FTC Continues Whole Foods Witch Hunt

The thugs at the Federal Trade Commission continue to flog Whole Foods for the sin of selling people groceries they want to buy. You see, the FTC thinks -- strike that, pretends -- that by merging with Wild Oats, Whole Foods would somehow constitute a monopoly. Yet, beyond the inherent flaws of the antitrust mentality, it is obvious to anyone who's ever been to local grocery stores that Whole Foods doesn't hold a monopoly.

Yet we can rest easy, in this time of economic trouble, knowing that the FTC is passing along millions of dollars in legal fees to people trying to buy food.

Vincent Carroll wrote up some comments about the case a couple days ago. Ryan Puzycki does a good job explaining the basic errors of antitrust doctrine.

My goal here is simply to point out that Whole Foods in no way holds any monopoly power over the market. In addition to the fact that the huge grocery chains such as King Soopers carry a wide variety of organic products, two markets have expanded in Colorado to compete even more directly with Whole Foods.

Sprouts "offers a large selection of vitamins and supplements, all natural meats, fresh seafood, bins full of bulk foods, an extensive selection of natural and organic grocery items, rBST free milk, imported cheeses, deli meats, old fashioned bakery and more." The market has two Colorado locations open and plans to open two more.

The Denver Post reported on May 13, 2008, "Natural-food and organic-produce offerings along the Front Range will expand again when Phoenix-based Sprouts Farmer's Market arrives in the fall."

Sunflower Farmers Market -- which I visited just yesterday -- has open nine Colorado stores and plans to open two more. Progressive Grocer reported on January 16, 2008, "Sunflower Farmers Market, a rapidly growing organic and natural supermarket chain based here [in Boulder], said yesterday it plans to grow its store base in Utah and Colorado this year."

And let us not forget about Vitamin Cottage, yet another natural market, with its 25 Colorado stores and two more on the way.

The only monopoly Colorado consumers need to worry about is the FTC's monopoly on stupidity and vindictiveness.

The Controlled Press

If liberty means anything, it means freedom of the press. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

The freedom of the press means not only the right of newspapers to print what they want (though libel is subject to tort), but to hire the reporters they want, sell papers the way they want, and structure their business the way they want.

But Congress has made a law abridging the freedom of the press. It is enforced by the Department of Justice's antitrust division.

As David Milstead writes for the Rocky Mountain News, "It was just eight years ago that The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News hung up the gloves and went to the federal government for permission to combine business operations."

A free press does not need to beg the federal government for permission -- permission! -- to conduct its business the way it sees fit.

Even if the antitrust laws did not influence the outcome of journalism -- the stories that appear on the printed page -- the controls would still constitute an unjust imposition on the freedom to conduct business, control one's resources, and contract by mutual consent.

But it is obvious that the antitrust laws do influence what appears on the printed page. Milstead notes that the two papers are struggling financially, and one might have to shut down. He writes, "The biggest obstacle to this scenario is the Justice Department, which blessed the JOA in the first place. In the past, government antitrust attorneys have made it difficult to end one of these partnerships early... [P]erhaps they would block any substantive change, forcing Scripps and MediaNews to pile up more losses in the name of editorial independence." Not only can the unjust policies of the Justice Department force businesses to run at a loss, in the process they strongly influence which reporters a paper hires. Two papers forced to compete at a loss cannot afford to keep on all of their top-notch talent, nor hire away talent from outside or the other paper. The result is not direct censorship, in that the federal government is not restricting what the papers can write about, but it is indirect censorship, in that the federal government is partly determining what the papers are able to publish.

A free market is not controlled by lawyercrats of the federal government. In a free market, the two papers would be free to openly compete, merge partly or completely, offer to buy the other out, or do anything whatsoever that does not involve force or fraud. It is simply not properly any business of any bureaucrat or federal official.

As an aside, assuming the Department of Justice grants permission for one of the papers to close, I sincerely hope it's the Post, but I doubt that it will be. I hope that at least the Rocky's editorial staff stays in business. If they're let go, too, I hope somebody has the brains and resources to keep that talent in Colorado.