Revolution and Counterrevolution in Antitrust Law
Posted: 1 May 2006
Abstract
Assistant Attorney General Charles Rule, in a speech at the 21st New England Antitrust Conference, referred to those who advocate goals other than economic efficiency in antitrust law as counterrevolutionaries. Apparently those supporting original intent in statutory interpretation are the contras in this case. Mr. Rule attacked the views of the counterrevolutionaries and defended both the neoclassical approach to antitrust analysis (as the only legitimate standard) and the performance of the courts and Department of Justice during the Reagan era. The most startling part of his speech was his mischaracterization of the counterrevolution, which is particularly ironic because one of his criticisms is that the contras are attacking a straw man that bears no relationship to the reality of policy based on consumer welfare economics.
This article discusses the contras' manifesto(s) and sets the record straight by addressing six of Mr. Rule's criticisms. The article argues that the threshold question for antitrust policy should be what goals are to be achieved. It suggests that by focusing on goals, their desirability, and their achievability, the petty criticism and cavils of both sides of the insurrection can be avoided.
Keywords: economic effiency, neoclassical economics, antitrust, consumer welfare
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation