Relentless concentration in broadband and other industries, coupled with ever increasing market power, has triggered more interest in antitrust law and policy. Predictably, this increased scrutiny generates questions about the viability of case precedent and the empirical “proof” supporting policy. It also encourages advocates—with a political agenda—to argue for maintenance of the status quo, or substantial change.
The “stay the course” camp sees no need to change doctrine, despite the Internet’s ascendency and the significant difference between “bricks and mortar” commerce and e-commerce. These mandarins disparage advocates for change and dismiss anything new as “hipster,” undisciplined and wrong. They have received millions of dollars to spread their gospel, early and often.
The insurgent group plays into the hands of status quo thinkers when their progressive goals subverts, subordinates, or ignores the core mission of antitrust law: to remedy market failures generated by single companies or cartels who use market dominance, conspiracies and other bad actions to harm competition and consumers. Insurgents also muddy their message when they combine normative goals, inherent in antitrust enforcement, with public policy objectives well outside the antitrust enforcement mission.
A pox on both houses! The mandarins act as though Chicago School doctrine operates as unimpeachable law. They see no need to recalibrate and modify based on changed circumstances. They make no distinction between downward price trends in bricks and mortar markets and the perception of “free” and enhanced value proposition from broadband-mediated services that require no cash payment, but extract great and sellable value from data mining.
The insurgents play into the hands of the mandarins when they lack the discipline and intellectual rigor needed to show the wisdom in incremental adjustments based on changed circumstances. They become easy targets by pushing normative goals, baked into the antitrust regime, into a progressive, social policy agenda.
I seethe when reading arrogant, inflexible, hubristic and condescending hipster antitrust critiques. I dismiss as naive, undisciplined and ineffectual the insurgents’ wish list for antirust enforcement. The incumbents may not win on points, but they appear to have won in courts, legislatures and classrooms. They have powerful and rich incumbents underwriting their academic work. That investment has paid handsome dividends.
For example, the FCC and Justice Department continue to approve mergers and acquisitions that trigger “Defcon4” alerts about extreme market concentration. Somehow, basic economics about market power and concentration do not matter if sponsored researchers can show how consumers theoretically benefit.
One can easily declare a winner when judges and their clerks, well versed in Chicago School doctrine, cannot understand that “free” does not mean without significantly high individual and social costs.
The “stay the course” camp sees no need to change doctrine, despite the Internet’s ascendency and the significant difference between “bricks and mortar” commerce and e-commerce. These mandarins disparage advocates for change and dismiss anything new as “hipster,” undisciplined and wrong. They have received millions of dollars to spread their gospel, early and often.
The insurgent group plays into the hands of status quo thinkers when their progressive goals subverts, subordinates, or ignores the core mission of antitrust law: to remedy market failures generated by single companies or cartels who use market dominance, conspiracies and other bad actions to harm competition and consumers. Insurgents also muddy their message when they combine normative goals, inherent in antitrust enforcement, with public policy objectives well outside the antitrust enforcement mission.
A pox on both houses! The mandarins act as though Chicago School doctrine operates as unimpeachable law. They see no need to recalibrate and modify based on changed circumstances. They make no distinction between downward price trends in bricks and mortar markets and the perception of “free” and enhanced value proposition from broadband-mediated services that require no cash payment, but extract great and sellable value from data mining.
The insurgents play into the hands of the mandarins when they lack the discipline and intellectual rigor needed to show the wisdom in incremental adjustments based on changed circumstances. They become easy targets by pushing normative goals, baked into the antitrust regime, into a progressive, social policy agenda.
I seethe when reading arrogant, inflexible, hubristic and condescending hipster antitrust critiques. I dismiss as naive, undisciplined and ineffectual the insurgents’ wish list for antirust enforcement. The incumbents may not win on points, but they appear to have won in courts, legislatures and classrooms. They have powerful and rich incumbents underwriting their academic work. That investment has paid handsome dividends.
For example, the FCC and Justice Department continue to approve mergers and acquisitions that trigger “Defcon4” alerts about extreme market concentration. Somehow, basic economics about market power and concentration do not matter if sponsored researchers can show how consumers theoretically benefit.
One can easily declare a winner when judges and their clerks, well versed in Chicago School doctrine, cannot understand that “free” does not mean without significantly high individual and social costs.