1/6 - So many bad ideas in @ewarren’s antitrust proposal. Most of the chatter so far has been on the merger prohibitions, but as this article shows, there’s much more. Some thoughts on a couple of provisions: google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc…
2/6 - According to the article, the bill reverses Trinko and saddles dominant firms with a duty to share essential facilities (incl data?) with their rivals. This would impair dynamic efficiency by reducing the incentive to create valuable amenities in the first place.
3/6 - Why build it if you have to let your rivals use it? And why make your own when you can use your rival’s?
4/6 - The duty to deal also requires a court to set the terms of the dealing (ie, what price the rival must pay for access, etc). Courts are poorly positioned to act as price regulators and to continually monitor the quality of access (the issue in Trinko).
5/6 - The bill also bans below-cost pricing even if there’s no likelihood that the discounter could recoup its losses via future monopoly pricing. This denies consumers an immediate benefit even if it’s not likely to lead to a future harm.
6/6 - It’s hard to square Sen. Warren’s professed (and no doubt sincere) concern for lower-income folks with a policy that denies them immediate cost-savings with no chance of future harm.
