,
7 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1. This week, @sandeepvaheesan from @openmarkets wrote an important piece on how to restructure antitrust law. The idea is, simply put, to return to the rule of law by spelling out clear bright-lines. promarket.org/restoring-anti…
2. Since the late 1970s, Chicago School scholars have subverted the rule of law by substituting right-wing economics for law. They persuaded judges and enforcers that arbitrary complex economic models should govern. This is known as the 'consumer welfare' standard.
3. I am often asked 'is this practice or merger illegal?' And the answer, under the consumer welfare 'standard,' is 'bring a $4 million court case and we'll find out depending on what the judge had for breakfast.' It's absurd. It is 100% arbitrary and autocratic.
4. The consumer welfare model, peddled by people like @ProfWrightGMU, is like Schrodinger's Law. Every practice is both legal and illegal, and neither legal or illegal, until someone pays $4 million to economic witnesses and it goes to a court. It's ridiculous. It's autocracy.
5. What @sandeepvaheesan wrote up was simple. One, monopolies are illegal unless they are public utilities. Two, simple rules to bar anti-competitive practices. Three, market share thresholds beyond which mergers are illegal. Four, exempt workers and small biz from antitrust.
6. In other words, @sandeepvaheesan described a law that can be characterized as law, instead of what we've been using, which is a giant grey area subject to the manipulation of the antitrust bar and judges. Here: promarket.org/restoring-anti…
7. The response to the "consumer welfare standard" in antitrust law is the "bright lines standard." What @sandeepvaheesan wrote is much more similar to how we used to enforce the law when antitrust worked and the rule of law applied to the powerful. promarket.org/restoring-anti…
