Tweet [1]
Here's a letter that I sent to the Washington Post:
Seeking more active
application of antitrust regulations, Steven Pearlstein wants the
Supreme Court to reject "the view of Chicago school economists" – a
view in which, according to Mr. Pearlstein, "monopolies are actually
good for consumers because they attract the money and talent necessary
for innovation" ("Can Obama Bring Back the Trust Busters? [2]" May 17).
application of antitrust regulations, Steven Pearlstein wants the
Supreme Court to reject "the view of Chicago school economists" – a
view in which, according to Mr. Pearlstein, "monopolies are actually
good for consumers because they attract the money and talent necessary
for innovation" ("Can Obama Bring Back the Trust Busters? [2]" May 17).
Mr.
Pearlstein seriously misunderstands Chicago-school economics. Those
economists do not believe that "monopolies are actually good for
consumers." Quite the contrary. What the researches of these
economists do reveal, instead, is this: First, competition is so robust
that it is seldom, if ever, squelched by firms who do not enjoy special
government privileges; second, being big and/or extra-efficient does
not make a firm a monopolist; and third, antitrust statutes themselves
have often been used to restrain competition.
It's disappointing that Mr. Pearlstein's understanding of both Chicago-school economics and of antitrust is so superficial.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux