DOCSLIB.ORG

The Handbook of Competition Economics 2009

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Handbook of Competition Economics 2009 The Handbook of Competition Economics 2009 A Global Competition Review special report published in association with: Compass Lexecon www.globalcompetitionreview.com PRICE DISCRIMINATION Should Competition Policy Prohibit Price Discrimination? Dennis W Carlton and Mark Israel Compass Lexecon Price discrimination – which can be defined simply Clearly some degree of (at least short-lived) as a firm charging different prices to different market power, some ability to segment consumers, consumers for the identical item – is a pervasive and some limitations on resale characterise feature of economic transactions. Rather than most markets, making the prevalence of price charge a single price to all consumers, firms discrimination a predictable outcome. often choose to segment consumers based on Given its prevalence, it is critical that their willingness to pay and to price discriminate competition policy has a clear view of whether accordingly. This is obviously true for many price discrimination should be permitted. “business to business” transactions in which prices Unfortunately, this is not always the case, as price – including rebates, incentives, discounts, and discrimination, while generally permitted (at least so on – are individually negotiated, but it is also in the US), is often viewed with suspicion. In true of many retail prices that vary by customer addition, while price discrimination on its own is group (eg, some cinema tickets), loyalty or other not a violation of US antitrust law, practices whose discount programmes, coupons, prices on bundled sole purpose is to enable price discrimination products, and many other forms of pricing. Indeed, – such as tying products together to meter usage even in situations where prices vary for what may – can be antitrust violations. In other jurisdictions be seen as cost-based reasons, such as volume (including Europe) price discrimination on its discounts and risk-based pricing for credit cards own can be an antitrust violation. And some or insurance, the price distinctions may reflect recent academic work argues that due to its short- differential demand sensitivities in addition to run and long-run effects on consumer and total differential marginal costs. welfare, price discrimination (specifically, tying A complication arises in defining price for the purpose of price discriminating) should be discrimination when different customers impose considered an antitrust violation. different costs on the firm. Should we say that In this chapter, we explain our view that, as a price discrimination exists if the price difference matter of competition policy, price discrimination between two customers is not equal to the (and other practices whose sole purpose can difference in marginal costs imposed by the two be shown to be price discrimination) should be customers, or should we instead require that the permitted. Given the change in administration price mark up (price minus marginal cost divided in the US and the continued development of by price) differs between the two customers? For competition policies in other countries such as simplicity, we adopt the first definition in our China, we believe this is an important time to discussion in this chapter. firmly establish that efforts to prohibit price The prevalence of price discrimination is not discrimination are misguided. surprising to an economist. It is well known that an We proceed in two steps. First, in the second individual firm with any degree of market power section we compare price discrimination with – even lasting only for a short time, perhaps due the simpler practice by a firm with market power to product differentiation, search costs, switching of setting price above marginal cost (henceforth costs, or other factors – will generally have an “simple monopoly pricing”). We note that both incentive to price discriminate as long as: are attempts by a firm to capture a greater share • it can find some way to segment consumers of total surplus in the form of profits, and thus based on willingness to pay; and the well-accepted view (under US antitrust law) • consumers cannot completely “arbitrage” that it is not an antitrust violation for a firm to away the price differences via resale from low possess market power or to set the monopoly to high price buyers. price should also guide policy with respect to price discrimination. Next, in the third section we consider possible distinctions between price 10 The Handbook of Competition Economics 2009 PRICE DISCRIMINATION discrimination and simple monopoly pricing that to earn very large profits. It is the possibility one might use to support differential antitrust of these profits that provides the incentives for treatment of price discrimination and explain innovation. Indeed, this is the reason for granting why these distinctions do not, in fact, support patents, through which government officials create restrictions on price discrimination as a matter of market power and associated profits to stimulate competition policy. investment and innovation. Second, while there may be cases in which the Simple monopoly pricing v price discrimination static welfare costs of simple monopoly pricing Under United States antitrust policy it is neither outweigh the dynamic gains, the cost of attempting unlawful to possess market power, nor to use such to identify these cases and then implement a rule market power to raise prices above marginal cost. to restrict prices in only those cases is likely to This is true despite the fact that, as a matter of be extremely high. Beyond just the monetary basic economics, setting a price above marginal costs associated with study and enforcement, cost implies that some consumers who value a the costs in terms of lost innovation are likely product more than the cost of producing that to be substantial. In evaluating the return on product do not obtain it, and thus that static investment, potential innovators would have to welfare is reduced. consider the possibility that their prices would be In a simple case, if all of the buyers from a single restricted, as well as the associated legal costs of firm exhibited the same, low price sensitivity, that the associated antitrust processes, and the induced firm would be permitted to charge them all the risk and uncertainty with regard to future cash associated profit-maximising price, which may be flows. Avoidance of the potential dampening effect substantially above marginal cost. So the obvious on investment and innovation requires a clear question is, if another firm faces buyers with policy to permit firms to set profit-maximising heterogeneous price sensitivities, why shouldn’t prices above marginal cost. it be allowed to implement policies that charge Given these rationales for allowing a firm to each of them the associated profit-maximising set the simple monopoly price, we see no basis price? As another example, suppose two different to disallow price discrimination. As noted above, firms with market power sell to two distinct sets individual firms with market power generally of consumers with different price sensitivities. have an incentive to price discriminate in order Each of these firms would be permitted to set to maximise profits. So the logic of prohibiting or the (different) profit-maximising prices to each restricting price discrimination would have to be set of consumers. Why should antitrust policy that – in order to create incentives to invest and distinguish this from the case where a single firm innovate – firms should be permitted to maximise sells to both those sets of consumers and sets the profits, but only subject to the constraint of no (different) profit-maximising price to each? We see price discrimination. We see no economic basis no basis for the distinction. for imposing this constraint. In addition, the cost Consider why antitrust policy permits simple of implementing and enforcing such a constraint monopoly pricing, despite its detrimental effect on would be quite high. In this case, there would not static welfare. We see two primary explanations. only be the costs associated with determining when First, antitrust policy appropriately does not limit to optimally permit or prohibit price discrimination, its attention to static welfare, but rather recognises along with the dampening effect on innovation, the critical role of dynamic incentives to invest but also the cost associated with determining and innovate. Indeed, economic research has whether the observed price differences are due demonstrated that the extent of investment and to demand differences rather than marginal cost innovation is the most important determinant of differences. There could also be substantial costs an economy’s growth rate. In order to create the associated with firms attempting to find alternative, proper incentives to invest and innovate, firms permissible business practices to achieve the same should be able to profit from their success. For goals and with regulators attempting to identify this reason, it is sound policy to allow firms that and police these alternatives. have legitimately obtained market power to set This logic does not indicate that all behaviour prices above marginal cost and in some cases that increases profits should be permitted. Rather, www.globalcompetitionreview.com 11 PRICE DISCRIMINATION in our view, the relevant distinction is whether willingness to pay – and whether the industry is permitting a practice by a given firm or set of firms a monopoly or oligopoly. To provide a complete increases or decreases the incentive and ability of picture, we briefly consider each possibility. other existing firms and new entrants to compete. If price discrimination is perfect, the result is Allowing a firm to set the simple monopoly well known. Under some mild assumptions, for price or to price discriminate to maximise its any given number of firms competing in the market profits increases the “prize” associated with – whether it be a monopoly or oligopoly – perfect successful competition in the marketplace and price discrimination increases total static welfare thus increases the incentives for competitors to relative to simple monopoly pricing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Monopolistic Competition in General Equilibrium: Beyond the CES Evgeny Zhelobodko, Sergey Kokovin, Mathieu Parenti, Jacques-François Thisse
    Monopolistic competition in general equilibrium: Beyond the CES Evgeny Zhelobodko, Sergey Kokovin, Mathieu Parenti, Jacques-François Thisse To cite this version: Evgeny Zhelobodko, Sergey Kokovin, Mathieu Parenti, Jacques-François Thisse. Monopolistic com- petition in general equilibrium: Beyond the CES. 2011. halshs-00566431 HAL Id: halshs-00566431 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00566431 Preprint submitted on 16 Feb 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. WORKING PAPER N° 2011 - 08 Monopolistic competition in general equilibrium: Beyond the CES Evgeny Zhelobodko Sergey Kokovin Mathieu Parenti Jacques-François Thisse JEL Codes: D43, F12, L13 Keywords: monopolistic competition, additive preferences, love for variety, heterogeneous firms PARIS-JOURDAN SCIENCES ECONOMIQUES 48, BD JOURDAN – E.N.S. – 75014 PARIS TÉL. : 33(0) 1 43 13 63 00 – FAX : 33 (0) 1 43 13 63 10 www.pse.ens.fr CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE – ECOLE DES HAUTES ETUDES EN SCIENCES SOCIALES ÉCOLE DES PONTS PARISTECH – ECOLE NORMALE SUPÉRIEURE – INSTITUT NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE AGRONOMIQUE Monopolistic Competition in General Equilibrium: Beyond the CES∗ Evgeny Zhelobodko† Sergey Kokovin‡ Mathieu Parenti§ Jacques-François Thisse¶ 13th February 2011 Abstract We propose a general model of monopolistic competition and derive a complete characterization of the market equilibrium using the concept of Relative Love for Variety.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Perfect Competition, Monopoly, and Economic Vs
    Chapter Outline Chapter 5 • From Perfect Competition to Perfect Competition, Monopoly • Supply Under Perfect Competition Monopoly, and Economic vs. Normal Profit McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. From Perfect Competition to Picking the Quantity to Maximize Profit Monopoly The Perfectly Competitive Case P • Perfect Competition MC ATC • Monopolistic Competition AVC • Oligopoly P* MR • Monopoly Q* Q Many Competitors McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Picking the Quantity to Maximize Profit Characteristics of Perfect The Monopoly Case Competition P • a large number of competitors, such that no one firm can influence the price MC • the good a firm sells is indistinguishable ATC from the ones its competitors sell P* AVC • firms have good sales and cost forecasts D • there is no legal or economic barrier to MR its entry into or exit from the market Q* Q No Competitors McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. McGraw -Hill/Irwin © 2007 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. 1 Monopoly Monopolistic Competition • The sole seller of a good or service. • Monopolistic Competition: a situation in a • Some monopolies are generated market where there are many firms producing similar but not identical goods. because of legal rights (patents and copyrights). • Example : the fast-food industry. McDonald’s has a monopoly on the “Happy Meal” but has • Some monopolies are utilities (gas, much competition in the market to feed kids water, electricity etc.) that result from burgers and fries.
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Economic Analysis for Competition Enforcement 16 – 18 July 2018 DRAFT COURSE OUTLINE
    4th ANNUAL COMPETITION AND ECONOMIC REGULATION (ACER) WEEK Advanced economic analysis for competition enforcement 16 – 18 July 2018 DRAFT COURSE OUTLINE Targeted at experienced competition economists from authorities, regulators, public and private sector firms and private practice, this intensive Professional Training Programme (PTP) will cover the latest developments in economic theory and their application to the analysis of competition cases. This PTP will cover frameworks for understanding abuse of dominance, coordinated conduct and mergers from theoretical and practical perspectives. It will equip participants with the specialist knowledge and skills required to undertake rigorous economic analysis in competition cases. The course will be facilitated by Dr Javier Tapia (Judge at the Competition Tribunal of the Republic of Chile and a senior researcher at Regcom, the Centre for Regulation and Competition at Universidad de Chile, Faculty of Law), Prof Liberty Mncube (Chief Economist at the Competition Commission of South Africa, Visiting Associate Professor of Economics, University of Witwatersrand and Honorary Professor of Economics, University of Stellenbosch), Dr Andrea Amelio (part of the European DG COMP’s Chief Economist Team) and Ms Reena das Nair, Senior Lecturer in the College of Business and Economics and Senior Researcher at the Centre for Competition, Regulation and Economic Development (CCRED) at the University of Johannesburg. Approach The PTP will be taught primarily by means of lectures, which will draw on international and South African examples and precedent-setting cases with a strong focus on underlying economic principles. The lectures will be complemented by case study exercises involving analysis of data and fact patterns by different groups who will present findings in feedback sessions.
    [Show full text]
  • General Equilibrium Concepts Under Imperfect Competition: a Cournotian Approach∗
    General Equilibrium Concepts under Imperfect Competition: A Cournotian Approach∗ Claude d'Aspremont,y Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreiraz and Louis-Andr´eG´erard-Varetx Received May 14, 1993; revised March 21, 1996 Abstract In a pure exchange economy we propose a general equilibrium concept under imperfect competition, the \Cournotian Monopolistic Competition Equilibrium", and compare it to the Cournot-Walras and the Monopolistic Competition concepts. The advantage of the proposed concept is to require less computational ability from the agents. The comparison is made first through a simple example, then through a more abstract concept, the P -equilibrium based on a general notion of price coordination, the pricing-scheme. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: D5, D43 ∗Reprinted from Journal of Economic Theory, 73, 199{230, 1997. Financial Support from the European Commission HCM Programme and from the Belgian State PAI Programme (Prime Minister's Office, Science Policy Programming) is gratefully acknowledged. yCORE, Universit´ecatholique de Louvain, 34 voie du Roman Pays, 1348-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium zBETA, Universit´eLouis Pasteur, 38 boulevard d'Anvers, 67000-Strasbourg, France xGREQE, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, F-13002-Marseille, France. 1 1 Introduction The formal simplicity of general equilibrium theory under perfect competition and of its assump- tions on the individual agents' characteristics, can easily be contrasted with the complexity and the ad hoc assumptions of the general analysis of imperfect competition. However the simplic- ity of general competitive analysis is all due to a single behavioral hypothesis, namely that all sellers and buyers take prices as given. This price-taking hypothesis allows for a clear notion of individual rationality, based on the simplest form of anticipations (rigid ones) and an exoge- nous form of coordination (the auctioneer).
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Microeconomics
    PRINCIPLES OF MICROECONOMICS A. Competition The basic motivation to produce in a market economy is the expectation of income, which will generate profits. • The returns to the efforts of a business - the difference between its total revenues and its total costs - are profits. Thus, questions of revenues and costs are key in an analysis of the profit motive. • Other motivations include nonprofit incentives such as social status, the need to feel important, the desire for recognition, and the retaining of one's job. Economists' calculations of profits are different from those used by businesses in their accounting systems. Economic profit = total revenue - total economic cost • Total economic cost includes the value of all inputs used in production. • Normal profit is an economic cost since it occurs when economic profit is zero. It represents the opportunity cost of labor and capital contributed to the production process by the producer. • Accounting profits are computed only on the basis of explicit costs, including labor and capital. Since they do not take "normal profits" into consideration, they overstate true profits. Economic profits reward entrepreneurship. They are a payment to discovering new and better methods of production, taking above-average risks, and producing something that society desires. The ability of each firm to generate profits is limited by the structure of the industry in which the firm is engaged. The firms in a competitive market are price takers. • None has any market power - the ability to control the market price of the product it sells. • A firm's individual supply curve is a very small - and inconsequential - part of market supply.
    [Show full text]
  • PRINCIPLES of MICROECONOMICS 2E
    PRINCIPLES OF MICROECONOMICS 2e Chapter 8 Perfect Competition PowerPoint Image Slideshow Competition in Farming Depending upon the competition and prices offered, a wheat farmer may choose to grow a different crop. (Credit: modification of work by Daniel X. O'Neil/Flickr Creative Commons) 8.1 Perfect Competition and Why It Matters ● Market structure - the conditions in an industry, such as number of sellers, how easy or difficult it is for a new firm to enter, and the type of products that are sold. ● Perfect competition - each firm faces many competitors that sell identical products. • 4 criteria: • many firms produce identical products, • many buyers and many sellers are available, • sellers and buyers have all relevant information to make rational decisions, • firms can enter and leave the market without any restrictions. ● Price taker - a firm in a perfectly competitive market that must take the prevailing market price as given. 8.2 How Perfectly Competitive Firms Make Output Decisions ● A perfectly competitive firm has only one major decision to make - what quantity to produce? ● A perfectly competitive firm must accept the price for its output as determined by the product’s market demand and supply. ● The maximum profit will occur at the quantity where the difference between total revenue and total cost is largest. Total Cost and Total Revenue at a Raspberry Farm ● Total revenue for a perfectly competitive firm is a straight line sloping up; the slope is equal to the price of the good. ● Total cost also slopes up, but with some curvature. ● At higher levels of output, total cost begins to slope upward more steeply because of diminishing marginal returns.
    [Show full text]
  • Benefits of Competition and Indicators of Market Power
    COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS ISSUE BRIEF APRIL 2016 BENEFITS OF COMPETITION AND INDICATORS OF MARKET POWER Introduction sanction anticompetitive behavior, and help define the contours of antitrust law through court decisions. These This issue brief describes the ways in which competition measures not only have immediate effects on the between firms can benefit consumers, workers, behavior that is challenged but also may help deter entrepreneurs, small businesses and the economy more anticompetitive abuses in the future. generally, and also describes how these benefits can be lost when competition is impaired by firms’ actions or Promoting competition extends beyond enforcement of government policies. Several indicators suggest that antitrust laws, it is also about a range of other pro- competition may be decreasing in many economic competitive policies. Several U.S. departments and sectors, including the decades-long decline in new agencies are actively using their authority to advance business formation and increases in industry-specific pro-competition and pro-consumer policies and measures of concentration. Recent data also show that regulations. For example, in several cases the Federal returns may have risen for the most profitable firms. To Aviation Administration (FAA) of the Department of the extent that profit rates exceed firms’ cost of capital— Transportation (DOT) has sought to provide competitive which may be suggested by the rising spread on the airline carriers with greater access to take-off and return to invested capital relative to Treasury bonds— landing slots at capacity constrained “slot-controlled” they may reflect economic rents, which are returns to airports. The Federal Communications Commission the factors of production in excess of what would be (FCC), in its most recent design of a spectrum auction, necessary to keep them in operation.
    [Show full text]
  • JA Economics® Course Overview and Outline
    JA Economics® | Course Overview and Outline Initial JA Economics® Course Release Overview and Outline Spring 2019 Market for Goods JA Economics is a one-semester course that connects high and Services school students to the economic principles that influence their daily lives as well as their futures. It addresses each BANK of the economics standards identified by the Council for Production of Goods and Household Economic Education as being essential to complete a high Services + + Consumer school economics course. Course components equip students to: Market for Labor • Learn the necessary concepts applicable to state and national educational standards • Apply economic reasoning and skills in the world around them • Synthesize elective concepts through a cumulative, tangible deliverable (optional case studies and/or projects) • Demonstrate the skills necessary for future financial literacy pathway success • Integrate College and Career Readiness anchor standards in Reading, Informational Text, Speaking and Listening, and Vocabulary Volunteers engage with students through a variety of activities that includes subject matter guest speaking and coaching or advising for case study and project course work. Volunteer activities help students better understand the relationship between what they learn in school, their future career, and their successful participation in today’s global economy. Through a variety of experiential activities presented by the teacher and volunteer, students better understand the relationship between what they learn
    [Show full text]
  • Week 2: Economic Models – Game Theory and Imperfect Competition 1
    Week 2: Economic Models – Game Theory and Imperfect Competition 1. Imperfect Competition Markets with few firms each of whom consequently has the ability to influence price – oligopoly principal example. Examples – major manufacturing industries such as autos, steel, computer hardware, software; major service providers such as insurance, airlines, banking, ISPs, browsers. Two big questions: I) how does an oligopoly work? ii) since many offline industries are oligopolies will that also become the norm for online commerce? Need game theory to study both questions. Subsequent discussion based on Dutta (1999), chapters 1, 3 and 5. 2. Game Theory - Definition Formal way to study interaction among a group of rational agents who behave strategically. Group = Players; Interaction because what any player does affects every other player (possibly after a “few degrees of separation”); Rational because game theory presumes that players act to further their own goals and Strategic because while doing so they try to account for what the other players might do. Example – case-study: group: students working together; interaction because work needs to be done together and grade is common; rational if each student furthers their goal (could be altruistic) and strategic if the amount of work done determined after a consideration of the others’ contributions. 3. Strategic Form One of two principal ways in which elements and information of a game can be compactly written. Made up of three components – players, strategies, and payoffs. When there are two players easy way to represent strategic form – payoff matrix. Examples – Prisoners Dilemma, Battle of the Sexes, Chicken, Coordination, Art Auction, Other auctions General formulation required for last two examples.
    [Show full text]
  • Bjcp Competition Handbook
    BJCP COMPETITION HANDBOOK Copyright © 2017, BJCP, Inc. The BJCP grants the right to make copies for use in BJCP-sanctioned competitions or for educational/judge training purposes. All other rights reserved. See our website www.bjcp.org for updates Luann Fitzpatrick Gordon Strong David Houseman Mike Dixon Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Background: The BJCP ............................................................................................................................ 1 Competition Planning Overview..................................................................................................... 2 Sanctioned Competition Requirements .................................................................................................... 2 Competition Roles .................................................................................................................................... 4 Getting Started ................................................................................................................................ 7 Selecting a Competition Site .................................................................................................................... 7 Setting a Date ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Choosing a Name ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Economy of Capitalism
    07-037 The Political Economy of Capitalism Bruce R. Scott Copyright © 2006 by Bruce R. Scott Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. #07-037 Abstract Capitalism is often defined as an economic system where private actors are allowed to own and control the use of property in accord with their own interests, and where the invisible hand of the pricing mechanism coordinates supply and demand in markets in a way that is automatically in the best interests of society. Government, in this perspective, is often described as responsible for peace, justice, and tolerable taxes. This paper defines capitalism as a system of indirect governance for economic relationships, where all markets exist within institutional frameworks that are provided by political authorities, i.e. governments. In this second perspective capitalism is a three level system much like any organized sports. Markets occupy the first level, where the competition takes place; the institutional foundations that underpin those markets are the second; and the political authority that administers the system is the third. While markets do indeed coordinate supply and demand with the help of the invisible hand in a short term, quasi-static perspective, government coordinates the modernization of market frameworks in accord with changing circumstances, including changing perceptions of societal costs and benefits. In this broader perspective government has two distinct roles, one to administer the existing institutional frameworks, including the provision of infrastructure and the administration of laws and regulations, and the second to mobilize political power to bring about modernization of those frameworks as circumstances and/or societal priorities change.
    [Show full text]
  • How Competition Benefits Consumers
    COMPETITION COUNTS HOW CONSUMERS W I N Wh EN BUSINESSES COMPETE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION THE FTC’S BUREAU OF prices. The camera shop may work. By enforcing antitrust laws, and losers – you, as the consumer, COMPETITION: PROTECTING have no reason to offer a range of the Federal Trade Commission helps do that. Rather, our job is to make FREE ENTERPRISE AND choices. The car dealer may have to ensure that our markets are sure that businesses are competing AMERICAN CONSUMERS no motivation to offer a variety open and free. The FTC promotes fairly within a set of rules. What if there were only one grocery of car models and services. healthy competition and challenges Through its Bureaus of store in your community? What if you Competition in America is about anticompetitive business practices Competition and Economics, the could buy a camera from only one price, selection, and service. It to make sure that consumers FTC puts its antitrust resources to supplier? What if only one dealer in benefits consumers by keeping have access to quality goods and work, especially where consumer your area sold cars? prices low and the quality and services, and that businesses can interest and consumer spending Without competition, the grocer choice of goods and services high. compete on the merits of their work. are high: in matters affecting may have no incentive to lower Competition makes our economy The FTC does not choose winners energy, real estate, health care, food, pharmaceuticals, professional at protecting competition have business practices, review potential restrictive agreements between services, cable TV, computer long been labeled “antitrust.” Fast mergers, and challenge them when manufacturers and product dealers, technology, video programming, forward to the 21st century: you hear appropriate to ensure that the and monopolies.
    [Show full text]