[ethbr1]

Are you speaking in the long term?

Because it certainly works over decades-term.

Standard still had 70% market share when it was charged, and 64% by the time it was broken up.

Over the ~40 years it existed, it was incredibly profitable.

[Geisterde]

I submit that the long term issues we are having in the united states, are in fact the result of short term solutions. Also, standard oil controlled more like 90% of the market, so in that context they had lost more like 25% by the time the trial concluded.

[ethbr1]

64% is still an incredible pricing and profitability position. Most firms would kill to be in such a situation!

Apple has, what, 20% smartphone market share?

And look at the margins they're able to run. Granted, boosted by platform lock-in.

[Geisterde]

Except, at 64% its not really fixing prices, is it?

[ethbr1]

Your assertion was "price fixing doesnt work in real life".

I offer that if you get to fix prices for a good chunk of 40 years, and then still end up with 64% market share... it does work.

In the sense that your company will have made obscene amounts of money, by price fixing, while the above played out.

If your rebuttal is that in the end they lost market share, true. But they made enough money before that happened that it's still a win.

[devilbunny]

I'm pretty pro-market, but Standard Oil used a lot of techniques to fix prices. Having a lot of refinery control and the ability to undercut anyone who didn't play ball with them (and thus kill the small independent) did happen. They didn't need a true monopoly, just enough power to tank any smaller company that tried to undercut them.

If you're interested in the subject, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power by Daniel Yergin is a fascinating read.