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.

Regulation of the Day 21: Potato Research and Promotion

The Agricultural Marketing Service ($1.3 billion 2008 budget, 5,500 employees) has a potato research and marketing plan, pursuant to the Potato Research and Marketing Act. Administering the plan is not free; potato handlers and importers are charged 2.5 cents per hundredweight of potatoes for the service.

A new proposed rule on pages 36,952-36,955 of the 2009 Federal Register would raise the levy to 3 cents per hundredweight.

Regulation of the Day 20: Anti-Flatulence Medication

The U.S. Code contains an entire section on over-the-counter anti-flatulence medication. There are federal rules for active ingredients, maximum dosage, and label text.

Exploiting the Minimum Wage

The minimum wage is going up for the third year in a row, effective today. The new wage floor is $7.25 per hour.

Young people with little or no work experience may not be able to offer $7.25 per hour worth of productivity; no wonder so many of them are having trouble finding summer jobs. They have to be paid more than they are worth. Wage floors reduce the number of jobs.

Alex Tabarrok also explains why minimum wage laws are inherently anti-competitive. Some employers support wage floors, which is surprising at first glance.

But suppose a company has higher labor costs than its competitors. If they can’t cut their own costs to compete, why not just pass a law to increase their rivals’ costs? Tabbarok also observes, “This is why unions have typically been in favor of the minimum wage even when their own workers make much more than the minimum.”

Lost jobs and a less competitive economy, in other words. And minimum wage hikes still routinely poll at over 80% in favor. One of life’s mysteries, that.

Leave it to the Experts

Compact fluorescent light bulbs are difficult to dispose of. They contain mercury that can leak into the environment. If one breaks, cleaning it up is an even trickier matter. The EPA has a 19-point guideline on proper procedure.

Some smart-aleck came up with a simpler idea: Send your used light bulbs to Washington! They’re the experts. They’ll know what to do.

Regulation of the Day 19: Fospropofol

The Drug Enforcement Administration ($2.2 billion 2009 budget, 10,891 employees) would like to schedule fospropofol, approved by the FDA last year for use as an anesthetic, as a Schedule IV controlled substance. It appears to be mildly addictive in lab animals.

Regulation of the Day 18: Shipping Live Animals

If you ship live animals via the USPS’s Express Mail Service and it takes three days or more for them to reach their destination, you may be eligible for a refund, according to a new rule on pages 36,116-36,118 of the 2009 Federal Register.

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

Economic Hubris

The failure to predict the current economic crisis has lowered the public’s esteem of economists, as The Economist makes plain. The hit to our reputation is well-deserved.

This is not to sell economics short. The explanatory power of the economic way of thinking is incredible. Reading and understanding Bastiat’s “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen” will change the way you see the world.

Knowing what opportunity costs are, and that incentives matter, allows you to almost literally see the unseen. It is almost magical. It is the stuff of poetry.

The fact that cities of millions like Paris and New York are fed every day without fail – overfed, even – while producing almost no food themselves, and without anyone directing the process, can be explained with two words: spontaneous order.

Pretty cool. But economists, just like other mortals, cannot predict the booms and busts of the business cycle. That some have claimed this miraculous power is a sign that economists have fallen prey to hubris. Our shaming in the public eye is a direct result of overstepping our boundaries.

Turn your tv to CNBC or some other business channel. Some mystic parading as an economist will try to predict which way the stock market will move tomorrow, or which stocks are will beat the market. Nobody knows that. Nobody could possibly know that.

If a stock really is a good buy, then people will buy it, driving up its price until it is no longer a good buy. Anyone claiming they can beat the market long-term probably also has some snake oil to sell you. The fact that a few people have had inordinate success, like Warren Buffett, is an artifact of the laws of probability.

Think about it. We can’t predict if the stock market will go up or down. How can we presume to think we can understand longer-term, macro-level movements like business cycles? There are more theories than there are economists.

Still, some people have said that they understand. And they shall give unto us of their wisdom. Some of these people hold political office, or advise people who do. They are putting their theories to the test; they are finding no effect. No wonder people are thinking so ill of economists lately.

Our hubris deserves all the public scorn it gets and more. My deeply held fear is that this disdain will trickle down to from where it is deserved to where it is not deserved.

Regulation of the Day 17: Sliding Car Doors

The seventeenth in an occasional series that shines a bit of light on the regulatory state.

Today’s Regulation of the Day comes to us from the U.S. Department of Transportation ( $73 billion 2010 budget, 58,622 employees).

A new set of rules for sliding car doors will come into effect on September 1, 2010.

See pages 35,131-35,135 of the 2009 Federal Register for details.