The Dreaded New York Times has the article To Take on Big Tech, a Professor Challenges His Own ‘Chicago School’.
The University of Chicago is the intellectual birthplace of the consensus in antitrust thinking over the last four decades — that monopoly law should place consumer interests, usually in the form of lower prices, above the concerns of smaller business rivals.
Kevin Murphy, who teaches at the Booth Business School with Mr. Zingales, said he still didn’t see a serious alternative to the Chicago School for formulating antitrust policy. He also said there was little evidence that more regulation led to better outcomes for consumers.
These two snippets characterize what I have felt was the utter idiocy of the courts and academia over their interpretation of anti-trust law for the last several decades. The courts have been saying that as long as the consumer isn’t harmed by a trust or near monopoly that there was no violation of the law that needed to be corrected. The corporations took note of this loophole that was big enough to drive an Amazon or Walmart through.
Amazon and Walmart were careful to keep consumer prices low to pass muster with the courts. These near monopolies used their power to abuse employees and the company’s suppliers That’s how these near monopolies were able to drive their competitors out of business in order to make monopoly sized profits. Employee, suppliers, and supplier’s workers were people just like consumers. They deserved protection from societally harmful predators. How the courts could ignore the damage that near monopolies were doing, staggers the imagination.