De Beers and US Anti Trust Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

De Beers and US Anti Trust Law - Case Study voiceWith the discovery of large mines in South Africa, the adamant availability in the world market curtly opened a high. In order to ensure that the prices of the baseball diamond in the market are well-kept, the supplies had to be limited. The miners in South Africa which was the lead producer of diamonds, started working together and created a cartel that would discuss and decide the price of diamonds in the world market. This cartel was formed with De Beers in the lead and they coordinated the entire exercise of forming this initial mob that would canalize and fix the supplies of diamonds in the world market. This also ensured that every body in the trade benefited because it maintained the price of the diamond in the world market without allowing it to get down or rise phenomenally.Once the diamond mines in other locations of the world were discovered, the South African controller over the world market with maintain to the su pplies of the diamond mines came down. More mines in Angola, Russia, Congo and Zaire started to dominate the world market and the South African share in the market came down to 17%. However, De Beers by enforcing clear commercial and economic control on the market could bring these people also under control and ensured that the price of diamonds does not fall and continued to rise or stabilise even when the supplies of diamonds kept rising. This meant that De Beers had to buy out from the market virtually of the diamonds that was available to bring stability to the pricing. This resulted in a large stock pile for De Beers. The company resorted to some(prenominal) buying as well as selling of diamonds in order to bring down the prices or raise the prices as the need may be. This ensured diamond price was under control and the miners did not suffer.De Beers and the US GovernmentDe Beers has been a practising monopoly. They tended to control the price of the diamond market and this m eant that they violate the US Antitrust jurisprudence and its governing principles. De Beers was violating every one of the Anti-trust law principle except for the consumer protection which De Beers says it covers. But then, even that would be under question on analysis. US Diamond Dealers mostly dealt with the buyers of De Beers diamonds. The identity of the diamonds is lost once they reach the coast of US. Though the diamonds are not known to have originated from De Beers, the company as a brand was very well known. The US government and its Department of Justice were also aware of the violations of De Beers and they have interpreted multitude of steps to bring them under the book but these are yet to materialise. The relationship with the diamond traders in US and that of the government is certainly not one for long and sustained relationship. It has to be subscribe and legal to be sustainable. In order to do this, either the company should change its method of operation or ch ange the law to accommodate such a change.De Beers, the Illegal trade and the US securities industryThe structure created by the anti-trust law is in line with the thinking of the greatest minds on economics. In do-gooder to that, any violation of the basic principle of capitalist and free economics would only lead to the downslope of the structure so carefully erected. De Beers is a violator