Describe two historic legal cases to contrast the two different views of antitrust laws. One case would support the behavior list view of antitrust laws. The other case would support the structuralism views of the antitrust laws
What will be an ideal response?
In the U.S. Steel case of 1920, the courts applied the rule of reason to the issue of monopoly. Monopoly was considered to be illegal only if it behaved in an illegal fashion and sought to dominate a market. The mere fact that U.S. Steel was a large firm possessing monopoly power did not make it illegal.
The contrasting view was offered in the Alcoa case of 1945. The mere fact that Alcoa controlled 90% of the aluminum ingot market was reason for the court to rule that the firm violated antitrust law. In this case, structure mattered more than behavior.
You might also like to view...
The discount rate is the interest rate charged by:
A. The Federal Reserve when it lends money to private banks. B. A private bank when it lends money to another private bank. C. A private bank when it lends money to commercial customers. D. A regional Fed bank when it lends money to another regional Fed bank.
Suppose a family has saved enough for a 10 day vacation (the only one they will be able to take for 10 years) and has a utility function U = V1/2 (where V is the number of healthy vacation days they experience). Suppose they are not a particularly healthy family and the probability that someone will have a vacation ruining illness (V = 0) is 30%. What is the expected value of V?
a. 10 b. 7 c. 3 d. 0