Wayne Crews and I have an article in today’s American Spectator about the antitrust crusade against Intel. Our key points:
-An FTC picking winners and losers is not capitalism. It is crony capitalism.
-Chips in “Wintel” desktop computers increasingly constitute just one subset of a vast semiconductor market. Only a small fraction of the chips in non-PC devices are Intel’s — and these devices are where the future lies.
-Regulators’ charges against Intel have changed over the years, but their verdict always remains the same: guilty. Suspicious.
-We’d be better off prosecuting the DOJ and the FTC for colluding against free enterprise.
It is illegal to conduct an auction without a license in Alabama. Unlicensed auctioneers can be punished with fines of up to $500.
Applicants must pay nearly a thousand dollars for 85 hours of coursework. 8 additional hours are required every two years to keep the license.
It’s worth asking: Does this benefit anyone besides the people teaching the courses and the auctioneers who get to limit the amount of competition they have to face?
Over at the Washington Examiner‘s Opinion Zone, Wayne Crews and I explain why New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s antitrust lawsuit against Intel is a mistake.
Calling Intel’s business practices “bribery” and “coercion” is little more than argument by assertion. Rebates and exclusivity deals are normal competitive behavior. Not only is Intel facing increasing competition in its home turf, that small segment is hardly the extent of the relevant competitive market. Intel faces an uncertain future as consumer tastes shift to smaller products powered by non-Intel chips. Cuomo’s antitrust lawsuit does not stand up to scrutiny. It deserves to be dropped.
Antitrust policies thwart the competitive process whenever and wherever they are applied.
Question: What do you get when you combine a $700 billion “stimulus” package, $1.1 trillion in wealth-destroying regulatory compliance costs, a mountainous non-discretionary entitlement obligation, bailouts for large manufacturers, an small army of unelected czars, and a $1.4 federal budget deficit?
Answer: Way too much government!
In a new CEI paper, One Nation, Ungovernable?, Clyde Wayne Crews lays out an agenda for setting America on the path to economic recovery. From lifting burdensome regulations and restrictions on executive compensation to fostering competition and restraining federal spending, Crews calls for an end to the “bailout culture” that’s spread throughout the capitol, and a return to more responsible policies that promote growth and liberty.
As Crews notes, “If government intervention were stimulative, the nation should be overflowing with wealth and job creation already.” Obviously, the folks on Capitol Hill got it wrong. Wealth comes from policies that unleash the creativity and industriousness of private citizens and companies, not from massive regulation or wasteful government “investment.” Deregulation and markets encourage competition and growth and create jobs.
Calling all legislators: please take a few moments and read One Nation, Ungovernable? Fret not, at only six pages, it’s far shorter than most of the tax-and-spend bills you’ll see this year.
A new Maryland law makes it illegal for manufacturers to set a minimum retail price for their products in sales contracts. The law is meant to increase competition. Unfortunately, it will have the opposite effect.
As Wayne Crews and I explain in the The American Spectator, it could prevent retailers from competing with each other on non-price grounds, such as customer service, product demonstrations, and advertising.
Some products, such as televisions or cars, have high information costs. Customers want to know a lot about these products before they commit to a purchase. They want to know what they’re getting. Try before they buy.
By forcing retailers to compete against each other to give customers more and better information and service, minimum price agreements can help consumers get what they want and boost sales at the same time.
In one regulated area of the economy after another, it’s exasperating to hear journalists and pundits claim that, “The market has failed,” when in fact it hasn’t been allowed to function. That’s especially true in the case of insurance, which operates under a regime of state-level protectionism, as former CEI Brookes Fellow Tim Carney makes clear in his Washington Examiner column today:
Rep. John Shadegg, a conservative Republican from Arizona, has proposed a bill to allow interstate purchase of health insurance. Blue Cross has fiercely opposed this idea that could introduce more competition. Currently, Blue Cross companies typically have only a handful of competitors in each state.
Property and casualty insurers operate under a similar state-level protectionist arrangement.
CEI adjunct Ned Andrews argues for interstate insurance choice here.
The long-awaited collaboration of Microsoft and Yahoo on search has the tech business community abuzz. CEI analysts Wayne Crews and Ryan Young made their original statements here. Media outlets immediately took note, as seen in this Investor’s Business Daily story (posted, fitting enough, at Yahoo Finance) from yesterday:
Ryan Young, a fellow of regulatory studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, says the deal should be approved.
“It will make Google stay on its toes,” he said. “Bing and Yahoo should improve from the proposed partnership. This is how a competitive, contestable market works.”
We also got some love from Erika Morphy at E-commerce Times in her story today:
The Obama Administration is taking a harder line on antitrust issues than in the past, which could prove to be a wild card, noted Ryan Radia, information policy analyst with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, although he’s also convinced that the deal will go through.
“Antitrust administrators are looking to make headlines now,” Radia told the E-Commerce Times, pointing to investigations he dubbed “dubious,” such as the probe into the Google book deal or the inquiry into Silicon Valley employment practices.
“The latest line of attack is that lack of regulation and enforcement is behind the recession,” he said.
[...]
Microsoft has been battling EU antitrust charges for years, CEI’s Radia noted, with the most recent involving accusations that it violated EU antitrust law by bundling Internet Explorer with its Windows operating system.
“It is going to be more of a problem over there than with U.S. regulatory authorities,” he predicted.
National Journal’s Tech Daily Dose also noted our advice to regulators to keep their snouts out of the deal:
“Our subcommittee is concerned about competition issues in these markets because of the potentially far-reaching consequences for consumers and advertisers, and our concern about dampening the innovation we have come to expect from a competitive high-tech industry,” [Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman Herb] Kohl said in a statement. Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee ranking member Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he did not see “any immediate yellow flags” from an antitrust front. Competitive Enterprise Institute argued regulators “can best serve consumer interests by leaving well enough alone.”
Who knows where we’ll pop up next!
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQO84UjQ2Fg 285 234]
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 