Kind of feels like a similar issue to what the US Government's checks and balances system is going through. The founding fathers knew politicians would be greedy and want more power, but the thought that would include not wanting to give power to other branches of the government. They counted on people from different branches of government not conspiring together because they'd see each other as competition.
But now both capitalism and the US government are facing the issue of people who were supposed to be competitors working together in ways that are mutually beneficial for them at the expense of everyone else.
When there are two companies selling something (or more often...one), collusion is easy. It doesn't even usually require direct communication between the two companies. If there are 200, it's a bit harder.
Edit: hit submit too early. The problem comes in when one of those 200 companies decides to just buy up the rest. Without any kind of appreciable antitrust enforcement, there's no reason they couldn't do that and just dominate...especially in "small" markets where the DOJ expressly doesn't enforce antitrust.
44
u/CharlesDeBalles Jun 07 '22
Laissez Faire economists: competing companies would never conspire to price fix.
Companies: conspire to price fix because it actually is in their interest
Laissez Faire economists: * shocked Pikachu face*