Category Archives: Antitrust

The Antitrust Religion still Has Many Adherents

Here’s a letter I sent recently to the Financial Times:

July 29, 2009
Editor, Financial Times
1330 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019

From Mr Ryan Young.
Sir, Mario Monti’s call for harmonized and reinvigorated EU and U.S. antitrust policies (“Watchdogs of the world, unite!”, July 29) is misguided. Consumers are best served when competing firms concentrate on bettering themselves, rather than hobbling their rivals. Antitrust policy discourages the former, and encourages the latter. Why bother with the ongoing challenge of competing in the marketplace if one can merely go to Brussels or Washington?

The great irony of antitrust policy is that it reduces market competition whenever and wherever it is applied. Such is its very nature.

Ryan Young
Fellow in Regulatory Studies,
Competitive Enterprise Institute,
Washington, DC, US

How to End the War over Antitrust

The government is at war with itself over antitrust policy, according to the New York Times.

On one side we have Christine Varney, who heads the Justice Department’s antitrust division. On the other we have the Department of Transportation (over both airlines and rail policy), financial regulators, legislators from both parties, and some of President Obama’s advisers (but not all of them).

The reason for the infighting is that antitrust policy, by its very nature, is vague and arbitrary. If the Sherman and Clayton Acts were followed to the letter, all prices, all mergers, and all business agreements would be illegal. Therefore they aren’t followed to the letter.

Regulators instead must use their discretion. Different people have different discretions; of course they will disagree on the proper boundaries of antitrust enforcement. Hence the government’s war with itself.

There are two ways around this: either enforce the laws as they are written, or repeal them. A quick look at the laws is enough to make the case for repeal.

Suppose you charge a higher price than your competitors. You are abusing your market power and can be prosecuted. If you charge the same price as your competitors, then that is evidence of collusion; also prosecutable. If you charge lower prices than your rivals, then that is predatory pricing, intended to drive your rivals out of business so you can then raise prices and make monopoly profits. Prosecutable. Literally, all prices are illegal. No one is innocent.

Same with mergers. There are three kinds: horizontal, vertical, and conglomerate. Horizontal mergers are between direct competitors. Fewer competitors implies less competition. Prosecutable. Vertical mergers are between firms with a supplier-customer relationship, and can lead to undue market power. Prosecutable. Conglomerate mergers unite unrelated, non-competing firms. By raising barriers to entry in multiple markets, they are prosecutable. All mergers fall under at least one of the three categories. All are technically illegal.

This is absurd, obviously. Companies have to charge prices. And even the most hawkish antitrust advocate knows that some mergers can actually increase efficiency and competitiveness. So the government doesn’t enforce antitrust statutes literally. Individuals pick and choose which companies to go after, and different people pick and choose differently.

If the executive branch is not going to consistently enforce antitrust laws — and they shouldn’t — they should be repealed.

Policies to Promote Competition often Stifle it Instead

Here’s a letter I recently sent to The Wall Street Journal:

July 20, 2009

Editor, The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281

To the Editor:

Amy Schatz’s article “New FCC Chairman’s Agenda Includes Broader Internet Access, More Transparency” (Corporate News, July 20) is most revealing. Chairman Genachowski seems to believe that forcing companies to share proprietary networks with their competitors would not reduce the incentive to build and improve such networks.

Just as puzzling, AT&T’s exclusive deal to provide service for Apple’s iPhone has come under scrutiny on anti-competitive grounds. This exclusive arrangement has encouraged competitors to come up with new and better devices of their own; thirty attempts have already hit the market. Competition is alive and well.

Chairman Genachowski is right that the Internet has been “the most successful driver of economic growth” in recent years. Why, then, pursue an agenda that would discourage investment in wired and wireless networks?

Ryan Young
Fellow in Regulatory Studies
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington

In Which the Case for Antitrust Action against Telecoms Weakens

New research from the American Consumer Institute, using FCC and OECD data, finds that U.S. telecoms are charging, on average, ten cents less per minute than their counterparts around the world. Evidence, it seems, of a healthy competitive process.

Tell me again why antitrust authorities are investigating telecoms?

Antitrust Irony

Two interesting stories in the news this morning.

Microsoft is having a tense antitrust discussion with the EU.

Meanwhile, Google is readying an operating system to directly compete with Windows.

Compare and contrast.

The Folly of Antitrust

Wayne Crews and I have a piece on the Sirius-XM merger at Real Clear Markets.

UPDATE: Don Boudreaux links to the piece over at Cafe Hayek. Their commenters have some interesting things to say.

The Growing School Choice Movement

Good news from this article:

“More than 1,200 foundations contributed some $380 million to 104 organizations advocating for school vouchers and K-12 education tax credits from 2002 to 2005, a new report from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy finds.”

Looks like more people than I thought are getting fed up with the public education monopoly. This bodes well.