Justices to Review Limits on Retail Prices

[LiberalFighter]

Source: Washington Post

The issue at stake is the court's 1911 decision that a manufacturer's requirement that a reseller not price its goods below a set minimum is a per se-- that is, automatic -- violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Proponents of a change argue that such requirements should not be categorically deemed violations but should be evaluated case by case, under a "rule of reason," to decide whether they interfere with market competition.

snip

But Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, said the reality is that a change would mean higher prices for shoppers.

"Basically, they want to get rid of discounters, particularly Internet discounters," Cooper said. And he added that if manufacturers' actions must be challenged on a case-by-case basis, "the burden becomes immense."

Cooper said that Congress has continually shown its approval of the current system and that it doesn't make sense to change what has worked because of theories that it can work better.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032400947.html

[ellenfl]

1. hasn't everyone figured out yet that 'market-driven' is anti-consumer? eom

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

2. Well haven't you figured out that a "planned economy" doesn't work. EOM

[BayCityProgressive]

3. Maybe you should tell that

to Cuba and Venezuela who had the highest growth rates in Latin America last year. Or China and Vietnam in Asia. Funny, in Africa and Eastern Europe the "free market" doesn't seem to be working all that great. Both the market and responsible planning have their positives and potential negatives.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

4. China and Viet Nam planed economies LOL.

Have you been to China lately, I have. Far from a planned economy. VietNam, the next growth area for cheap electronics suppliers.

What else have we?

Venezuela---OIL even a monkey could make that economy grow. Oh wait, one already is.

Cuba--What growth rates are we seeing there? Their economy is based on bartering with hard gods b/c their currency has no world market?

What free market is there in Africa? Mugabe's version, you are free to give up your land or die.

Eastern Europe, overcoming 70 years of Soviet rule in less than 20 just won't happen. It took the Germans and Japanese more than 40 to recover and that was with US help. Speaking of which, which side of Germany did better in the Cold War, East or West?

[BayCityProgressive]

5. actually

Cuba's economy is better and the people have better living standards than any of the capitalist mareket economies in the surrounding islands.

Venezuela sure wasn't doing so hot before Chavez came in...so apparently it does take some skill to run the country.

My uncle does business with China and yes while they have a capitalist economy the gov guides and controls most commanding industries and steps in frequently...as does Vietnam.

I was unaware that Mugabe was made President of all of Africa. News to me.

As for your question about Germany...during the Cold War up until the 80's North Korea did better than South Korea. There are examples on both sides. Both systems can fail. Capitalism has failed in countries all over the world hundreds of times, as have socialist states. I think many other factors such as natural disasters, peace/war, citizen participation, corruption, lack of resources ect ect should be taken into account when looking at capitalism or "planned economies" in various countries. Many countries have a mixture of the two.

[BayCityProgressive]

6. Some examples right here at home

The government increasing sin taxes and using it to pay for healthcare. The government is raising taxes on things that are undesirable and using the funds in a planned way to fund government healthcare.

Or raising taxes on the oil companies and using that money to fund alternative fuel.

Both of these cases are the government planning ahead and taxing one segment of the economy to stop it or limit it, and then planning to invest the funds somewhere else.

Those are socialist style bills that were passed. The government may not own the means of production as in some strictly planned economies...but through regulation and taxation they can have a significant say in planning and styling the future of the economy.

[brentspeak]

7. It didn't take West Germany and Japan more than 40 years to recover

Economically, both nations were firmly on their own feet by the late 1960's.

[happyslug]

9. Yes, do to MASSIVE subsidies from the US

Now these subsidies were NOT direct, but indirect. The massing of troops in BOTH countries to offset the Soviet Union was one step. This included SPENDING a huge amount of money on food, housing etc FOR the troops and massive spending of the Troops themselves for such things as entertainment.

As second set of Subsidies was the Open Market the US had to both Countries during the 1950s. Thus the US put no limits on Japanese junk coming into the US during the 1950s which lead to the importation of better quality items starting in the 1960s (People tend to forget in the 1950s Japan was producing the same type of junk merchandise China is making now, in both cases the purpose of the Production was export to the US).

A third factor was the US had a HUGE trade SURPLUS in the late 1940s, so huge that the US had to give it back to our Allies (including Japan and Germany) or bankrupt those countries. Thus the Marshall Plan and other such plans to jump start the Economies of those countries allied with the US (and with serious option of going Communist). This grant of money was marginal compared to the above, help start international trade between Western Europe, Japan and the US. This was part of the Cold War, to make sure the Communist Parties of Western Europe and Japan would be weaken by making sure all of these countries economies boomed.

The Korean war helped Japan by forcing the US to rely on Japan as a nearby area for repairs to US Military Equipment (Mostly Trucks, but then tanks and planes0. During Vietnam South Korea followed a similar (THrough Smaller) transformation.

At the same time the US was permitting imports in from Japan and Western Europe, it was blocking imports from third world countries of agricultural and raw materials (Unless the US had NO internal source for such material). Latin America had a huge problem for its main exports were agricultural and raw materials. Thus such poor countries tended to stay poor no matter if they were Capitalist or Socialist. You can NOT reform your economy till you have some sort of "Surplus". In Western Countries such "Surplus" had first come about do to improvements in agricultural during the Agricultural Revolution that proceeded the Industrial Revolution by about 50 years in Europe i.e. about 1750 in Europe, earlier for Britain, later for the rest of Western Europe, 1920s for Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union is a special case, its agricultural reform came in the form of the Collectivization as opposed to the private reform in the rest of Europe. The effectiveness of this "Reform" is questionable but Collectivization provided Stalin the Surplus he needed to industrialize the Soviet Union.

Please note the cost in Human life in Stalin's Collectivization is high, but the reform of agricultural in the Rest of Europe was also high, but since it was done on a county by county basis over a 200 year period the number PER INCIDENT is low as oppose to the HIGH number do to Stalin doing it all at once. Please note also what I mean is the Forcing off of the land of Tenant farmers who had worked those lands for centuries along with the "Enclosure" of previous communal lands (Which cut off such communal land to the peasants). In Many way Britain was the worse, forcing off Tenant farmers by eliminating such peasants rights to the land, when the land was technically owned by another.

The present concept of having only one owner to a piece of land is relatively new concept, did not really exist before 1600, peasants had legal rights to the land they "rented" from their lord. These rights were inheritable till abolished and the peasants forced off the land. Stalin Collectivization did the same by in a short fie year period as opposed ot the 200 years it took Britain to do the same Roughly 1630-1830. It wa the 1820s and 1830s when the last Enclosure acts were passed to kick off the Scottish Peasants off their lands and give exclusive use of the land to their clan leaders (Who proceeded to raise sheep which was more profitable than leaving the Highland farmers farm the Highlands).

Yes, horror stories exist for BOTH types of Systems. Such Horror stories occur when you have one class of people (The Rich in Capitalist, the connected Party hack in Stalin's Russia) having complete power to decide HOW other people are suppose to live.

[w4rma]

8. I know you aren't really trying to debate that the 1911 Sherman Antitrust Act isn't weak enough.(nt)

:sarcasm: