An outlet for insiders to speak freely (as they remain anonymous to the reader) on what they perceive as problematic practices in their own industry – with an emphasis on how the industry tweaks the rules of the game and captures regulation.
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice.” Adam Smith – An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776)
Chevron and ExxonMobil claim their announced mergers with Hess and Pioneer take advantage of market efficiencies, but a closer look reveals an antiquated tax provision likely sweetening these dangerous deals. Antitrust authorities must carefully review the serious risks entailed in these proposed mergers. In parallel, the United States federal government needs to end large tax-free reorganizations—the most egregious way in which American taxpayers are subsidizing monopolistic practices, writes Niko Lusiani.
In the 1990s, a host of antitrust rules impacting the television industry were repealed. Today’s streaming giants are exploiting the rollback and vertically integrating, a trend that will reduce the quality of TV shows and send us back to the era of network giants.
In late September, the United States Federal Trade Commission sued Amazon for using a set of anticompetitive strategies to maintain its monopoly in the online retail market. ProMarket asked four antitrust experts —two economists and two law professors —to discuss the foundations and strength of the complaint’s arguments, the history of similar cases, and the potential for a legal remedy.
The Chinese Communist Party drastically reduced Hong Kong’s autonomy in 2020 with a national security law and has cracked down on resistance ever since. The consequences have left its people culturally and economically poorer, writes Casey Moser.
Claudia Goldin of Harvard University has been awarded the 2023 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. This column, written by two of her former students and now fellow scholars, outlines both the work on gender gaps in employment and wages for which she has been formally recognized, and her contributions to a broader agenda of understanding inequality in the labor market. Her research digs deep into the histories of education, technology and industrialization to uncover the drivers of inequalities in demand, supply, institutions and norms. And while her intellectual influence goes far beyond the study of gender gaps, she has inspired countless women to pursue the study of economics.
Erin Carroll writes that the lack of public access to the Google search antitrust trial has resulted in unprecedented secrecy which, she writes, could undermine the public’s trust in the outcome and start a dangerous trend amongst other Big Tech companies facing similar trials.
Nicolas Petit and Lazar Radic refute common critiques of the consumer welfare standard. A second article will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different antitrust standards, underscoring some points often ignored by the critics of the consumer welfare standard.
Cecilia Rouse, a colleague and former student of Claudia Goldin, explains Goldin’s perseverance in unearthing datasets that allowed her to document trends in labor and education, particularly with respect to women. Rouse also praises Goldin’s courage to prioritize the study of women and discusses what it was like to work with the recent Nobel Prize- winning economist on seminal work.
The publication of the Stigler Center at
The University of Chicago Booth School of Business
ProMarket is dedicated to discussing how competition tends to be subverted by special interests.
The posts represent the opinions of their writers, not necessarily those of the University of Chicago, the Booth School of Business, or its faculty.
For more information, please visit ProMarket Policy.