Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

An years past, firms around the world have secretly engaged in collusive agreements to restrain production and push prices above competitive levels.

Evidence compiled by government officials investigating such agreements has revealed that conspiring firms often utilize similar methods of establishing and enforcing collusive restraints of trade. Most agreements, for instance, assign to each firm an allowed market share, a permitted region of operations, or an approved set of customers. In addition, participating firms commonly are required to exchange sales information so that they can monitor adherence to their agreements to restrain trade. In this chapter, you will learn why firms that typically utilize these techniques to formulate and maintain collusive agreements engage in secret conspiracies: Such agreements are illegal under U.S. antitrust laws.

Understand the foundations of antitrust regulations and enforcement

Short Answer

Expert verified

A training reflection that summarises what data, competencies, and perspectives pupils should be able to demonstrate after gathering input.

Step by step solution

01

Given information 

Antitrust rules prohibit fraudulent acquisitions and economic realities in aggregate, deciding to leave it up to the courts to assess which facts are unconstitutional relevant facts at each trial. From waggon to digital, interpreting and enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act to changing circumstances.

02

Explanation

Just within a few months after the Hertz-Dollar Thrifty merger, the car-rental rose by more than 5%. This may possibly be because of following reasons:

1) The merger created monopolistic structure in which the merged firm gained market power to influence the car-rental on the upside. Due to limited car-rental service to choose from and higher demand, car-rental rose by more than5%

2) The Advantage Rent a Car brand - originally owned by Hertz, which was supposed to be operating as a national competitor to Avis, Hertz (post merger with Dollar Thrifty) and Enterprise as held by UntdSts antitrust authorities at the time of approving merger between Hertz and Dollar Thrifty, declared bankruptcy and put its operations up for sale. This further increased industry concentration and reduced competition thereby leading to upside pressure on car rentals.

3) Failure of UntdSts antitrust authorities to ensure economic viability of Advantage Rent a Car brand to give competitive edge to Avis, Hertz (post merger with Dollar Thrifty) and Enterprise on a long term basis.

4) Due to winding-up of Advantage Rent a Car brand, the increased expectation of car rental rise on nation-wide scale culminated into actual car rental price rise.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

The table below depicts the cost and demand structure a natural monopoly faces.

a. Calculate total revenues, marginal revenue, and marginal cost at each output level. If this firm is allowed to operate as a monopolist, what will be the quantity produced and the price charged by the firm? What will be the amount of monopoly profit? [Hint: Recall that marginal revenue equals the change in total revenues (Pร—Q)from each additional unit and that marginal cost equals the change in total costs from each additional unit.]

b. If regulators require the firm to practice marginal cost pricing, what quantity will it produce, and what price will it charge? What is the firm's profit under this regulatory framework? [Hint: Recall that average total cost equals total cost divided by quantity and that profits equal (P-ATC)ร—Q.].

c. If regulators require the firm to practice average cost pricing, what quantity will it produce, and what price will it charge? What is the firm's profit under this regulatory framework?

How might the fact that this antitrust case involves three groups-movie studios, distributors, and broadcasters - complicate assessing whether consumers ultimately gain or lose from current arrangements?

Consider the following fictitious sales data (in thousands of dollars) for both e-books and physical books. Firms have numbers instead of names, and Firm 1generates only e-book sales. Suppose that antitrust authorities' initial evaluation of whether a single firm may possess "monopoly power" is whether its share of sales in the relevant market exceeds 70percent.

a. Suppose that the antitrust authorities determine that selling physical books and e-book selling are individually separate relevant markets. Does an initial evaluation suggest that any single firm has monopoly power, as defined by the antitrust authorities?

b. Suppose that in fact there is really only a single book industry, in which firms compete in selling both physical books and e-books. According to the antitrust authorities' initial test of the potential for monopoly power, is there actually cause for concern?

Who pays for the many hours of work that numerous officials of agencies such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission devote to establishing new regulations?

An years past, firms around the world have secretly engaged in collusive agreements to restrain production and push prices above competitive levels.

Evidence compiled by government officials investigating such agreements has revealed that conspiring firms often utilize similar methods of establishing and enforcing collusive restraints of trade. Most agreements, for instance, assign to each firm an allowed market share, a permitted region of operations, or an approved set of customers. In addition, participating firms commonly are required to exchange sales information so that they can monitor adherence to their agreements to restrain trade. In this chapter, you will learn why firms that typically utilize these techniques to formulate and maintain collusive agreements engage in secret conspiracies: Such agreements are illegal under U.S. antitrust laws.

Explain the main rationales for regulation of industries that are not inherently monopolistic

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Economics Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free