Washington DC. September 20, 1987

Robert Bork said that serving on the U.S. Supreme Court “would be an intellectual feast”.[1]

Abstract, arcane, and avid for tricky math, the technocratic approach Bork advocated in The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself  has all but devoured the faintly-beating populist heart of antitrust law.

As a result, Paradox has for the 45 years since its 1978 debut made antitrust enforcement actions increasingly costly to bring, far harder to win, and challenging for even competition experts to understand. 

In an economy that has grown 1,000 percent since 1978, suffers from far greater concentration of markets, and brims with ever more gigantic firms, antitrust agencies need more resources (in terms of today’s dollars) than they did then.

Yet they have less. That must change.[2]Continue Reading Antitrust enforcers must have more funding

The Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition enforces U.S. pro-competition laws in tandem — and at times in competition with — the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.  Like its DOJ cousin, the Bureau seeks to curb anticompetitive conduct, such as price-fixing and rivalry-reducing mergers.  And, more so than in the recent past, it has taken action to