Are Anti-Trust laws Anti-capitalist?

Maybe, but then you'd be arguing that Adam Smith was anti-capitalist which leads to all sorts of theoretical trouble.

I'd say no. I'd say they actually safeguard capitalist competition. But then again, I don't adhere to laissez-faire ideology.

To answer that question depends on your definition of capitalism.

We are always told that capitalism depends on a 'free market', on competition. If you figure out a way to make something cheaper or better or faster, your product will win out in the marketplace. So capitalists are always looking to improve their product or service, and that ensures that customers get the best deal and that only the most innovative, responsible, quality-conscious companies remain in business.

The thing is, competition is self-cancelling. Where you have competition, you have winners, of course. And where you have clear winners, you no longer have competition! If one company making refrigerators makes much better refrigerators, all the other companies will go out of business, or start making something else. Soon there's only one company making refrigerators, and they feel they no longer need to strive for constant innovation and improvement. In fact they can charge whatever they want for their refrigerators! That's not capitalism.

The place you really see this is in sports leagues. All the team owners in every league get together every year to tweak the rules. They do this to actually penalize the teams that win the most. Otherwise those teams would make the most money, hire all the good players, and nobody else would ever win. And then people would stop coming to the games. Sports leagues are VERY conscious of their goal of maintaining competition.

Anyway, capitalism requires a certain amount of govt. regulation to maintain a competitive atmosphere. And this is where anti-trust laws come in. Too much govt. regulation is as bad as too little. The art is in finding the right amount.

Since the time of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have insisted that ANY amount of regulation is too much. Govt. regulation, they insist, is anti-capitalist. As a result, we've had a dozen major disasters in the last 30 years caused by insufficient regulation. The S&L industry collapsed. Every airline but two went bankrupt. The cost of electricity tripled in California because one company was allowed to own ALL of it and just charge whatever they wanted. We had massive bank failures. And the whole home mortgage industry just imploded altogether. The taxpayers paid for all these disasters.

Yes, completely, but then again there has never been a true pure Capitalist economic system, ever. Adam Smith, the principal commenter on the notion, indicated that a Capitalist system cannot exist without a moral society. Since a moral society cannot exist in it's pure form either, some form of a "blended" economy has to be settled on. Thus anti-trust laws etc.

No. Ask Bill Gates. They were mainly written to break up Rockefeller's Standard Oil Empire. But most of the early capitalists ended up philanthropists like Gates is, so it is sort of irrelevant

Do I help Anti have faith regulations? precise an anti have faith regulation often prohibits a monopoly or have faith (diverse companies working as one) from forming or working. is this indoors the proper interest of the customer? i like to stay with the social gathering of AT&T for antitrust regulations. a on the comparable time as shrink returned a guy named Alex Graham Bell invented the telephone. He made a corporation spoke of as Bell telephone which later grew to become AT&T. because of the certainty they provided an stunning product at an stunning fee they with out delay grew to become a "Monopoly", smashing their opposition. In 1956 Engineers at AT&T invented the transistor which grew to become between the proper concepts in human background. The transistor is the taking off place of ALL modern-day electronics and desktops. They with out delay better their place as a "Monopoly". The looters and thieves of united statesa. government have been rapid to respond indoors the call of the "public sturdy". regardless of the certainty that considerable attempt have been made in previous years to interrupt AT&T up, they finally succeeded in 1982. AT&T grew to become broken up into diverse companies. AT&T, destroyed, lost 70% of its fee and closed ALL of its factories. The crying, underacheiving, thieving opposition of AT&T gained. yet did the customer? A Quote from AT&T "There are 2 extensive entities at artwork in our u . s . a ., and that they the two have a great result on our each and every day lives. . . one has given us radar, sonar, stereo, teletype, the transistor, listening to aids, guy made larynxes, conversing video clips, and the telephone. the countless has given us the Civil conflict, the Spanish-American conflict, the 1st international conflict, the 2d international conflict, the Korean conflict, the Vietnam conflict, double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, the great melancholy, the gasoline disaster, and the Watergate fiasco. wager which one is now attempting to tell the countless one the thank you to run its business enterprise?" So no. i do now no longer help anti have faith regulations. i do now no longer help the government even watching the loose industry none the fewer working it. regulations that guard the customer from fraud are all particularly in spite of the fact that something RUINS the financial gadget.

Absolutely not, they actually make capitalism possible through the enforcement of the right to keep one's own property, assets and protect one's interests. Otherwise, business with government assistance becomes predatory.

That would probably be the FOX FAKE "News" lie - yes. FOX is the mouthpiece of the Billionaires.