RECOMMENDED READING

In mid-March, President Joe Biden nominated a young scholar named Lina Khan to serve on the Federal Trade Commission. Khan is a progressive’s progressive. Frustrated at what she viewed as Amazon’s anti-competitive practices, she argued as a 27-year-old Yale Law student that the “consumer welfare” standard — that antitrust action should only be pursued when business practices are adversely affecting consumers, not competitors — was inadequate for dealing with the company’s growing dominance. She suggested that one way to address this problem would be to force Amazon to split up retail and marketplace operations. Another possible solution floated involved more hands-on regulation, as if Amazon were a kind of public utility.

Oren Cass, a former Mitt Romney adviser who today is the executive director of American Compass, an organization that provides intellectual ammunition for the populist Right, sees little ideological tension with the growing conservative embrace of anti-monopoly politics.

“Chicago School libertarian economic dogma is not conservative,” Cass told me. “Conservatism is hugely skeptical of power.” He pointed to the White House’s recent leaning on social media companies to work together to ban so-called “misinformation” about COVID-19 as an example of how the Left, not the Right, is embracing corporate power.

Continue Reading at Washington Examiner
Recommended Reading
How Should We Handle Monopolies?

A House of Representatives sub-committee report on large technology platforms has determined that Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon are abusive monopolies.  Matt Stoller has summarized the report’s recommended course of Read more…

Time to Incorporate Competitiveness Into Anti-Trust

U.S. antirust doctrine and practice has long failed to consider issues of industrial competitiveness.

Can Antitrust Be Pro-Worker?

In 1776, Adam Smith made perhaps the most famous statement linking monopoly power to labor. “Masters,” he wrote in The Wealth of Nations, “are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate.” Today, however, rather than taking Smith’s maxim as a warning, most lawyers and judges have come to treat it as a guidebook.