Barry Nalebuff, Nov 01, 2009
Elhauge (2009) provides a wide-ranging article that is impressive both in its clarity and its holistic attack on the practice of bundling and tying. In this commentary, I will focus my attention on one aspect of his presentation, namely the effect of price discrimination via metering and tying on consumer welfare and total welfare. Elhauge makes the claim that we should not suppose that the total welfare effects of price discrimination are positive. Even if they are, he suggests that this perspective is too narrow; a price-discriminating monopolist will make more money and so may incur greater ex ante costs to secure its market position. And if total welfare still rises after taking these costs into account, Elhauge makes the further argument that antitrust is and should be focused on consumer welfare, not total welfare. In that domain, the presumption should be that price discrimination lowers consumer welfare.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
FTC to Approve Exxon’s $64 Billion Deal with Pioneer Resources, Excludes
May 1, 2024 by
CPI
UK Competition Watchdog Raises Alarm Over Nvidia’s ARM Takeover
May 1, 2024 by
CPI
Sen. Klobuchar Urges Regulators to Probe Collusion in Health Care Pricing
May 1, 2024 by
CPI
Multiple States Join Tennessee’s Antitrust Lawsuit Against NCAA Over NIL Rules
May 1, 2024 by
CPI
NY AG Joins Suit Challenging NCAA’s Restrictions on Student Athlete NIL Rights
May 1, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI