Showing results for: “price gouging”
Ovation Reconsidered: A Response to Commissioner Leary
I was very pleased to thumb through the newest version of Antitrust Magazine and see a TOTM post get some attention. Its always nice to be cited and have folks take the time to respond to your work — or in this case, blog post. Its even more tickling when the person doing the responding ... Ovation Reconsidered: A Response to Commissioner Leary
Commissioner Rosch, Rhetoric, and the Relationship Between Economics and Antitrust
Economic theory is essential to antitrust law. It is economic analysis that constrains antitrust law and harnesses it so that it is used to protect consumers rather than competitors. And the relationship between economics and antitrust is responsible for the successful evolution of antitrust from its economically incoherent origins to its present state. In my ... Commissioner Rosch, Rhetoric, and the Relationship Between Economics and Antitrust
Expanding Insurance Coverage Is Not the Way to Reduce Health Care Costs
As his Council of Economic Advisers made clear in its recent health care report, President Obama sees two primary goals for his health care reform efforts: to slow the growth of health care costs and to expand coverage of health insurance. It’s pretty clear, though, which of these goals is steering the ship. While the ... Expanding Insurance Coverage Is Not the Way to Reduce Health Care Costs
Dear Mr. Toobin
Jeff Toobin has an interesting profile on John Roberts in the New Yorker (HT: Jonathan Adler who also takes issue with Toobin’s description of Leegin, but goes on to challenge Toobin’s general account of Roberts as a “stealth nominee”). Toobin’s column has very little to do with antitrust. with the exception of one sentence describing ... Dear Mr. Toobin
Lambert's Latest on RPM in the William and Mary Law Review
The law and economics of RPM have been a frequent topic of discussion here for Thom and I especially, ranging from the empirical evidence on RPM, to competitive resale price maintenance without free riding, to the inappropriate use of the term “price-fixing” by journalists some who should know better to describe RPM, to the Commission’s ... Lambert's Latest on RPM in the William and Mary Law Review
If A Tree Falls in a Forest and Nobody Hears It, Did the Bush Antitrust Division Cut It Down?
The NYT ran an unsigned editorial on “Intel and Competition” that, quite frankly, doesn’t make much sense to us. It offers two basic arguments: (1) that the Bush administration DOJ is responsible for the state of Section 2 law requirement that plaintiffs demonstrate actual consumer harm, and (2) that foreign antitrust jurisdictions’ pursuit of enforcement ... If A Tree Falls in a Forest and Nobody Hears It, Did the Bush Antitrust Division Cut It Down?
CPI Webinar: Economic and Legal Analysis of Collusion
Competition Policy International has announced its next Webinar, featuring Professors Bajari and Abrantes-Metz on the economic and legal analysis of collusion. I’ve had a blast doing these lectures the last couple of weeks teaching Antitrust Economics 101, and will be finishing up the third lecture this week (after covering basic demand side and supply side ... CPI Webinar: Economic and Legal Analysis of Collusion
RPM Workshop Testimony
I’ll be testifying tomorrow at the Federal Trade Commission hearings on Resale Price Maintenance. My panel will focus on rule of reason analysis of RPM Post-Leegin. There is a bit of awkwardness testifying about different modes of rule of reason analysis with legislation that would restore the Dr. Miles per se rule pending, but it ... RPM Workshop Testimony
Hylton, Manne and Wright in Forbes on Intel, Section 2 and Monopolization in the US
Available here. Here’s an excerpt: It turns out that it is a very difficult business to identify the few cases when low prices and aggressive competition might perversely end up harming consumers in the long run rather than simply making them better off. And the cost of erroneous antitrust enforcement, such as mistakenly condemning Intel’s ... Hylton, Manne and Wright in Forbes on Intel, Section 2 and Monopolization in the US
The EU Intel Decision, Error Costs, and What Happens in the US?
Reacting to the EU fines imposed on Intel, Geoff raises a nice point about the difficulty of constructing the but-for world in antitrust cases generally, but particularly in cases where prices are falling. This discussion reminded me of Thom’s excellent post responding to the NYT editorial and an AAI working paper and putting theoretical anticompetitive ... The EU Intel Decision, Error Costs, and What Happens in the US?
A quick note on Intel
I am curious about something. AMD and Intel have been competing head to head for more than 15 years, at least since AMD released its Intel 386 clone in the early 90s. In that time, inarguably, microprocessor prices have plumeted and processing power and other features have increased dramatically (I’m aware that we don’t know ... A quick note on Intel
Neo-Chicago Meets Evidence-Based Antitrust
Dan Crane has an excellent essay (“Chicago, Post-Chicago and Neo-Chicago“) reviewing Bob Pitofsky’s Overshot the Mark volume. Here’s Dan’s brief abstract: This essay reviews Bob Pitofsky’s 2008 essay compilation, How Chicago Overshot the Mark: The Effect of Conservative Economic Analysis on U.S. Antitrust. The essay critically evaluates the book’s rough handling of the Chicago School ... Neo-Chicago Meets Evidence-Based Antitrust
