|
I disagree with both points. There may be highly probable harms which cannot be directly proven, or for which various standards of proof are thwarted by the monopolist itself. Since "wealth is power" (Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith), monopoly power itself conveys additional power. There's a strong argument for additional responsbility, limits, and/or oversight as a result, for which there's a long list of supporting argument (Smith, Mill, Marx, Galbraith, off the top of my head). Secondly, consumers are only one of several parties potentially affected. The other groups may be competitors, suppliers, vendors, the public at large, natural systems, etc. I'd have to think over this at greater length. The argument that price and "consumers" are the only factors of significance in considering monopoly harms is a distinctly modern one, promulgated almost exclusively by monopolists themselves. To rather great effect. After all, wealth is power. |