You can spell "disingenuous" L-A-W

Have you ever wondered why the word "suggested" is in front of "retail price" in the phrase denoted by the initials "MSRP"? No? Me, neither.

It turns out that it all goes back to a 1911 ruling by the Supreme Court, in which the court found that manufacturers who tried to set the price retailers charged for their products was a per se violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890.

The ramifications of this are two, I think. One, it's a blanket ruling that covers all manufactured goods--the "per se" part designates as a violation of anti-trust law any attempt by a manufacturer to set retail prices (in effect, selling goods to retailers and then attempting to control resale, as though the retailer was meant to serve the manufacturer and not the customer's or the retailer's financial interest).

The other result of this ruling is that it protects consumers from having to pay through the nose for goods. Retailers' freedom to decide the price of goods means that shopping around can net a better deal--it's the very definition of a free market.

You would think this would be clear to the Supreme Court. You'd be wrong.

Here's a nice rundown of the case in front of the Court this week, having to do with a leathergoods company that makes handbags. Briefly: the handbag maker demanded that all retailers agree never to discount any of its bags because doing so would hurt the brand--in unspecified ways, of course. One boutique dared to put the bags on sale, it got dropped as a distributor by the leathergoods company, and it sued and won a triple-damages award (because it was deemed the leathergoods company tried to violate anti-trust law).

But, observers expect the 2007 Court will overturn the 1911 ruling, on the basis that the original, per se decision was overly general and that the so-called "rule of reason," adopted also in 1911, in the Standard Oil decision, will do a better job of protecting consumers.

That's not very funny. The Court is listening to a specious argument by the leathergoods company that "service" to customers would improve if only those poor, poor manufacturers could force everyone to pay more for goods. Um, what? Does that mean I get a foot rub while you're raping me in the ass?

The challenger in this case has another argument: the original ruling was a restraint on free trade. Again: what? I think manufacturers who are attempting to reach a step ahead in the selling process and trying to force retailers to set prices--what we used to call "price fixing," which is the opposite of "free market" ideals--is, well, a per se violation of anti-trust law. How could it not be?

One could look at this another way, which of course the Court will not do, because this Court, in particular, is fascinated by the "shiny objects" of legal doctrine: seizing on misplaced punctuation, reinterpreting and parsing words, spinning abstract scenarios from mundane complaints. In other words, this group is a bunch of ninnies who can't see the forest for the trees. If there was a grammatical error in the 1911 decision, you can bet Scalia will pounce on it and use it as a justification to line up on the side of colluders and price-fixers. He is, after all, the Justice who said that people convicted of crimes they did not commit cannot use their innocence as a defense--there has to be some error in the trial process to justify setting aside a verdict. Nice one, shithead.

But I digress, and badly. What I was saying is, to look at it another way, the usefulness of the original ruling far outweighs its general nature. What the Court of 1911 did, before it opened the Pandora's Box of the "rule of reason," was to remove manufacturers from the selling of goods. The public--you and me--are the beneficiaries. If we revert to the rule of reason, then the following things happen:

The 1911 precedent is overturned and every consumer good in the United States, from automobiles to food, can be priced at whatever amount the manufacturer, not the retailer, sees fit. You can bet the prices won't go down.

Online companies that make a living discounting products--little tiny companies, like Amazon.com, Half.com, Target.com, and other rinky-dink concerns--will lose massive amounts of money. Comparison shopping will cease to be possible.

A separate suit will have to be brought by consumers against the manufacturers and retailers for every single item that is sold in the United States. And, the oh-so-smart Supreme Court will then have to use the rule of reason to judge each individual case on its "merits" before rendering a decision.

So, since many expect the 1911 case to be overturned this week or next, you have to ask yourself: wouldn't the law be less of a runny cunt if it benefited real people instead of serving at the pleasure of amateur philosophes in gay black robes? Isn't it self-evident that manufacturers aren't supposed to dictate how the market functions? What is this, the dark ages of economics?!