What's more important, a price reduction or sustaining competition?

On Wednesday of this week, Rudolph T. Randa (a federal judge) declared Wisconsin's mark-up gas law unconstitutional. Okay, but what is the mark-up gas law exactly? It was a law that has been in effect for 70 years now, passed in 1939. The law prohibits gas retailers from charging their customers less that what it cost them to purchase the good. The law also requires the same retailers to mark up their gas by 6% of what they paid, or 9.18% higher than the average wholesale price (they choose the higher of the two). Judge Randa claims this law to be a restriction on trade, but is this law really that bad? Should it be "struck down" as the article explains it to have been? Personally I believe that by eliminating this law the small business owners in the state of Wisconsin will suffer greatly, along with the consumers. The larger companies will be able to set their own lower prices, allowing for them to slowly but surely push the small man out. This is a complete depletion of competition, a main characteristic of our market system. Along with decreasing competition comes a decrease in supply. Although the lowering of prices by the larger gas chains will seem just "dandy" at first it will all have to come to an end. As I said, the decrease in competition will also cause a decrease in supply. When supply decreases, ultimately the price increases since there is less of the demanded good. In conclusion, I can only hope for an appeal, as said here, ""We're hoping for an immediate appeal ... to make sure consumers are protected from a less competitive marketplace," Hauser said.". It would only hurt the consumer in the long run if we were to encourage large gas companies to run small, self-owned companies out of the competetive market system. The effects on both the consumers and on small company retailers of striking down the mark-up gas law should be thought over more thoroughly.

-SC