PDA

View Full Version : Anti trust law?



zinglicious
25-01-2010, 09:48 PM
How trusty is the antitrust law when instead of targetting major and corporate players, they are more interested to focus kedai kopi and the pasar malam pirated dvd?
The origins of anti trust law is also called the Sherman Law where is was targetted at Corporations in USA where they monopolised the market and manipulated pricings at thier whims and fancies usually where there are no competition.
If they are going to model the anti trust law, they should be targeting Maxis, cement companies, highway operators, TV companies which are owned by one single private entity.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/25/nation/20100125210012&sec=nation :p :p :p

Sentinel
25-01-2010, 10:19 PM
How trusty is the antitrust law when instead of targetting major and corporate players, they are more interested to focus kedai kopi and the pasar malam pirated dvd?
The origins of anti trust law is also called the Sherman Law where is was targetted at Corporations in USA where they monopolised the market and manipulated pricings at thier whims and fancies usually where there are no competition.
If they are going to model the anti trust law, they should be targeting Maxis, cement companies, highway operators, TV companies which are owned by one single private entity.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/25/nation/20100125210012&sec=nation :p :p :p
I don't think Maxis (Binariang / Ananda) is a monopoly of the cellular telecommunication business and neither are the cement factories (Lafarge/CIMA/YTL Cement/ Tasek) monopoly nor the TV stations (Astro & whatchamacallit Berjaya-owned digital one?)

These are all not owned by one single entity or is there something you know that we don't?

zinglicious
25-01-2010, 10:38 PM
TV companies are owned by one! TV3 , NTV7, 8TV, and tv9 are owned by satu prima company , right?
Yes, there are different cement companies owned by several entities. But the Sherman Law or anti anti trust laws also target at those companies who try to shut down competition and would eventually manipulate fair market pricing later. Sort like breaking down the gangs before they are doing profitering at the public expenses and profit a selected few.
Just what I dont know, why are they going bonkers to set up anti trust laws against kedai Kopi -kopi as consumers can stll choose to avoid shops selling 20 sens more expensive kopi. It is illogical to pay a hefty 60 sens increase when they raised the LDP where I have no choice if I wanna to go to Muitiara from Bandar Sri Damansara.

Sentinel
25-01-2010, 10:47 PM
There are more than one TV stations so its not a monopoly. Its the same with the cement plants.

The Sherman Law was basically enacted aimed at cartel behaviours by a few competitors in cohort esp those not in monopoly but in monopolistic competition like petrol companies, national airlines etc...

The Anti-Trust Law was what it said it was - anti-trust i.e. no monopoly. Why do you think Coke never bought Pepsi or vice versa?

In Malaysia, most monopolies are government-linked outfits like Tenaga, Water and Train and national airline etc... not private companies.

zinglicious
26-01-2010, 08:31 AM
The purpose of the [Sherman] Act is not to protect businesses from the working of the market; it is to protect the public from the failure of the market. The law directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.

Whereby if a business group of competitors decided to control pricing by means of manipulating market prices, it is deemed as have a set of monopoly practice with the entity. It causes the failure to protect the public from the failure of the market.

Because of the Standard Oil fiasco, many companies are forced to break like the current Microsoft company less it can be too monopolistic where the govt preceive it to protecting the public interest.

Companies in Malaysia have had been doing a lot of under the table talk to manipulate pricing rather than letting the market determine it pricing because there is no anti trust law in place.

As for the present law to be enacted, it makes no sense chasing the prevailing small flies over kopi and teh tarik instead of cement or highway companies which were controling the pricing through artificial means.

Sentinel
26-01-2010, 10:52 AM
You are debating with me but you are actually repeating what I am trying to say... how am I to post?

This is what you wrote: "The purpose of the (Sherman) Act is not to protect the business... it is to protect the public..."

This is what I wrote: "The Sherman Act was enacted aimed at cartel behaviours by a few competitors in cohort..."

chin_wan
26-01-2010, 01:04 PM
I'd make a complain to Dell when this law is in place. The last time I bought a laptop from Dell, they did not allow me to remove Microsoft Windoze from the package. They finally have to agree after I wrote to their US HQ and carbon copy to the FTC (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm).

bslee
26-01-2010, 01:21 PM
I think this review is aimed to address at essential goods and other small time issues at hand. I don't think it'll do any good to those which have gahmen hands in the pie. Sandiwara saja lah!

Sentinel
26-01-2010, 06:09 PM
But employees of US-based companies have been required to sign the undertaking letter on anti-trust for years now.... I remember I had to sign the undertaking as far back as 1993 when I was with UPS...