But with antitrust the definitions are vague and constantly changing, depending on the whims of regulators and policymakers. Consequently, businesses do not compete and serve consumers as vigorously as they otherwise would, for fear of running afoul of new and creative interpretations of what constitutes an illegal business practice. Antitrust laws are anachronisms whose time may never have come and is certainly gone today. Congress thus should do three things. But at the time of the passage of the Sherman Act, the economics profession almost unanimously considered the act inherently incompatible with rivalrous competition.
Monopolies supposedly restrict output and raise prices.
But the trusts that were accused of monopolizing their industries in the late 1880s had been, in fact, increasing their output several times faster than the overall economy had been growing during the decade preceding the passage of the Sherman Act. Also, during that deflationary period, those industries had been dropping their prices faster than the general price level had been dropping. That behavior is contrary to any definition of monopoly. Members of Congress at that time clearly recognized those facts, but they wanted to pass a law that would protect less efficient and higher priced businesses. Trusts have made products cheaper, have reduced prices,'' complained Rep. William Mason during the House debates over the Sherman Act.