When reading this please keep in mind that the ultimate purpose of the Sherman Antitrust legislation is supposedly to "protect the consumer."
Also, keep in mind that a company cannot be a monopoly until after they have been stated as one by the courts. This means that apparently Standard Oil was using the following tactics & was apparently harming consumers.
Antitrust & Monopoly
The theory of predatory pricing was the driving force behind the case for this piece of legislation. According to this theory a business first gains a substantial market share and creates for itself a huge cash horde.* From there the firm cuts prices below costs so as to bankrupt it's competitors. The firm in question must be willing to take on losses for a period of time (the exact length of which is not known to the company) in order to rid themselves of all competition. They must then, after all competition has gone away, raise prices substantially since they had allegedly been running at a loss for some time.
So at this point they have raised prices to a point where they are making a profit and covering their previous losses, all the while supposedly no new entrants entering the sector. Why no new entrants are able or willing to come into the market is not explained in this theory. This despite the fact that any rational firm would be able to see that there is opportunity for profit in that particular sector. And if this hypothetical new entrant wanted to make a profit in this sector they would need one of two things, a lower price than their competitor (the competitor being the "monopolistic" firm), or they would need a superior product. In either case the consumer would again be better off than they previously were. John S. McGee, in his article in the/Journal of Law and Economics covered this exact phenomena.
Now, let's take this theory and look at Standard Oil. Had they priced all of their competition out while at the same time harming the consumer? Let's see the facts.
Market Share for Standard Oil in refined petroleum
1870-4%
1874-25%
1880-85%
and the share of the market in 1911, the year the Supreme Court declared them in violation of the Sherman Antitrust law.....a whopping 64%. Yes, their market share had actually declined.
How about consumer prices, those must have risen, right?
1869- $0.30/Gallon
1874-$0.10/Gallon
1885-$0.08/Gallon
Yes, that's right, the consumer was clearly being harmed in the case of Standard Oil.
The beginnings of federal antitrust law.
John Sherman, the author of the Sherman Antitrust Act, presented trusts in the following industries as having practiced monopolies: steel, zinc, coal, steel rail production, petroleum, & sugar. He used these industries as examples to attempt to justify his piece of legislation.
However, the empirical evidence suggests just the opposite had been and was happening. From the end of the civil war through the turn of the century America had actually experienced deflation, hardly an indicator that the consumers were being hosed. But that's not good enough, lets take a look at the industries that supposedly were being controlled by monopolistic trusts. In all of the accused industries there was greater growth in production than the economy as a whole. That being known, we can't verifiably say that there was a "restriction of output" (a monopolistic trait put forth by Sherman).
How about prices, surely the average consumer must have been getting screwed over by increased prices in those industries. From 1880-1890 the CPI fell 7%. The industries in question?
Steel Rails -57% in average price
Refined Sugar -22%
Lead -12%
Zinc -20%
Coal Stagnant
And petroleum prices I covered previously.
Apparently we didn't have quite the problem with monopolies as we've been told, no?
Ben, I'll patiently await your reply of personal attacks against my religious & political beliefs. I hope that you might reply with something substantial but I'm not optimistic. Please surprise me.
*Side note from *
In order for sucha company to theoretically be able to even get to this point it would need to have a substantial amount of cash on hand. So that means a firm would have needed to have already held a substantial market share. A firm can get there by one of two ways.
1.) They offered the same product/service as their competitor but at a lower price while still being profitable.
2.) Their prices may not have been as low but their product would thus have to have been superior.
In both instances the consumer has gained. It is self evident that the consumer has been made better off.
Also, keep in mind that a company cannot be a monopoly until after they have been stated as one by the courts. This means that apparently Standard Oil was using the following tactics & was apparently harming consumers.
Antitrust & Monopoly
The theory of predatory pricing was the driving force behind the case for this piece of legislation. According to this theory a business first gains a substantial market share and creates for itself a huge cash horde.* From there the firm cuts prices below costs so as to bankrupt it's competitors. The firm in question must be willing to take on losses for a period of time (the exact length of which is not known to the company) in order to rid themselves of all competition. They must then, after all competition has gone away, raise prices substantially since they had allegedly been running at a loss for some time.
So at this point they have raised prices to a point where they are making a profit and covering their previous losses, all the while supposedly no new entrants entering the sector. Why no new entrants are able or willing to come into the market is not explained in this theory. This despite the fact that any rational firm would be able to see that there is opportunity for profit in that particular sector. And if this hypothetical new entrant wanted to make a profit in this sector they would need one of two things, a lower price than their competitor (the competitor being the "monopolistic" firm), or they would need a superior product. In either case the consumer would again be better off than they previously were. John S. McGee, in his article in the/Journal of Law and Economics covered this exact phenomena.
Now, let's take this theory and look at Standard Oil. Had they priced all of their competition out while at the same time harming the consumer? Let's see the facts.
Market Share for Standard Oil in refined petroleum
1870-4%
1874-25%
1880-85%
and the share of the market in 1911, the year the Supreme Court declared them in violation of the Sherman Antitrust law.....a whopping 64%. Yes, their market share had actually declined.
How about consumer prices, those must have risen, right?
1869- $0.30/Gallon
1874-$0.10/Gallon
1885-$0.08/Gallon
Yes, that's right, the consumer was clearly being harmed in the case of Standard Oil.
The beginnings of federal antitrust law.
John Sherman, the author of the Sherman Antitrust Act, presented trusts in the following industries as having practiced monopolies: steel, zinc, coal, steel rail production, petroleum, & sugar. He used these industries as examples to attempt to justify his piece of legislation.
However, the empirical evidence suggests just the opposite had been and was happening. From the end of the civil war through the turn of the century America had actually experienced deflation, hardly an indicator that the consumers were being hosed. But that's not good enough, lets take a look at the industries that supposedly were being controlled by monopolistic trusts. In all of the accused industries there was greater growth in production than the economy as a whole. That being known, we can't verifiably say that there was a "restriction of output" (a monopolistic trait put forth by Sherman).
How about prices, surely the average consumer must have been getting screwed over by increased prices in those industries. From 1880-1890 the CPI fell 7%. The industries in question?
Steel Rails -57% in average price
Refined Sugar -22%
Lead -12%
Zinc -20%
Coal Stagnant
And petroleum prices I covered previously.
Apparently we didn't have quite the problem with monopolies as we've been told, no?
Ben, I'll patiently await your reply of personal attacks against my religious & political beliefs. I hope that you might reply with something substantial but I'm not optimistic. Please surprise me.
*Side note from *
In order for sucha company to theoretically be able to even get to this point it would need to have a substantial amount of cash on hand. So that means a firm would have needed to have already held a substantial market share. A firm can get there by one of two ways.
1.) They offered the same product/service as their competitor but at a lower price while still being profitable.
2.) Their prices may not have been as low but their product would thus have to have been superior.
In both instances the consumer has gained. It is self evident that the consumer has been made better off.
- Ben Bicknesearrrggghhh....Luke, this is the problem....your logic is fine and ....economic theory is the problem.....a "liberal" economist can take the exact same percentages and statistics from a "conservative" economist and craft them into an equally... logical and compelling argument ( do you really want me to waste my time doing this? )...where does this get us? What was the experience of the worker, the general population? (I can outline this for you)...this is what i am concerned with.....your concern will stay centered on profit margins and pseudo-business ethics until you break free from the mindset that material gain creates health, wealth, and happiness....when will we realize that money cannot be eaten? Only after the last fish is caught, the only tree left is cut down, and all our water is poisoned.....See MoreJuly 29, 2009 at 2:38pm · ·
- Ben Bicknese Consumerism consumes.
Try not buying something for one day. One week. One month. Is this even possible? (yes) Then tell me how you feel, emotionally, physically, spiritually? The realization of the addiction can become quite scary....July 29, 2009 at 2:44pm · · - Luke De BoerSo you are concerned with the experience of the general population? What exactly is your gauge for determining this? And how exactly does the well being (or whatever it is that you are concerned about) of the general population be determine...d to be the effect of Standard Oil doing business the way they did? For that matter, how exactly does the well being of the general population tell us if Standard Oil was a practicing monopoly?
Do you have any sort of response to the stats about market share and petroleum prices and how they qualified Standard Oil to actually be a monopoly? Or is it that you just don't want to admit that they were not actually a monopoly?See MoreJuly 29, 2009 at 8:06pm · · - Ben BickneseHere are some rhetorical questions and quotes to help you break the Neoclassical Trance:
"Departments of economics are graduating a generation of idiot savants, brilliant at esoteric mathematics yet innocent of actual economic life."
...
-Wassily Leontiev, Noble Prize-winning economist
"The standard texts are powerful instruments of disorientation; for confusing the mind and preparing it for the acceptance of myths of growing complexity and unreality."
-Guy Routh, The Origin of Economic Ideas
"Before economics can progress it must abandon its suicidal formalism."
-Robert Heilbroner
I could write you a manifesto using one of these as a starting point....but why? To prove that I can write a witty, logical, well written paper? Try stepping away from neoclassical logic and meditate on this......HOW DO YOU MEASURE ECONOMIC PROGRESS? HOW DO YOU TELL IF THE ECONOMY IS PROGRESSING OR REGRESSING?
Its all smoke and mirrors brother.See MoreJuly 29, 2009 at 8:21pm · · - Ben Bicknese Luke...How do you measure the experience of a population----personal accounts. You really need to put down the economics book and pick up a history book. I could care less if they were an "official monopoly" or not...fucking semantics/bullshit measuring sticks....I will learn you some history after i get back from work.July 29, 2009 at 8:30pm · ·
- Luke De BoerHow about defining the population? Are you counting only citizens of the fifty states or are you counting territories? How about people living in other countries, do they get any consideration in your analysis?
Or how about defining the "ex...perience"?
Does every person get the same weight or are poor minorities given greater weight than privileged, middle class white males?See MoreJuly 29, 2009 at 9:47pm · · - Ben Bicknese you totally missed the fucking point...gold star.July 29, 2009 at 9:50pm · ·
- Luke De Boer :)July 29, 2009 at 10:01pm · ·
- Ben Bicknese luke is a witty smart ass and thats why i like him :)July 29, 2009 at 11:52pm · ·
- Jacob Nussbaum I do not know you Ben but all you are doing is talking a lot with no facts or points so why don't you get some facts to support you. so you do not sound like most liberals!July 29, 2009 at 11:59pm · ·
- Ben BickneseJake...not sure if you understand the convo/ i am speaking in existential/philosophical terms.....what facts are you looking for?
Luke's response (which was smart assed because he knows what i was getting at) to the RHETORICAL questions furt...her exposes the futility of trying to define HOW DO YOU MEASURE ECONOMIC PROGRESS? HOW DO YOU TELL IF THE ECONOMY IS PROGRESSING OR REGRESSING? These questions determine economic theory...
It all depends on your measuring stick.....whose measuring stick is the "true" or "right" gauge.....depends on which is the most efficient and profitable right? But what about the moral ramifications? Whose cultures morality, ours?
btw....what is a Liberal? or a for that matter a Conservative? Were you using the connotative or denotative term?
You seem to be waxing subjectively as well.See MoreJuly 30, 2009 at 1:49pm · · - Jacob Nussbaum first off i do understand. but you sound just like Obama in his speeches just talk in in circles and never really stating any facts or any thing of substance. and any facts would be nice. but i do have to give this you are very good with your words and having under lying points with in your points.July 31, 2009 at 3:00am · ·
- Erick Legue An more transparent example of how a monopoly is harmful is OPEC, which is a cartel than controls prices through collusive agreements to control output to manipulate market prices. A monopoly can, and has an incentive to, behave in the same manner.August 2, 2009 at 4:55pm · ·
- Erick Legue Jacob, party affiliation has little to do with factual appeal. Conservatives practically invented the 'slippery slope' logical fallacy as a platform for decision making. "If they ban assault rifles, they'll take our hunting rifles next!", "If we don't torture, the terrorists win!". Conservatism would be lost without playing on people's worst fears, even if unsubstantiated.August 2, 2009 at 5:12pm · ·
- Luke De Boer Erick, did you really just use OPEC as an example of a monopoly? Please elaborate...this should be good.August 2, 2009 at 10:55pm · ·
- Erick LegueI qualified my statement earlier, OPEC is not a monopoly, but in being a cartel, it essentially creates a single-producer analogy, because all of the producers are cooperating to artificially inflate prices by controlling production. My poi...nt is, why would a single corporation that requires no intra-cartel cooperation behave differently, driving itself to produce more product at lower prices when it can produce fewer at a premium? Why not charge "all the market can bear?" In the example you gave the decreasing price of oil isn't simply a function of monopoly, there are also increasing economies of scale, changes in production and logistics technologies, the growth in available oil fields, and the change in demand for oil during the time period given to consider. Oil production and transportation was much more efficient by the time the monopoly had taken hold; arguably this would have happened with competition perhaps even more than with a monopoly.See MoreAugust 3, 2009 at 12:51pm · ·
- Luke De BoerI'm not exactly sure where to start here. So here goes...
1.) The discussion here is whether or not a monopoly is even possible in a free market. Using OPEC (a coalition of governments) as being analogous to what happens in the free market i...s so easily dismissed I'm not sure I really need to point out the flaw as it's so obvious.
2.) Clearly and obviously a corporation would attempt to sell their product for the maximum margin. However, what is too often ignored is the fact that new entrants would see an opportunity to step in and fill the demand at a lower price. Somehow the proponents of antitrust law continuously ignore this. Proponents assume that amazingly these mythical monopolies keep their position as the only supplier in their given sector regardless of price or quality.
3.) My example was showing that Standard Oil was NOT, in fact, a monopoly. Not in the most standard definition of the word nor in the parameters set forth by the Sherman Antitrust Legislation.See MoreAugust 3, 2009 at 8:40pm · · - Luke De BoerOne of the few actual free market (relatively free, as we have never seen a true free market) monopolies* that I've found is the case of Alcoa with virgin aluminum production. They quite literally had the entire market. However, prices did ...not rise, they actually fell! How, some may ask, did this happen with a monopolistic company? We were taught that these monopolistic companies were cutthroat. Here's why. There is always an alternative (again, in a free market). In this case the alternative was recycled aluminum, putting pressure on Alcoa to keep their prices of virgin aluminum low.
That's not to mention the fact that during the time that Alcoa had the entire market share there were several attempts at entry into the sector by other competitors. Alcoa was forced to lower prices every time, to the benefit of the consumer.
*By monopoly in this sense I mean that they were the only producer. I am not speaking in terms of the conspiratorial and pessimistic definition given by many.See MoreAugust 3, 2009 at 8:47pm · · - Erick LegueYou're free to dismiss whatever you like, I suppose.
But, as you said, there is no free market. In a free market, all firms would be allowed to produce all goods without the restraints of patent and copyright; there would be no artificial ba...rriers to entry for new entrants. The problem comes, I believe, when monopolies use anti-competitive practices to keep new entrants from competing, and by this I would argue the patent, copyright, laws, zoning, and DRM system (legal constructs that permit artificial monopoly) are inherently a part of. Standard Oil (and it's money) certainly had friends in Washington, and this influences the game. The very existence of a government of any sort kind of shits the bed for any thought of a true free market, so why even consider it or compare it with real-world historical evidence if the underlying model is fundamentally flawed?See MoreAugust 3, 2009 at 10:49pm · · - Luke De BoerI can't exactly tell what you arguing for or against here. Are you saying that patents, copyrights, etc are a result of the free market? Please be more clear. Are you saying these "tools" are the anti-competitive practices?
Erick, I think yo...u are missing the point with this note (and preceding discussion). I am trying to point out the fallacy that monopolies are the results of unregulated industries. There are many ways we can tackle this question.
1.) We are and have never actually been in a free market. Thus the premise that a monopoly is the result of unchecked industry is debunked on its face.
2.) As I've shown, the most popular and infamous example of a so called monopoly was not even a monopoly in any sense of the word. Standard Oil was one of many competitors in their sector which by itself disqualifies it from being a monopoly.The real price dropped while they raised production, which is an indicator that consumers, relatively speaking, were helped, not harmed.See MoreAugust 4, 2009 at 12:43pm · · - Luke De Boer The whole theory is patched together piecemeal with pre-conceived notions of what would happen in reality. Completely ignoring logic and rational thought.August 4, 2009 at 12:45pm · ·
- Erick LegueThe Sherman Antitrust Act was implemented to limit trusts, not just monopolies. A trust is a company or corporation that attempts to form a monopoly and use practices to limit competition. The fact that Standard Oil had small competitors st...ill left in the market means it was not a monopoly, but it was still a trust because of its anticompetitive practices. I bring up copyright and patent law because it is a fundamental, but often overlooked element that makes the US a mixed economy, not a free market economy. As I said before, the model presented is only accurate if one doesn't take into consideration greater efficiencies in oil production, refinement, or transportation. The price of oil simply going down doesn't establish it was the same price as a market with more varied competition.See MoreAugust 4, 2009 at 1:49pm · ·
- Luke De BoerBut the price of oil was consequential as to the justification for the antitrust trial against Standard Oil. Or at least should have been as the entire purpose was to "protect the consumer." So the question should be, what exactly were they... protecting the consumer from? Falling prices? New and better products, i.e. vaseline?
What anticompetitive practices was it engaging in?
The justification for calling a company (or trust if you will) a monopoly seems to change daily. First it's because it has the market cornered. Next that it is harming the consumer, oops, that theory isn't substantiated. Well, let's just say they were being "anticompetitive."
They simply were better at what they did than most others and for that reason they are vilified.See MoreAugust 4, 2009 at 5:42pm · · - Luke De Boer"The price of oil simply going down doesn't establish it was the same price as a market with more varied competition."
So what you are saying is that the theory is so perfect that it is able to control for every single possible variable? Th...at those who sing it's praises know for a fact that, relatively speaking, the product that the company in question sells would be of greater quality and would sell at a lesser price if it weren't for this strawman monopoly?See MoreAugust 4, 2009 at 5:46pm · · - Erick LegueNo, I'm not speaking to the perfection of any theory, I'm saying that your demonstration that the price went down, therefore the consumer benefitted, is less than complete without determining what the price could have been otherwise. The de...finition of a trust is also not dubious; in the case of Standard Oil, A physical "Trust" was formed, a cartel of previously competitive oil producers, under the leadership of John D. Rockefeller, controlled output to maximize profit. Anticompetitive practices of Standard Oil are thoroughly documented, including secret price and management arrangements with railroads that raised costs for smaller competitors, prevention of oil pipeline construction, etc, it is these barriers to entry that the government, and by in large the American people, wanted to regulate. The issue with Microsoft isn't purely marketshare, it's the arrangement with OEMs to not install other OS's or browsers on PCs.See MoreAugust 4, 2009 at 6:36pm · ·
- Erick LegueIn the statement, you posit that there is no new entrants to market, and this is not explained in the theory; I'm saying it is the anticompetitive practices that prevented products from getting to market without undue expenses tacked on by ...the arrangement Standard Oil had with the railroads. If you're a new entrant, and you have to drive oil in barrels because you can't pipe or ship by rail, you are essentially shut out of competition. A new entrant would have to produce oil at less than the SO including higher transport costs. The government's case wasn't centered on the existence of monopoly or consumer protection, it was based, as I said, on eliminating trusts and anticompetitive behavior in the market. The popular political sentiment may have been to vilify monopoly, but the Antitrust Act itself is always about competition, and remains so with Microsoft.See MoreAugust 4, 2009 at 7:10pm · ·
- Luke De BoerIt is impossible to determine what the price would have been exactly. You've created an argument in which it cannot be concluded whether you are right or wrong.
That being said, your argument is null anyway. You say that prices dropped not ...as a result of Standard Oil being a large player but because of increased efficiencies and greater volumes of oil fields being drilled. However, you completely ignore who it was that created those efficiencies and who it was that drilled those very fields.....Standard Oil! If nothing else, you prove the point that Standard Oil is the reason for lower consumer prices.See MoreAugust 5, 2009 at 11:18am · · - Luke De BoerBy secret price and management arrangements with railroads I think you mean they made contracts with railroad companies. Contracts just like those used by Standard Oil are used all the time in every sector and industry, i.e. professional sp...orts contracts, vendor contracts for beer/liquor with restaurants. This is not "anticompetitive", that is the very nature of competition. The only one's who lose are those who are unable or unwilling to provide their services/products at the quality or price that the consumer wants.
The whole idea of monopoly was born out of special interests by congress members and their constituents. Scare tactics is what it amounts to.See MoreAugust 5, 2009 at 11:18am · · - Erick LegueYour argument is based on several straw men:
-Proving Standard Oil wasn't a monopoly proves that Antitrust is wrong. Standard Oil didn't have to BE a monopoly to BE a TRUST. It's the Sherman ANTITRUST act
-The second straw man is that the ul...timate purpose of antitrust is to protect the consumer. That may be the political argument, but the law is clearly designed to eliminate trusts and anticompetitive behavior. The US did not break up Standard Oil because of high oil prices
-I didn't say prices didn't go down BECAUSE of S.O., I said you haven't established they wouldn't have without S.O. being a trust.
-Contracts cannot violate public policy. These were not lawful contracts, they were secret arrangements.
-Please explain how exclusive contracts exemplify competition. If there were no exclusive contracts, I could buy Pepsi or Coke at the arena instead of just whichever has a contract. Pro sports leagues are sanctioned monopolies and I think a poor example of free market ideals.See MoreAugust 5, 2009 at 12:17pm · · - Luke De BoerErick,
Do your homework before presenting your case. The title is a misnomer. It only has that name because back in the day it was assumed that trusts would be the entities in which monopolistic tendencies would be brought forth. It does no...t outlaw trusts absolutely.
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal"
Perhaps your statement would have credibility if they wouldn't have added the part about "...restraint of trade..." but they did add it.See MoreAugust 5, 2009 at 12:31pm · · - Luke De Boer Section 2 specifically mentions monopolies and the creation of monopolies being the illegal act. So yes, proving that Standard Oil was not a monopoly is absolutely consequential to the discussion!August 5, 2009 at 12:33pm · ·
- Luke De Boer "-I didn't say prices didn't go down BECAUSE of S.O., I said you haven't established they wouldn't have without S.O. being a trust."
Red Herring alert.August 5, 2009 at 12:34pm · · - Erick LeguePlease, enough with the ad hominem, Luke. I'm saying there's weaknesses in the case you presented. I've haven't questioned *your* knowledge or your ability to think logically. I've "done my homework."
The fact that the Sherman antitrust act... is *also* against monopolies (but more broadly against anticompetitive trusts) doesn't mean it's not misleading to title your post "Myth of Monopoly" and furthermore to make it part of your argument in the body of your post. Establishing S.O. wasn't a monopoly doesn't negate it from being an anticompetitive trust. I think those elements of your argument don't hold water and weaken its appeal. What I said isn't a red herring. You've made an argument based on a three-point chart of time, price, and market share. I'm saying this model is far too simple for one to conclusively decide that it was because of S.O.'s trust formation, the consumer benefited.See MoreAugust 5, 2009 at 1:00pm · · - Luke De BoerAdmittedly I should not revert to those tactics. That being said, my point by saying it is that it does not appear through your comments that you have actually read the bill. It does not outlaw trusts absolutely but only when there is a res...traint of trade.
By the way, how would they know, relatively speaking, that there is a greater restraint of trade than would otherwise have happened? Isn't this the same question you had with my logic? We really can't play this game though, it would take an omniscient person to be able to know this.See MoreAugust 6, 2009 at 11:25am · · - Erick LegueYou're right, I don't think you can guarantee that there would have necessarily been less restraint of trade, since the other didn't happen, but I think there are some tactics that the S.O. trust had available to them that individual compet...ing firms wouldn't have. One, the special arrangements with the railroads would have been difficult for smaller competing firms to secure because they couldn't guarantee enough rail business to justify exclusive contracts. The other is the 'dumping' technique you wrote about, since smaller firms wouldn't likely recover from the loss in revenue. I think you can make an excellent case for the efficiency inherent in a combine or trust, but I worry the tactics come close to racketeering and I do think the market should be open to legitimate business in spite of those efficiencies.See MoreAugust 9, 2009 at 10:04am · ·
- Erick LegueJust an aside, as a liberal I often lament that it seems to be government rules that actually enable monopoly to take root. It's law that harbors exclusive providers for public services, like the cable market. As vital a westward motivator ...as the land grabs were, it seems irresponsible that the government handed over immense tracts of land as though it were worthless. In this case, smaller firms complained railroads wouldn't let them build oil pipelines along their right of ways. Why did the government use eminent domain to secure these rights of way, only to hand it over to private firms to control? Had they not, they might never have broken up S.O. as oil pipeline efficiency competed fairly with railroads. The use of eminent domain to secure rights of way also allowed for powerful railroad companies to charge 'all the market can bear.' If the rail companies had to deal with farmers and ranchers to fairly buy land, they might have taken a different tact with their pricing.See MoreAugust 9, 2009 at 10:20am · ·
