Showing archive for: “Error Costs”
More on Error Costs
Speaking of error cost analysis, this paper from a trio of lawyers in the General Counsel’s Policy Studies’ group at the FTC has a section entitled “Error Costs: The False Positive/ Negative Debate.” A frustration for me in discussing the error cost issue with respect to antitrust policy is that many people do not seem ... More on Error Costs
Tom Smith Gets Error Costs
Here he is making the very basic but critical point while responding to Delong’s critique of classic liberalism: DeLong explains why classical liberalism/libertarianism is wrong. I agree with much of what he says. The problem is, and it’s a very basic mistake and I don’t understand why people keep making it, is that just because ... Tom Smith Gets Error Costs
Three from Brad DeLong
Yesterday I criticized Brad DeLong for, essentially, acting like a child. Today I want to draw attention to three posts from Brad DeLong–in none of which does he act like a child. The first is this post, correcting his mistaken ad hominem attack on Glen Weyl. The apology is well-taken. I only wonder where the ... Three from Brad DeLong
Top Ten Antitrust Articles of 2008
Its the time for end of the year lists. In conjunction with Danny Sokol’s survey of nominations for article of the year in 2008 (here are last year’s entries and here’s my list of the top 10 from last year), and without further ado, here are my personal, idiosyncratic, completely non-scientifically derived top 10 antitrust ... Top Ten Antitrust Articles of 2008
FTC v. DOJ on Section 2: Just Different Priors?
Turns out the Global Competition Policy issue on Reviewing the DOJ Report on Competition and Monopoly, in addition to the articles I pointed to in this post, has added a few more responses to the Report, the FTC Response, and what the schism might mean for antitrust enforcement over the next several years. So far ... FTC v. DOJ on Section 2: Just Different Priors?
Abuse of Plaintiff Win Rates as Evidence that Antitrust Law Is Too Lenient
I was recently reading Dean Chemerinsky (Irvine Law) on the Roberts Court at Age 3. One of Chemerinsky’s standard takes when he talks about the Roberts Court is that the Court’s pro-business stance is one of its defining characteristics. Readers of the blog will know that I’ve been critical of Chemerinsky for his superficial antitrust ... Abuse of Plaintiff Win Rates as Evidence that Antitrust Law Is Too Lenient
Dr. Miles is Dead. Now What?
As regular readers of this blog will know, I was pretty stoked when the Supreme Court finally overruled its infamous Dr. Miles decision. The Leegin Court’s holding that minimum resale price maintenance (RPM) is not per se illegal constituted a major step toward an economically rational and theoretically coherent approach to vertical restraints. (And on ... Dr. Miles is Dead. Now What?
Antitrust Fallacies of Fact and Theory
Steve Hurwitz as a characteristically thoughtful and provocative post over at Austrian Economists on identifying the most dangerous fallacies of fact and theory in economics that a reasonably informed layperson would believe. Steve’s nominations are that the average person believes that the “economic well-being of the average American is on the decline” (fallacy of fact) ... Antitrust Fallacies of Fact and Theory
Are the Roberts Court Antitrust Decisions Really Pro-Business?
I’m a bit late to the party on Jeffrey Rosen’s provocative article in the NY Times Magazine claiming that the Supreme Court is biased in favor of businesses. For readers not familiar with Rosen’s claim, the basic assertion is that: With their pro-business jurisprudence, the justices may be capturing an emerging spirit of agreement among ... Are the Roberts Court Antitrust Decisions Really Pro-Business?
Two on SCOTUS Antitrust Cases
Courtesy of Larry Solum’s Legal Theory Blog, the following two papers have been posted on SSRN and may be of interest to our readers. First is Keith Hylton’s analysis of the Weyerhaueser decision, Weyerhaeuser, Predatory Bidding, and Error Costs. Here is the abstract: In Weyerhaeuser v. Ross-Simmons the Supreme Court held that the predatory pricing ... Two on SCOTUS Antitrust Cases
We Are Not Just Going to Stand Here, We Are Going to Do Something!
That seems to be the message of presidential candidate/ Senator Barak Obama’s response to the American Antitrust Institute’s questions on antitrust (HT: Antitrust Review). First off, kudos to Obama for stating his position on antitrust in a public forum. I hope the rest of the candidates will do the same. Do go read the whole ... We Are Not Just Going to Stand Here, We Are Going to Do Something!
More Thoughts on Free Market Orthodoxy in Antitrust
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
