Brian Albrecht Profile picture
Mar 28 12 tweets 5 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
Remember when Amazon bought Whole Foods in 2017?

Lina Khan warned the merger would expand Amazon's "fief." Yes. Amazon is a feudal lord in this worldview.

As the Khan crew gets ready to rewrite the merger guidelines, let's look back at their predictive powers in the past:
Khan wasn't alone in her dire predictions about Amazon/Whole Foods.

Tim Wu called it a "super-monopoly." Apparently, Whole Foods had a grocery monopoly?? Barry Lynn said, "Amazon is monopolizing commerce in the United States."

Monopolizing commerce. All commerce. Full stop 🙄
What exactly would be hurt by the merger? Khan predicted in the NYT that the deal “would allow Amazon to potentially thwart future innovations.”

"Potentially" is a possible out.

But has the grocery industry stagnated?
If anything, others had to match the Amazon model of easy, online shopping with quick delivery.

For example, Walmart's changes to match:
- Grocery pickup announced in 2017, but real push in 2019
- Acquires Parcel in fall 2017
- Same-day delivery introduced in 2018
👆 is in addition to Amazon's changes: cashierless stores, Amazon locker, and cutting Whole Foods prices.

Maybe it's overhyped, but what innovation did we see pre-2017?

This isn't rigorous, causal evidence, but it's hard to see how the grocery market's innovation has stagnated.
Let's take another merger: Google-Fitbit.

Another prediction: Google's acquisition of Fitbit would allow it to use biometric data to target ads better and maintain its monopoly.

They are tracking your heart rate to sell you medication!!! 🙀
cepr.org/voxeu/blogs-an…
Reality: No evidence of that. Google has constantly been losing market share in digital ads. Fitbit remains a tiny (and shrinking) player in an expanding wearable tech market.
We have a history of false positives: predicting destruction that didn't occur. We also have false negatives.

Take Facebook/Instagram. Many people today point to it as the one that got away, but none of the usual voices worried in 2012

(TBF, some of us were still in college.)
At the time, The Guardian asked several commentators about the deal. No one mentioned anticompetitive behavior.

The reactions are funny to read in retrospect. Think about Google+! theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
You see similar failed predictions among the headling grabbing mergers: Coors-Miller, Bayer-Monsanto, Ticketmaster-Live Nation.

In a recent @LawEconCenter white paper, myself, @AuerDirk, @ericfruits, and @geoffmanne do a whirlwind tour of these mergers
laweconcenter.org/resources/doom…
It's hard to see how reality matches the rhetoric.

We don't claim this is rigorous econometric evidence, but we cite it when it is available.

The paper is more of a sanity check against the wildest claims in antitrust. The sky hasn't been falling. We are not feudal serfs.
As the FTC/DOJ update the merger guidelines, we urge humility.

The strongest voices haven't been accurate, so let's not get caught up in their rhetoric.

We have a rigorous review process for a reason. Don't replace that with #vibes around some people's hatred of Big Tech.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Brian Albrecht

Brian Albrecht Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BrianCAlbrecht

Mar 14
Revolution is overused in science. Change is gradual, one death at a time.

But a few writers caused true revolutions in economics: the marginal revolution, Keynesian revolution.

50 years ago, a less well-known but equally important revolution took place in IO and antitrust 🧵
2013 marks the 50th anniversary of Harold Demsetz's paper "Industry Structure, Market Rivalry, and Public Policy." jstor.org/stable/724822

Demsetz pointed out the possibility of "concentration through competition." Concentration wasn't a sign of a lack of competition.
Quick IO history: Pre-Demsetz, the structure-conduct-performance (SCP) paradigm had an intellectual monopoly 😉

Under SCP, market structure--such as a concentration measure--- was the main determinant of firm conduct and, ultimately, market performance.
Read 14 tweets
Jan 25
As an economist, I'm used to thinking about collusion or mergers.

Now the FTC wants to focus more on "unfair methods of competition." Unfair??? Oh boy. This sounds like a can of worms.

Luckily, @DanielJGilman1 and @geoffmanne have 2 new tl;drs (2 pages each) to help 🧵
First, what is the scope of prohibiting unfair methods of competition (UMC)?

We know it is meant to extend beyond the Sherman Act. But how much?

The Sherman Act is already ridiculously broad. Really, "every contract in restraint of trade" is illegal? 🤦
laweconcenter.org/resources/ftc-…
The lack of specifics in the antitrust statutes was on purpose. It was up to the courts and agencies to determine what that meant.

This is exactly the type of discovery that courts and agencies are great at. Image
Read 10 tweets
Jan 13
“Falling gas prices don’t lower inflation. Consumers have more money and they spend that which drives up inflation.”

That’s an argument I heard today on a podcast. It’s not true and highlights something economists focus on:

People respond in many ways to price changes.
Imagine it’s short run and supply is fixed. In a world with only gas and food, the above would be true. Any money left over after gas prices drop goes back into food which equally bids up housing prices.

Any measured inflation is an artifact of how the bundle is calculate.
But there’s always another substitute!

Now imagine it’s gas, food, and savings.

It’s obvious that in general some of that leftover money will go into savings, which doesn’t bid up the price of goods today.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 13
In today’s mailbag, @mattyglesias makes an excellent point:

Explaining economics at an intermediate undergrad level RAISES the average econ discourse.

I’d be extremely happy if the average discourse was a solid intro level. Hence our work at pricetheory.Substack.com
I’d add that lots of PhD economists, while “above intermediate” on average, aren’t always above intermediate.

Relearning the basics can raise the floor of their discussion.

For example, the debate around inflation would benefit from more Econ 101 basics pricetheory.substack.com/p/is-inflation…
Finally, there are lots of insights that are intro level. They don’t take any prior Econ training to understand, yet even PhD economists don’t realize.

Like in the standard monopoly model, there is an inefficiency because the monopolist is paid too little pricetheory.substack.com/p/monopolies-d…
Read 4 tweets
Jan 12
"The [Robinson-Patman Act] is highly technical and hasn’t been enforced by the FTC in decades."

One of these statements is true.

A 🧵, for non-lawyers from a non-lawyer, on the Robinson-Patman Act
wsj.com/articles/ftc-o…
The false part: The RPA is not highly technical.

It bans price discrimination. That's it. It was an attempt at strengthening the Clayton Act's ban on price discrimination.

There are a few checkboxes about when applies; it must be across state lines. But that's not the issue.
The true part: the RPA hasn't been enforced for decades.

With good reason!

1) Banning price discrimination is incoherent (that's different than technical).
2) Incoherent laws are bad and lead to lots of legal risks for businesses engaging in normal, competitive behavior.
Read 11 tweets
Jan 5
Many people have a visceral reaction to non-competes. How can a former employer block a worker from a new job? That's not their choice.

Whatever the optimal policy is (I'd say something far short of a ban), we need to understand why non-competes exist.

A short thread:
A key feature of MANY (not all) labor markets is that each side needs to invest in the relationship.

That can generate a hold-up. The firm teaches the worker skills, and the worker leaves.

Anticipating this, firms don't invest 👎
pricetheory.substack.com/p/in-defense-o…
Anticipating the possibility of a hold-up, both sides have the incentive to develop contractual workarounds.

Klein, Crawford, and Alchian's taught us that the more investments are specific to a particular partner, the more likely we will see "tying"
jstor.org/stable/725234 Image
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(