Dominick T. Armentano's Arguments for the Repeal of All Antitrust Laws: Part II

Note: Read Part I of this essay here.

Dominick T. Armentano presents the substance his critique of antitrust laws in Chapter 2 of Antitrust: The Case for Repeal(1999).

Armentano notes that the barriers to entry approach toward competition - which underlies many antitrust laws - has been discredited by the economics profession during the 1980s and 1990s - especially with respect to barriers to entry that come from firms' cost advantages. The application of barriers to entry doctrine to antitrust laws has led to the more efficient producers being shut out of the market. That is, the very firms that have benefited consumers the most through their innovations have often been the victims of antitrust prosecution. If antitrust laws are intended to provide any kind of consumer benefits, then it is perverse to continue to allow the persecution of the most effective producers. Antitrust has often been directed against intense cost competition, even though consumers greatly favor the activities of firms that decrease prices and increase output.

Armentano further argues that even though the enforcement of antitrust law has improved over the last three decades, the laws still remain on the books and there exists the danger that the much stricter traditional enforcement will return in the future.

Eight Reasons for the Repeal of Antitrust

Armentano gives eight primary reasons to repeal all antitrust laws.