In my view, Antitrust laws in the past 50 years have always been applied in accordance with a political dogma slant.Ah, I love a good economics discussion.
Written by someone who was not familiar with Adam Smith. The father of the modern world and capitalism. Being a fan of Ayn Rand (a dog eared copy of Atlas Shrugged sits in my bookcase just steps from my desk) labels me as a Capitalist pig but a capitalist pig who is also familiar with Adam Smith and his book that changed the world for the better. That'd be The Wealth Of Nations. What many self styled capitalists (and dogmatic Libertarians for that matter) fail to realize is the man who started it all recognized that the invisible hand of the marketplace must be bounded. This is necessary lest the excesses resulting from monopoly and collusion lead to the same market imbalances that markets under the control of unresponsive government (or in the days prior to Adam Smith, under the control of aristocracy and royalty) lead to. The bounds are set by reasonable laws. One form of those laws is antitrust. It can work if applied by a well managed and intelligent judicial system in the interest of the market rather than in the interest of the ruling dogma.
Now in the post that prompted the antitrust response, the person was concerned about the ease with which an unresponsive (or unrepresentative) government could sweep away an entire market were it concentrated into too few hands. I would argue that such a government could sweep away any market regardless of how broad the ownership of that market was. Reference the Gold Reserve Act of 1933 under Roosevelt. It made the private ownership of gold illegal. The gold trade was a huge market with very broad ownership which included monetary instruments which were made of gold. A world market gone, with the stroke of a pen.
So to me the bigger issue is the market imbalances resulting from market ownership concentrated into too few hands and the resulting potential for market imbalance. Now I don't think that is what we are seeing currently. I think it is a supply chain issue. The market is working just fine in that it is reacting to a very large increase in demand and it takes time for resources (raw materials and labor) to be allocated to satisfaction of that demand. Going forward however, the potential for market imbalance exists when one company owns the entire market.
P.S, we have recently received an invaluable lesson on the excesses resulting from ownership concentrated into to few hands. That'd be the censorship employed by social media in our most recent election. Zukerberg and Dorsey controlled the message many where hearing. That message changed the results of an election. Don't want antitrust? Then learn to live with the message the new aristocracy wants you to hear.
There are no market imbalances caused by ownership concentration and I don’t see it happening. Plenty of competitors (just look at Vista’s foreign sales) that could enter or expand. Vista’s pricing is not what is causing the huge price increases (I kind of wish it was). No one is looking at the fact that Vista will most likely overhaul Remington’s ammo manufacturing process leading to more production not less.
I’m not on Twitter or Facebook so I can’t comment. I will say the worst thing that could happen, did: HE didn’t get banned from Twitter. If HE had he probably would be a lot happier these days.