The government is not regulating pricesReader comment on: Steel Penalty Submitted by ben (United States), Jun 9, 2010 09:56 I am far outside of my area of expertise, but why not? The government does not regulate prices of steel or most other products. When it breaks up a monopoly or fails to approve a merger because of too much market share for one company, it does so to maintain competition. By maintaining competition, companies will have to compete over price and quality. In absence of competition, a company can move to monopoly pricing. I don't think the government says what a ton of steel should cost. Rather, it looks at the market and asks whether there is competition or not. If there isn't competition, that does not benefit consumers - they have no choice - prices will rise and quality will suffer. I don't think government should regulate prices generally (minimum wage being a glaring exception), but it remain a neutral player ensuring a fair competition. Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing. The Future of Capitalism replies: What they are doing here is regulating the steel prices, not breaking up a monopoly or failing to approve a merger. They are going to tax the imported steel to raise the price so the domestic firms can "compete". Other reader comments on this item
Comment on this item |
Follow Us On:
ADVERTISEMENT |
