The argument here will be familiar to many MR readers, and it now appears in my Bloomberg column. Quote:
I say this as a long-time proponent of temperance, so make of it what you will, but: If Southern Glazer’s actions limit the supply of alcohol and raise its price, then so much the better.
There is overwhelming evidence that alcohol consumption leads to more road deaths, reduced productivity and higher levels of violence, not to mention the immeasurable cost in damaged lives. Legal prohibition of alcohol has proven ineffective, but some of the benefits of alcohol reduction can be achieved by allowing prices to rise and stay high. Another NIH investigation estimated that the cost of alcohol consumption reached 2.6% of US GDP.
If a monopoly has some positive effects on society, all the more reason to let it continue. I can also be happy, for example, by consuming non-medical marijuana.
There are many instances of illegitimate power in a market economy, and many of them are best ignored. The FTC, like most parts of the government, does not have unlimited resources.
There are many other arguments in the episode.
The post Do we need an antitrust action against “heavy alcohol”? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
Source link