Basic Economics

by Thomas Sowell

  For very similar reasons, the steamboat companies had attempted to form a cartel before the railroads did—and for similar reasons those cartels collapsed, as many other cartels have since then. A successful cartel requires not only an agreement among the companies involved but also some method by which they can check up on each other, to make sure all the cartel members are living up to the agreement, and also some way to prevent competition from other companies outside the cartel. All these things are easier said than done. One of the most successful cartels, that in the American steel industry, was based on a pricing system that made it easy for the companies to check up on one another,{xviii} but that system was eventually outlawed by the courts under the anti-trust laws.

  Governmental and Market Responses

  Because some kinds of huge business organizations were once known as “trusts,” legislation designed to outlaw monopolies and cartels became known as “anti-trust laws.” However, such laws are not the only way of fighting monopolies and cartels. Private businesses that are not part of the cartel have incentives to fight them in the marketplace. Moreover, private businesses can take action much faster than the years required for the government to bring a major anti-trust case to a successful conclusion.

  Back in the heyday of American trusts, Montgomery Ward was one of their biggest opponents. Whether the trust involved agricultural machinery, bicycles, sugar, nails or twine, Montgomery Ward would seek out manufacturers that were not part of the trust and buy from them below the cartel price, reselling to the general public below the retail price of the goods produced by members of the cartel. Since Montgomery Ward was the number one retailer in the country at that time, it was also big enough to set up its own factories and make the product itself, if need be. The later rise of other huge retailers like Sears and the A & P grocery chain likewise confronted the big producers with corporate giants able to either produce their own competing products to sell in their own stores or able to buy enough from some small enterprise outside the cartel, enabling that enterprise to grow into a big competitor.

  Sears did both. It produced stoves, shoes, guns, and wallpaper, among other things, in addition to subcontracting the production of other products. A & P imported and roasted its own coffee, canned its own salmon, and baked half a billion loaves of bread a year for sale in its stores.{240} While giant firms like Sears, Montgomery Ward and A & P were unique in being able to compete against a number of cartels simultaneously, smaller companies could also take away sales from cartels in their respective industries. Their incentive was the same as that of the cartel—profit. Where a monopoly or cartel maintains prices that produce higher than normal profits, other businesses are attracted to the industry. This additional competition then tends to force prices and profits down. In order for a monopoly or cartel to continue to succeed in maintaining profits above the competitive level, it must find ways to prevent others from entering the industry.

  One way to keep out potential competitors is to have the government make it illegal for others to operate in particular industries. Kings granted or sold monopoly rights for centuries, and modern governments have restricted the issuance of licenses for various industries and occupations, ranging from airlines to trucking to the braiding of hair. Political rationales are never lacking for these restrictions, but their net economic effect is to protect existing enterprises from additional potential competitors and therefore to maintain prices at artificially high levels.

  For much of the late twentieth century, the government of India not only decided which companies it would license to produce which products, it imposed limits on how much each company could produce. Thus an Indian manufacturer of scooters was hauled before a government commission because he had produced more scooters than he was allowed to and a producer of medicine for colds was fearful that the public had bought “too much” of his product during a flu epidemic in India. Lawyers for the cold medicine manufacturer spent months preparing a legal defense for having produced and sold more than they were allowed to, in case they were called before the same commission.{241} All this costly legal work had to be paid for by someone and that someone was ultimately the consumer.

  In the absence of government prohibition against entry into particular industries, various clever schemes can be used privately to try to erect barriers to keep out competitors and protect monopoly profits. But other businesses have incentives to be just as clever at circumventing these barriers. Accordingly, the effectiveness of barriers to entry has varied from industry to industry and from one era to another in the same industry. The computer industry was once difficult to enter, back in the days when a computer was a huge machine taking up thousands of cubic feet of space, and the cost of manufacturing such machines was likewise huge. But the development of microchips meant that smaller computers could do the same work and chips were now inexpensive enough to produce that they could be manufactured by smaller companies. These include companies located around the world, so that even a nationwide monopoly does not preclude competition in an industry. Although the United States pioneered in the creation of computers, the actual manufacturing of computers spread quickly to East Asia, which supplied much of the American market with computers, even when those computers carried American brand names.

  Chapter 8

  REGULATION AND

  ANTI-TRUST LAWS

  Competition is not easily suppressed even when there are only a few independent firms. . . competition is a tough weed, not a delicate flower.

  George J. Stigler{242}

  In the late nineteenth century, the American government began to respond to monopolies and cartels by both directly regulating the prices which monopolies and cartels were allowed to charge and by taking punitive legal action against these monopolies and cartels under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 and other later anti-trust legislation. Complaints about the high prices charged by railroads in places where they had a monopoly led to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, the first of many federal regulatory commissions created to control the prices charged by monopolists.

  During the era when local telephone companies were monopolies in their respective regions and their parent company— the American Telephone and Telegraph Company—had a monopoly of long-distance service, the Federal Communications Commission controlled the prices charged by A.T.&T., while state regulatory agencies controlled the price of local phone service. Another approach has been to pass laws against the creation or maintenance of a monopoly or against various practices, such as price discrimination, growing out of non-competitive markets. These anti-trust laws were intended to allow businesses to operate without the kinds of detailed government supervision which exist under regulatory commissions, but with a sort of general surveillance, like that of traffic police, with intervention occurring only when there are specific violations of laws.

  REGULATORY COMMISSIONS

  Although the functions of a regulatory commission are fairly straightforward in theory, in practice its task is far more complex and, in some respects, impossible. Moreover, the political climate in which regulatory commissions operate often leads to policies and results directly the opposite of what was expected by those who created such commissions.

  Ideally, a regulatory commission would set prices where they would have been if there were a competitive marketplace. In practice, there is no way to know what those prices would be. Only the actual functioning of a market itself could reveal such prices, with the less efficient firms being eliminated by bankruptcy and only the most efficient surviving, and their lower prices now being the market prices. No outside observers can know what the most efficient ways of operating a given firm or industry are. Indeed, many managements within an industry discover the hard way that what they thought was the most efficient way to do things was not efficient enough to meet the competition, and have ended up losing customers as a result. The most that a regulatory agency can do is accept what appear to be reasonable production
costs and allow the monopoly to make what seems to be a reasonable profit over and above such costs.

  Determining the cost of production is by no means always easy. As noted in Chapter 6, there may be no such thing as “the” cost of production. The cost of generating electricity, for example, can vary enormously, depending on when and where it is generated. When you wake up in the middle of the night and turn on a light, that electricity costs practically nothing to supply, because the electricity-generating system must be kept operating around the clock, so it has much unused capacity in the middle of the night, when most people are asleep. But, when you turn on your air conditioner on a hot summer afternoon, when millions of other homes and offices already have their air conditioners on, that may help strain the system to its limit and necessitate turning on costly standby generators, in order to avoid blackouts.

  It has been estimated that the cost of supplying the electricity required to run a dishwasher, for example, at a time of peak electricity usage, can be 100 times greater than the cost of running that same dishwasher at a time when there is a low demand for electricity.{243} Turning on your dishwasher in the middle of the night, like turning on a light in the middle of the night, costs the electricity-generating system practically nothing, since the electricity has to be generated around the clock in any case.

  There are many reasons why additional electricity, beyond the usual capacity of the system, may be many times more costly per kilowatt hour than the usual costs when the system is functioning within its usual capacity. The main system that supplies vast numbers of consumers can make use of economies of scale to produce electricity at its lowest cost, while standby generators typically produce less electricity and therefore cannot take full advantage of economies of scale, but must produce at higher costs per kilowatt hour. Sometimes technological progress gives the main system lower costs, while obsolete equipment is kept as standby equipment, rather than being junked, and the costs of producing additional electricity with this obsolete equipment is of course higher. Where additional electricity has to be purchased from outside sources when the local generating capacity is at its limit, the additional cost of transmitting that electricity from greater distances raises the cost of the additional electricity to much higher levels than the cost of electricity generated closer to the consumers.

  More variations in “the” cost of producing electricity come from fluctuations in the costs of the various fuels— oil, gas, coal, nuclear— used to run the generators. Since all these fuels are used for other things besides generating electricity, the fluctuating demand for these fuels from other industries, or for use in homes or automobiles, makes their prices unpredictable. Hydroelectric dams likewise vary in how much electricity they can produce when rainfall varies, increasing or reducing the amount of water that flows through the generators. When the fixed costs of the dam are spread over differing amounts of electricity, the cost per kilowatt hour varies accordingly.

  How is a regulatory commission to set the rates to be charged consumers of electricity, given that the cost of generating electricity can vary so widely and unpredictably? If state regulatory commissions set electricity rates based on “average” costs of generating electricity, then when there is a higher demand or a shorter supply within the state, out-of-state suppliers may be unwilling to sell electricity at prices lower than their own costs of generating the additional electricity from standby units. This was part of the reason for the much-publicized blackouts in California in 2001. “Average” costs are irrelevant when the costs of generation are far above average at a particular time or far below average at other times.

  Because the public is unlikely to be familiar with all the economic complications involved, they are likely to be outraged at having to pay electricity rates far higher than they are used to. In turn, this means that politicians are tempted to step in and impose price controls based on the old rates. And, as already noted in other contexts, price controls create shortages— in this case, shortages of electricity that result in blackouts. A larger quantity demanded and a smaller quantity supplied has been a very familiar response to price controls, going back in history long before electricity came into use. However, politicians’ success does not depend on their learning the lessons of history or of economics. It depends far more on their going along with what is widely believed by the public and the media, which may include conspiracy theories or belief that higher prices are due to “greed” or “gouging.”

  Halfway around the world, attempts to raise electricity rates in India were met by street demonstrations, as they were in California. In the Indian state of Karnataka, controlled politically by India’s Congress Party at the time, efforts to change electricity rates were opposed in the streets by one of the opposition parties. However, in the neighboring state of Andhra Pradesh, where the Congress Party was in the opposition, it led similar street demonstrations against electricity rate increases.{244} In short, what was involved in these demonstrations was neither ideology nor party but an opportunistic playing to the gallery of public misconceptions.

  The economic complexities involved when regulatory agencies set prices are compounded by political complexities. Regulatory agencies are often set up after some political crusaders have successfully launched investigations or publicity campaigns that convince the authorities to establish a permanent commission to oversee and control a monopoly or some group of firms few enough in number to be a threat to behave in collusion as if they were one monopoly. However, after a commission has been set up and its powers established, crusaders and the media tend to lose interest over the years and turn their attention to other things. Meanwhile, the firms being regulated continue to take a keen interest in the activities of the commission and to lobby the government for favorable regulations and favorable appointments of individuals to these commissions.

  The net result of these asymmetrical outside interests on these agencies is that commissions set up to keep a given firm or industry within bounds, for the benefit of the consumers, often metamorphose into agencies seeking to protect the existing regulated firms from threats arising from new firms with new technology or new organizational methods. Thus, in the United States, the Interstate Commerce Commission— initially created to keep railroads from charging monopoly prices to the public— responded to the rise of the trucking industry, whose competition in carrying freight threatened the economic viability of the railroads, by extending the commission’s control to include trucking.

  The original rationale for regulating railroads was that these railroads were often monopolies in particular areas of the country, where there was only one rail line. But now that trucking undermined that monopoly, by being able to go wherever there were roads, the response of the I.C.C. was not to say that the need for regulating transportation was now less urgent or perhaps even unnecessary. Instead, it sought— and received from Congress— broader authority under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, in order to restrict the activities of truckers. This allowed railroads to survive under the new economic conditions, despite truck competition that was more efficient for various kinds of freight hauling and could therefore often charge lower prices than the railroads charged. Trucks were now permitted to operate across state lines only if they had a certificate from the Interstate Commerce Commission declaring that the trucks’ activities served “public convenience and necessity” as defined by the I.C.C. This kept truckers from driving railroads into bankruptcy by taking away as many of their customers as they could have in an unregulated market.

  In short, freight was no longer being hauled in whatever way required the use of the least resources, as it would be under open competition, but only by whatever way met the arbitrary requirements of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The I.C.C. might, for example, authorize a particular trucking company to haul freight from New York to Washington, but not from Philadelphia to Baltimore, even though these cities are on the way. If the certificate did not authorize freight to be carried b
ack from Washington to New York, then the trucks would have to return empty, while other trucks carried freight from D.C. to New York.

  From the standpoint of the economy as a whole, enormously greater costs were incurred than were necessary to get the work done. But what this arrangement accomplished politically was to allow far more companies— both truckers and railroads— to survive and make a profit than if there were an unrestricted competitive market, where the transportation companies would have no choice but to use the most efficient ways of hauling freight, even if lower costs and lower prices led to the bankruptcy of some railroads whose costs were too high to survive in competition with trucks. The use of more resources than necessary entailed the survival of more companies than were necessary.

  While open and unfettered competition would have been economically beneficial to the society as a whole, such competition would have been politically threatening to the regulatory commission. Firms facing economic extinction because of competition would be sure to resort to political agitation and intrigue against the survival in office of the commissioners and against the survival of the commission and its powers. Labor unions also had a vested interest in keeping the status quo safe from the competition of technologies and methods that might require fewer workers to get the job done.

  After the I.C.C.’s powers to control the trucking industry were eventually reduced by Congress in 1980, freight charges declined substantially and customers reported a rise in the quality of the service.{245} This was made possible by greater efficiency in the industry, as there were now fewer trucks driving around empty and more truckers hired workers whose pay was determined by supply and demand, rather than by union contracts. Because truck deliveries were now more dependable in a competitive industry, businesses using their services were able to carry smaller inventories, saving in the aggregate tens of billions of dollars.