I was responding specifically to the latter portion of the quote excerpted by the grandparent post, which indicated minimal and zero profits for Standard Oil in areas with competition, in alignment with economic theory which indicates economic profit tends toward zero with increased competition.
I responded to multiple points in the post. You questioned a specific excerpt. I responded regarding that specific excerpt. You are now accusing me of laser focus.
This thread has all the markings of one that becomes net negative for all involved and those reading. I'll leave it with this:
I am focusing on the outcome to the consumer of the behavior in question, not on the outcome to competitors of the behavior.
To get a little more insight into the impact to consumers, and the reason why this behavior is illegal, read the two sections of that Wikipedia quote the other way around.
Where there was no competition, Standard Oil provided oil. Where there was competition, Standard Oil provided oil at zero or near-zero profit.
The former is a situation of supply where there was otherwise none, and some is better than none. The latter is a situation of competitive pricing, and competitive pricing is better than non-competitive pricing.
How is this worse off for consumers than the situation without Standard Oil?
