Every time I read one of these articles on modern antitrust, I get frustrated by the laws themselves. Win or lose on the case, I don't think they do much.
Everything seems to be based on a marginalist theory/formalisation of what monopolies are and how they affect economies. The theory/law seems to target very specific sets of economic dynamics.
IRL, monopoly is a more nebulous concept. Size, power, ability to structure the market are often its primary characteristics, not a simple more-profit-less-utility outcome that can be charted with a simple model.
Actual antitrust, I think, needs to be more like an industrial policy set than what exists currently. Whatever the outcome of current antitrust actions, the monopolies stay mostly intact and unharmed. What's the point?
Everything seems to be based on a marginalist theory/formalisation of what monopolies are and how they affect economies. The theory/law seems to target very specific sets of economic dynamics.
IRL, monopoly is a more nebulous concept. Size, power, ability to structure the market are often its primary characteristics, not a simple more-profit-less-utility outcome that can be charted with a simple model.
Actual antitrust, I think, needs to be more like an industrial policy set than what exists currently. Whatever the outcome of current antitrust actions, the monopolies stay mostly intact and unharmed. What's the point?