Dominick T. Armentano's Arguments for the Repeal of All Antitrust Laws
G. Stolyarov II
- Published Content: 983
- Total Views: 385,630
- Favorited By: 38 CPs
Dominick T. Armentano's arguments against all antitrust laws in his 1999 work Antitrust: The Case for Repeal are influenced by Austrian - and, particularly, Rothbardian - economic ideas. Armentano advocates wholesale abolition of all an 
titrust laws, contending that a piecemeal reform effort to make antitrust laws more reasonable is insufficient and runs the risk of being too readily reversed.
Armentano notes further than antitrust laws have often been employed against innovative businesses that have expanded output and reduced prices. Given that the 1890 Sherman Act was supposed to advance consumer interests, there seems to be a paradox with regard to its actual effects - which have been shown to reduce consumer welfare by restricting consumer options and raising prices. Innovative businesses are acting in the interest of consumers, and laws that inhibit such organizations are clearly opposed to consumer welfare.
Armentano provides two explanations for this paradox. First, antitrust laws are just a form a regulation and have been captured by the regulated producers to protect their interests to the detriment of consumers and more innovative rivals. This view is a novel application of the Capture Theory of Regulation, whose author, George Stigler, was a strong proponent of antitrust laws and vehemently denied the claim that antitrust was a form of regulation. Prior to the 1990s, most economists shared Stigler's perspective. However, in the years immediately before and following the publication of Armentano's book, the view of antitrust as a form of regulation has become increasingly widespread.
A second explanation given by Armentano regarding the antitrust paradox is that there exists a widespread fundamental confusion over the meaning of competition. Antitrust laws and enforcers do not approach competition as a dynamic process of discovery, but rather as a static measure of the market. Because a misunderstanding of competition exists, it leads to a misunderstanding of monopoly and "monopolizing behavior."
Armentano notes further than antitrust laws have often been employed against innovative businesses that have expanded output and reduced prices. Given that the 1890 Sherman Act was supposed to advance consumer interests, there seems to be a paradox with regard to its actual effects - which have been shown to reduce consumer welfare by restricting consumer options and raising prices. Innovative businesses are acting in the interest of consumers, and laws that inhibit such organizations are clearly opposed to consumer welfare.
Armentano provides two explanations for this paradox. First, antitrust laws are just a form a regulation and have been captured by the regulated producers to protect their interests to the detriment of consumers and more innovative rivals. This view is a novel application of the Capture Theory of Regulation, whose author, George Stigler, was a strong proponent of antitrust laws and vehemently denied the claim that antitrust was a form of regulation. Prior to the 1990s, most economists shared Stigler's perspective. However, in the years immediately before and following the publication of Armentano's book, the view of antitrust as a form of regulation has become increasingly widespread.
A second explanation given by Armentano regarding the antitrust paradox is that there exists a widespread fundamental confusion over the meaning of competition. Antitrust laws and enforcers do not approach competition as a dynamic process of discovery, but rather as a static measure of the market. Because a misunderstanding of competition exists, it leads to a misunderstanding of monopoly and "monopolizing behavior."
Antitrust laws are not specific on what constitutes behavior that is "monopolizing" or "in restraint of trade." The enforcers and the courts define these terms, and their definitions are pervaded by a severely flawed idea of what competition is.