The argument here will be familiar to many readers of MR, and it now appears in one of my Bloomberg columns. Extract:
I say this as a long-time advocate of abstentionso make of that what you will, but: If Southern Glazer’s actions limit the supply of alcohol and raise its price, then so be it.
There is ample evidence that alcohol consumption leads to more road deaths, reduced productivity and higher rates of violence, not to mention the unquantifiable cost in ruined lives. Legal prohibition of alcohol has proven unworkable, but some of the benefits of reduced consumption can be achieved by allowing prices to rise and remain high. An NIH investigation estimated the costs of alcohol consumption amounted to 2.6% of US GDP.
If a monopoly has positive social consequences, all the more reason to let it persist. I would also be happy, for example, with a monopoly on non-medical marijuana.
There are many cases of illegal monopoly power in market economies, and most of them are best ignored. The FTC, like most areas of government, does not have unlimited resources.
There are many other arguments in the article.
The post office Do we need antitrust action against “big booze”? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
