Do the U.S. anti-trust laws limit U.S. participation in foreign markets? I know that they are more strict. I understand that the laws against monopolies eliminates economies of scale and scope. Do other countries have problems with our restrictive trade laws?
Besides the Ministry of Finance and the keiretsu, are there other problems?
Can you think of any other U.S. anti-trust law that impedes global competition?© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 24, 2018, 6:43 pm ad1c9bdddf
In the United States, the enforcement of Section 2 furthers purely economic goals. That is, United States antitrust law is not used to further the same kinds of social concerns that are furthered by the competition law of the Community. "United States antitrust laws are premised on the theory that competition will produce the best allocation of economic resources, promote technological innovation that will result in the lowest possible prices for the widest variety of high-quality goods and services." Consequently, application of the Sherman Antitrust Act is intended to allow unfettered market forces to set prices and to encourage optimal production. Accordingly, contemporary United States decisions reflect a hands off antitrust policy. A more permissive stance is taken toward many business arrangements in the United States because of their perceived efficiencies. For example, the United States Supreme Court has never affirmed a finding of monopoly power against a defendant possessing less than approximately seventy percent of the relevant market. The Community Court has found a dominant position to exist when an undertaking possesses forty to forty five percent. Indeed, United States antitrust policy is almost Darwinian in nature, with an eye toward the maintenance of a true capitalist system.
· U.S. antidumping law applies a different standard for judging pricing policies for imported products than antitrust law does for judging domestic products. Antidumping law serves primarily to protect U.S. firms from foreign competition, regardless of the impact on U.S. consumers and the economy. In contrast, our antitrust laws serve primarily to encourage competition and protect individual consumers and the economy from harmful pricing practices.
· When a foreign exporter sells in the United States at a price below cost or at a price below the price it charges elsewhere, it almost always benefits the U.S. economy as a whole, except in the rare cases in which predatory pricing can be shown. Nevertheless, individual firms and their workers may be temporarily injured by such practices.
· Over time, U.S. firms seeking protection from foreign competition have come to rely almost exclusively on antidumping law rather than on antitrust law because it is easier for them to receive ...
In the United States, the enforcement of Section 2 is discussed.
Compare and Contrast the Antitrust Law and Economic Policies of Europe and the Common Market with that of the United States.
1) Compare and Contrast the Antitrust Law and Economic Policies of Europe and the Common Market with that of the United States. Include a brief discussion of the history and the development of these policies including the relevant laws that were enacted to achieve economic objectives.
Explain the difference between structure and conduct and compare these concepts under the two legal systems.
How are mergers and acquisition guidelines presented under both systems?
Explain the economic rationale for law and policy that focuses on per se market power vs. a "rule of reason" analysis.View Full Posting Details