Reviving this 1930s relic would punish low prices and consumer’s choices

Some bad ideas refuse to stay buried, no matter how often facts prove them wrong. These include the far left’s efforts to revive the 1930s-era Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) and its accompanying antitrust theories.

This false remnant of the Great Depression placed restrictions on wholesalers’ ability to charge lower prices to retailers buying in large quantities. Large chain stores like A&P, which is no longer in business, have been accused of undercutting mom-and-pop grocers by charging lower wholesale prices. Populist politicians portrayed these chains as monopolists holding the little child down. The fact that these savings are passed on to consumers in lower retail prices was ignored.

At the time, Congress confused efficiency with exploitation and viewed competition as a bad thing rather than consumer gain. Prices rose, consumers lost, and small stores failed to miraculously return to profitability. Courts and federal agencies eventually narrowed the scope of the law, allowing market efficiency to prevail once again.

MARYLAND MOVES TO BANN SURVEILLANCE PRICING IN MARYLAND STORES

But almost ninety years after this ridiculous law came into force, some elements of the far left argue that the concept of penalizing wholesalers for price differences between large and small retailers should be revived. Their theory holds that “price discrimination” by big buyers makes markets unfair and harms Main Street. They cry out that government oversight is necessary to restore notions of balance.

Of course, the irrational economics behind this idea don’t make much sense. In his article “Stop Making Sense: Reviving the Robinson Patman Law and the Economics of Mid-Price Discrimination,” Brent Skorup methodically dismantles the justifications for reviving RPA. His basic message was: Price differences are not evidence of injustice. It is the mechanism that keeps competition alive and prices low.

It makes even less sense to revive this Depression-era theory today. Our economy is based on personalization and dynamic pricing, from airline tickets to online retailers that adapt to market conditions minute by minute. Skorup Ara shows that price discrimination is not a fault of capitalism; This is a feature of live markets.

When buyers with different volumes or logistics costs receive different quotes, this is not injustice, but arithmetic. If Walmart innovates in supply chain efficiency, or Amazon manages distribution more efficiently, or Costco buys and sells in larger batches, consumers win with lower shelf prices. Manufacturers are willing to offer volume discounts because they generally sell more through these efficient, high-volume outlets. Penalizing efficiency does not protect competition; punishes him. It’s like forcing every customer to pay the same price for an airplane seat or hotel room, regardless of timing or demand; It is economically absurd in a world based on choice.

MP Warns SOCIALIST MAMDANI’S SUPERMARKET PLAN WILL BE ‘STRUCKED INTO THE HEART’ OF BLUE COLLAR AMERICA

Every shopper of discount stores like Walmart and Costco knows the virtue of purchasing items in bulk.

This effort to revive RPA and its accompanying theories of antitrust litigation fits into a broader ideological campaign from the left to use antitrust law as a tool of social engineering. The primary driver of such power grab has been Lina Khan, who heads the FTC under Joe Biden; His fellow travelers include people like Zohran Mamdani, the current neo-communist mayor of New York City.

For more than four decades, the economic consensus, both before the parties and across the courts, was that antitrust should focus solely on consumer welfare. Markets work if prices fall and production increases. Today’s left wants to trash this principle for a pre-modern view obsessed with protecting competitors rather than protecting competition.

Bureaucrats will have great discretion in deciding whether pricing differences are “reasonable,” according to Skorup’s analysis. This uncertainty chills investment, discourages innovation, and turns pricing into a political decision. Businesses will appeal to activist regulators and trial lawyers rather than customers. This is not justice, this is favoritism caused by bureaucracy. This is a form of tyranny that erodes our fundamental freedoms; This is exactly what the far left desires.

CLICK FOR OTHER OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS

Free market advocates need to step back. RPA is a fossil from a time when Washington believed it could set the right price for everything. Four decades of evidence confirms that competition, not regulation, drives efficiency and choice. When the government eliminates price discrimination, it eliminates the competition that protects consumers from gouging.

Even without federal action, state RPA imitators and courtroom trial lawyers are testing these theories, which threaten to distort markets nationwide through regulatory uncertainty and lawsuits.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

Policymakers who read the Skorup report will see that the so-called harms of price discrimination are mostly theoretical, while the benefits such as lower prices, more choice, and stronger competition are real. Healthy markets need the freedom to set prices, reward innovation and reflect true costs. A revival of the Robinson-Patman Act would drag us back to the command-and-control retailing model that failed once and will fail again.

The market doesn’t need New Deal-era umpires blowing the whistle on deals that save consumers money. It needs leaders who understand that “fairness” means open competition and voluntary exchange. Real-world experience since the 1930s has consigned the idea behind RPA to the dustbin of history. Stay there!

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM STEVE FORBES