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.
Featured News
Turkey Fines Meta $10.4 Million for Abusing Market Dominance
May 6, 2024 by
CPI
Canadian Watchdog Launches Inquiry into Lululemon’s Greenwashing Practices
May 6, 2024 by
CPI
Massachusetts Supreme Court Deliberates Ballot Redefining Gig Worker Status
May 6, 2024 by
CPI
European Commission Approves Nippon Steel’s $14.9 Billion Buyout of U.S. Steel
May 6, 2024 by
CPI
Banco Sabadell Rejects Rival BBVA Merger Proposal
May 6, 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