Was it Frank Easterbrook in the 1980s or Aaron Director in the 1950s who said that the clearest evidence of a pro-competitive merger was if the rival firms in the same market asked the competition law enforcement agency to take action against it?
Do the competitors oppose the merger? If they do, the merger must lower prices and put their profits under pressure.
When was the last time a competitor complained about their rivals putting their prices up? Either they hold their prices and take their business or follow their pricing lead: can’t lose.
Business rivals have an interest in higher prices. Consumers seek lower prices. Easterbrook suggested that lower prices should always be lawful under competition law.
The aim of competition law is to increase consumer welfare by preventing restrictions of output that increase prices: prevent “prices that are too high” due to monopoly power. The merits of that statement is for another blog posting.
George Stigler was blunt on regulating to promote competition:
Regulation and competition are rhetorical friends and deadly enemies: over the doorway of every regulatory agency save two should be carved: “Competition Not Admitted.” The Federal Trade Commission’s doorway should announce, “Competition Admitted in Rear,” and that of the Antitrust Division, “Monopoly Only by Appointment”
Recent Comments