Discuss the various goals of the antitrust statutes

What will be an ideal response?

A century of debate by lawyers, economists, and others has not produced a real consensus on the goals of the antitrust statutes. Nonetheless, the following goals can be derived from the study of antitrust legislation and case law:
a. The preservation of small business and an economy characterized by many sellers competing with one another.
Proponents of this goal would break up large corporations such as General Motors (GM), International Business Machines (IBM), and Microsoft.
b. The prevention of concentration of political and economic power in the hands of a few sellers in each industry.
Proponents of this goal argue that there is a direct correlation between large corporations, economic power, and control of the political process. They point to 1980, 1984, and 2000 post-presidential election analyses indicating that well-financed political action committees (PACs) controlled by big businesses had a tremendous effect on the elections' outcomes.
c. The preservation of local control of business and protection against the effects of labor dislocation.
The advocates of this antitrust goal argue that when large companies are allowed to merge, fix prices, and participate in joint ventures, jobs are lost and plants are shut down in some areas. The consequences are a dislocation of labor and a decline in local and state economies as their tax bases shrink because people are moving elsewhere in pursuit of jobs.
d. The promotion of the maximization of consumer welfare using market principles and efficiency criteria.
Advocates of this goal define consumer welfare as an improvement in the allocation of resources without an impairment to productive efficiency. In effect, the proponents of this goal argue that by encouraging the allocation of resources in an efficient manner, antitrust enforcement can make sure that consumers will be provided goods at the lowest possible prices.