmen who grew a small business into what was essentially an empire. Their hold on big business caused any other businesses to fail, leading to the formation of economic policy over monopolies. One of these businessmen, Andrew Carnegie, built a steel monopoly that, through vertical integration, liquidated any steel-related competition. Carnegie changed big business in the United States by influencing business policies, paving the path for future large companies, and inspiring the wealthy to help the poor and general society.
The anti-trust laws were set in place to promote vigorous competition but also to protect the consumer from unfair mergers and business practices. The first antitrust law that was passed by Congress is called the Sherman Act and is a “comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade” according to www.FTC.gov . Later in 1914 Congress passed two more laws, one creating the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) and then the Clayton Act, which now create the three core federal antitrust laws that are still active currently. Although they have changed over the last hundred years, they still have the same concept: “to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up” as stated by the FTC.gov website on The Antitrust Laws.
When these large companies have too much power, they are able to completely run the market based on their own agendas. Should smaller companies still exist, the larger firms are able to lower prices and absorb the loss from it where the other company would inevitably fail to compete with the low prices of the firm. Firms like Carnegie Steel and Standard Oil rightfully took advantage of the US free market at the time, but once word of their predatory practices became publically known, these companies received penalties from the federal government.
Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, and countless others created monopoly over their respective fields. Their corporations greatly affected the country socially and politically in ways that are innumerable. America’s response to these large businesses was largely to destroy them. They were seen as creating widespread unemployment, ridding all
Not all monopolies have been owned by selfish people trying to get rich. Google was found innocent in the United States of antitrust law violations. Furthermore, Google has continues to develop innovative technologies. Throughout history in the United States people have created businesses that have propelled industry and the way of life toward the future. In the late 1800s it was kerosene and steel, today it is with innovative technologies.
Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company was one of the trusts at that time. “Within a decade, it controlled 90 percent of the refining business. Rockefeller reaped huge profits by paying his employees extremely low wages and driving his competitors out of business by selling his oil at a lower price that it cost to produce it. Then, when he controlled the market, he hiked prices far above original prices.” (textbook, pg449) This empire threatened the whole American economy by breaking the regulation of the market. It monopolized other people’s business and forced them to join his company. Thus, his empire became stronger and stronger. It was a detriment to consumers and the economy. “They were able to manipulate price and quality without regard for the laws of supply and demand. Basic economic principles no longer applied” (socialstudieshelp.com, “How and why did American business seek to eliminate competition”). This is another evidence supports that trusts generated excessive margins while doing little to improve their product or relevant processes. The economic system became disorder and messy. Therefore, it could cause a great depression in economic system. What’s more, monopolies in economy could stop the progressive economy. “A highly-profitable monopoly also may have little incentive for improvement as long as consumers still demonstrate a need for their current product or service. In comparison, businesses in a competitive market can compete by making changes to existing products and services and lowering prices.” (smallbusiness.chron.com, “How does a monopoly affect business and consumers?”) This evidence shows that monopolies didn’t help improve the society. Instead, they couldn’t consumers’ need as time went
I wanted to follow-up on our discussion about union decertification and antitrust suits. Please forgive me if you already are aware of this.
Monopolies have a tendency to be bad for the economy. Granted, there are some that are a necessity of life such as natural and legal monopolies. However, the article I have chosen to review is “America’s Monopolies are Holding Back the Economy (Lynn, 2017)” and the name speaks for itself.