The New York Times apparently has a juicy profile on New York Gov. David Paterson in the works. It should run sometime this week. The Hill reports that ‘There has been speculation the piece will contain details about Paterson’s personal life that would result in his resignation.”
Paterson’s rival in the Democratic primaries, Andrew Cuomo, stands to benefit. Resignation or no, Paterson is already unpopular. And Cuomo has $16 million in campaign funds and counting.
Paterson’s resignation would also likely hurt the Republican candidate, Rick Lazio. Political junkies might remember him as the sacrificial lamb in Hillary Clinton’s 2000 senate race. By possibly sparing Mr. Cuomo a bruising Democratic primary, the Times may be assigning Mr. Lazio a similar role in this year’s gubernatorial race.
Over at the Washington Examiner‘s Opinion Zone, Wayne Crews and I explain why New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s antitrust lawsuit against Intel is a mistake.
Calling Intel’s business practices “bribery” and “coercion” is little more than argument by assertion. Rebates and exclusivity deals are normal competitive behavior. Not only is Intel facing increasing competition in its home turf, that small segment is hardly the extent of the relevant competitive market. Intel faces an uncertain future as consumer tastes shift to smaller products powered by non-Intel chips. Cuomo’s antitrust lawsuit does not stand up to scrutiny. It deserves to be dropped.
Antitrust policies thwart the competitive process whenever and wherever they are applied.
Posted in Antitrust, Economics, Political Animals, Publications, regulation, Technology
Tagged andrew cuomo, Antitrust, antitrust lawsuit, competition, intel, lawsuit, monopoly, new york, relevant market