Showing archive for: “”
His short post is here.Â The theme is, in essence, Bastiat’s “What is Seen and What is Not Seen.”Â Government (and, oh, I don’t know . . . antitrust regulators in particular) thrive on the unseen–as Marc puts it, on the unfortunate reality that “invisible opportunity costs stay that way.”Â As I argued at some ... Read Marc Hodak
GW Law received a $5.1 million award to fund a Center for Competition Law resulting from the settlement of a class-action antitrustÂ suit brought by Michael Hausfield (of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., and a GW alum).Â According to the press release, HausfeldÂ argued that the Center would focus on the “special challenges to traditional antitrust ... Antitrust News at GW Law
The Antitrust Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing Tuesday morning on whether the Leegin decision is good antitrust policy.Â It is (see, e.g. our TOTM Leegin archives), but I suspect this hearing may be the beginning of the end for minimum RPM’s rule of reason era.
To no one’s great surprise (other than that it took so long), the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections against Intel today.Â More information as it becomes available. For those looking for a little insight into the case, you might be intrested in The FTC’s 1998 Complaint against Intel andÂ the resultingÂ Consent DecreeÂ (the entire case ... The EC versus Intel: The SO is issued
My GMU colleague Todd Zywicki and Gail Heriot (USD) have an op-ed in the Washington Times exposing Harvard Professors David Himmelstein and Elizabeth Warren’s study on medical debt and bankruptcy, presented to Congress earlier this week, as “one of the most misleading pieces of research ever placed before Congress â€” no small dishonor.”Â The punchline ... Junk Social Science in the Medical Bankruptcy Debate
Luke Froeb and Brian McCann, authors of a leading managerial economics text, have launched a new blog: Management R&D.Â The subject matter of the posts so far look like they should be interesting to TOTM readers: the FTC credit-score based pricing report, M&A,Â price discrimination, and RPM.
Over the past few weeks I’ve read at least two dozen papers, mostly by legal scholars (but some by economists) employing or critiquingÂ economic analysis of law,Â that use the term “Chicago School,” in a critical and misleading way.Â Conventionally, use of this nomenclature comes along with a claim that “Chicago School” economics is code for a ... Chicago, Post-Chicago, Post-Post-Chicago: On Using Shorthand Labels Responsibly
Available here.Â Here are a few of the key findings of the study which examined the use of credit-based scores to determine automobile insurance rates: Scores effectively predict the number of claims consumers file and the total cost of those claims. Their use is likely to make the price of insurance better match the risk ... The FTC Releases its Credit-Based Insurance Scores Report
In my last post I claimed that there is a no “free market economics orthodoxy” amongst antitrust economists or those working in the field of law and economics. In response to the post, an anonymous TOTM reader emails the following related, and probably more interesting, questions: “is there a free market orthodoxy amongst (1) legal ... More Thoughts on Free Market Orthodoxy in Antitrust
There are some good posts from several fine economists in the blogosphere responding to this NY Times article suggesting that the majority of economists are “free market” ideologues and those who dissent from laissez-faire dogma are sanctioned by their peers. All are excellent posts worth reading in their entirety and take on various problems with ... How Rough Do Dissenters From "Free Market Economics" Have It Anyway?
In shocking news, the American Antitrust Institute has come out with a white paper suggesting that the FTC’sÂ challenge of the Whole Foods/Wild OatsÂ merger is warranted (HT: Hanno): The FTC cites to numerous factors and questions that make a highly compelling case for looking closely at whether a Whole Foods/Wild Oats combination will tend substantially to ... Newsflash! AAI supports merger review!
The Glom’s Junior Scholars Workshop, on Location, at TOTM.com: For the Conglomerateâ€™s Annual Junior Scholars Workshop, I agreed to comment on a paper by Loyola University Professor Trey Drury that revisits director liability-limiting opt-in statutes such as DGCL Section 102(b)(7).Â The title of the paper is â€œWhat’s the Cost of a Free Pass?Â A Call ... Professor Trey Drury & Personal Liability for Directors