By Alan Reynolds (Cato Institute)
In the middle of last century, policymakers and the courts came to accept the “Chicago school” interpretation of antitrust: unless it is demonstrated that consumers are being harmed, government should not intervene in firm concentration. Recently, some commentators have charged that this view is mistaken and that government should intervene on the simple grounds that “big is bad” regardless of whether consumers are harmed. This article argues that the reasoning behind this new view is flawed and conflicts with recent decades of antitrust history.