AHC: More U.S. anti-trust action since AT&T divestiture in 1982?

HOW AT&T CONQUERED THE 20TH CENTURY
Wired, Matthew Laser, Sept. 3, 2011

https://www.wired.com/2011/09/att-conquered-20th-century/

After fighting a federal antitrust suit for six years, AT&T agreed to divest itself of its seven regional Bell carriers, retaining only its long distance system, and winning the right to go into the computer business.
What other major corporations may have been broken up and how might the results have played out?
 
Last edited:
Microsoft was pretty close to being broken up in 2001 if I recall correctly. The lack of Microsoft in the following years will certainly have an impact on the tech industry.
 
A hell of a lot. In agriculture alone four companies process 85% of cattle, 74% of pigs, and 52% of chicken, that alone is plenty of fodder for anti-trust law suits.
 
I've always sort of wondered why Intel was never broken up. Sure, they were forced to share their technology with AMD, but they were effectively a monopoly for most of the past 20 years.
 
38_00392.jpg

the classic cartoon drawn by Joseph Keppler and published in Puck on January 23, 1889.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/artifact/Ga_Cartoon/Ga_cartoon_38_00392.htm

and interestingly, favorably acknowledged on U.S. Senate website!
 
What other major corporations may have been broken up and how might the results have played out?
5f921416618939.562aedbbe5f21.jpg

The eighties: when people thought powerful corporations were the future.

Anyway, surprised no one mentioned the banking sector which would have prevented the 2007 crisis. It being the eighties, though, no one was going to break up the funding that made greed good.
 
This is what happens with too little regulation. The "Free Market" at work, folks... :rolleyes:
Well, with merely good enough transparency and merely good enough competition, we really can have a vibrant, productive market.

I'm surprised how easily the market can fall into a funk. For example, I've read that if four companies account for 40% or more of the market, we can end up with a oligopoly (with such things as a gentlemen's agreement not to rock the boat, passive collusion rather then active conspiracy, etc).
 
Last edited:
Anyway, surprised no one mentioned the banking sector which would have prevented the 2007 crisis. It being the eighties, though, no one was going to break up the funding that made greed good.


The problem there was mostly that banks were working as retail banks and investment banks at the same time - i.e., they were both making small loans to individuals and trading in shares and other commodities (futures, all kinds of derivatives, etc). This had been forbidden in the Glass-Steagall act, passed shortly after Black Tuesday (because people decided that this was one of the major causes of the Depression). Of course, this is behavior also somewhat trust-y, since this allows/encourages mergers between the two varieties of bank.

The act started getting amended into oblivion in the 60s, and was eventually repealed entirely in 1999.

Whoops.

Anyway, banking (of both varieties) has never been quite a monopoly in the US. An oligopoly, sure, but as far as I know fairly competitive and not too cartel-y, especially with the need to compete sometimes with local credit unions and such.
 
from the above on AT&T, the antitrust suit was six years in the making. That means a little bit of the Ford administration and all through the Carter years.

When this major step forward occurred in Jan. '82, Reagan had bee president for a year. He could have stopped it. He choose not to.

Reagan did have populist strains. He did tend to appoint conservative. And I think to some extent he also had a rich guy outlook. But there were openings. For example, on the foreign policy front, George Shultz was more of a moderate who battled with conservatives within the administration.

So potentially, Reagan himself could have been open to more antitrust actions.
 
Well, with merely good enough transparency and merely good enough competition, we really can have a vibrant, productive market.

I'm surprised how easily the market can fall into a funk. For example, I've read that if four companies account for 40% or more of the market, we can end up with a oligopoly (with such things as a gentlemen's agreement not to rock the boat, passive collusion rather then active conspiracy, etc).

And who makes sure that there is enough transparency and good enough competition?

Even if the companies were 100% trustworthy, they still shouldn't be responsible only to themselves.
 
And who makes sure that there is enough transparency and good enough competition?

Even if the companies were 100% trustworthy, they still shouldn't be responsible only to themselves.
I'm certainly not saying there's good enough transparency and competition. I'm saying, if there were . . .

For example, I think the cell phone market works better than if it was viewed as infrastructure and state-run utility, or even heavily regulated utility.

At the same time, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile tries to edge cheat you every which way but Sunday on the damn service contracts. Even though customers had made it loud and clear that they really don't like it, and speak up on the Internet. So, it's curious why it still happens, then to find a remedy.
 
Reagan Reportedly to Seek Major Overhaul to Ease Antitrust Laws

Los Angeles Times (from The Washington Post)
January 15, 1986

http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-15/business/fi-28375_1_antitrust-laws

'WASHINGTON — President Reagan, arguing that American business needs greater flexibility to respond to global competition, has decided to ask Congress to overhaul the nation's antitrust laws to ease restrictions on mergers, Administration sources said Tuesday. . . '
.
.
' . . . Some Administration officials have argued that the antitrust restrictions on mergers may be discouraging transactions that would create stronger, more competitive firms. . . '
This is the idea that if England or Germany has large mega-banks, for example, we need large mega-banks, too! :p
 
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-15/business/fi-28375_1_antitrust-laws

.
.
.
' . . . - The President also has decided to propose restricting the ability of U.S. companies to sue foreign companies for alleged antitrust violations committed on foreign soil. U.S. courts would be required to dismiss such suits unless a significant argument can be made that the court has jurisdiction or that U.S. consumers would be harmed.'
This is where the whole thing morphs into a hodge podge, or maybe a corporate wish list. Or, the knee-jerk idea that we're against lawsuits.

It's a little strange and unexpected.
 
And Clinton was terrible. There was the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

And there was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley financial institution deregulation of 1999.

Clinton either believed in the big dogs regulating themselves and/or gave away too much of the store to Republicans and/or simply hoped things would work out okay. They didn't.

* Don't know how Clinton's Justice Dept. did on the enforcement side.

-------

We might also go back and look at the four years 1989-'93 of the Bush, Sr. presidency.
 
Last edited:
Top