Justices End 96-Year-Old Ban on Price Floors

However, you forgot the part about the Federal government taking anti-monopoly against both due to their price gouging brought about because each had a monopoly. Do the words Standard Oil mean anything to you? How about John D. Rockefeller?

The monopoly charges or anti-trust litigation had nothing to do with price gouging. There was a growing concern over the expanding power of big business, and that's what starting the ball rolling. I know all about Standard Oil and John D. Rockefeller. One thing Standard Oil and JD Rockefeller did not do was drive prices up.

For some reason you feel the need to be rude, and you don't know what you're talking about, so I'l stop at that. You can have the last word if you like but I don' want to discuss this with you anymore.

PS - A great read on John D Rockefeller is "Titan" by Ron Chernow.

When there was only Ma Bell you could not even purchase and install your own telephone. You were paying rent for one month in and month out via Bell’s monthly rate schedule.

Today, I own the phones I want to own, have one in every room instead of only one or two in the entire house, pay close to the same monthly flat rate charge but really less when you consider inflation, and buy interstate and intrastate long distance service from a third party provider at 3 1/2 cents for interstate and 4 1/2 cents for intrastate. I can remember when long distance calls via Ma Bell (AT&T) were 10 cents or more per minute.

How ‘bout my local cable company, local electric company, et al...

No it didn’t. It was able to set its desired prices usually far above that of a competitive market but would lower them to drive out competition.
If your newly expounded theory is correct we have been spending trillions of dollars needlessly when all that was required for lower prices was a single supplier of each product.
Under you economic theory, how would innovation occur when there would be no force driving it?

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read all night. WTF is “agressive DRM support”?

No it didn’t. It was able to set its desired prices usually far above that of a competitive market but would lower them to drive out competition.

If your newly expounded theory is correct we have been spending trillions of dollars needlessly when all that was required for lower prices was a single supplier of each product.

Under you economic theory, how would innovation occur when there would be no force driving it?

What you're saying about Standard Oil isn't entirely true. They had their detractors to be sure. And when prices went up they were accused of gouging, and when prices fell they were accused of driving out competition. The real reason Rockefeller did so well is that he relentlessly searched for and corrected inefficiencies.

Kerosene was their bread and butter for a long time and they drove the price of it down. The price of Kerosene when Standard Oil started was about .24 a gallon. Twenty years later (1890) they were selling it for about .08 a gallon. And in 1890 they were as big a monopoly as they'd ever be in their history.

This isn't my economic theory but a simple observation of facts. The idea that monopolies engage in price gouging is a popular one. A lot of people reason that if only one guy sells wheat he'd increase the price and make more money. But it doesn't work that way. And the notion that monopolies drive prices up is without merit.

if you knew, you wouldn’t think i was so dumb

Very astute!

It reminds me of the maxim that liberals like any policy, provided that it is mandatory. Here is an example. If the government forces gas prices up (conservation) that is good. If the government forces gas prices down (caring for the consumer) that is good. But if the government allows prices to fluctuate in a free market, that is bad.

I do know, and I still think you’re misinformed.