"Monopolization Defined"
The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power. Most Section 2 claims involve the conduct of a firm with a leading market position, although Section 2 of the Sherman Act also bans attempts to monopolize and conspiracies to monopolize. As a first step, courts ask if the firm has "monopoly power" in any market. This requires in-depth study of the products sold by the leading firm, and any alternative products consumers may turn to if the firm attempted to raise prices. Then courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. Here courts evaluate the anticompetitive effects of the conduct and its procompetitive justifications.
"Market Power"
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
I support their emphasis on anti-competitive behavior. Versus the Borkian focus on just consumers.
(How would "the market" know the fair price without healthy competition?)
Someone (you? chubot?) previously equated laissez faire with pro-monopoly. Facepalm. Terrific insight, framing.
Looks like I've made similar points at least a couple of times:
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=dredmorbius%20laissez%20faire%...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11677735#11681574
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8261411#8278705
What I'd just (re?) realised is that the term laissez faire itself originated with Quesnay, though arguably in a different context -- he was arguing against merchantilist tarrifs and protectionist practices.
I've been pursuing the old question of cui bono in looking at the situation of market and financialised commerce, as opposed to other systems (communal, tribal, feudal, socialist). No firm conclusions though it's an interesting inquiry.
hn.algolia.com FTW.
"...subsequently published by the anti-regulation, pro-monopoly Cato Institute, and earlier, judge Robert Bork, dating to earlier."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18436387#18436772
"...pursuing the old question of cui bono..."
You're made of sterner stuff than me.
Good find. I like that ;-)