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

Consider the data from Problem 27-11. Suppose that antitrust authorities have determined that there are separate relevant markets for e-books and physical books. In addition, these authorities perceive that a monopoly situation exists that can be challenged on legal grounds if the value of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index exceeds 5000 . On the basis of this criterion, do the antitrust authorities conclude that there are grounds for a legal challenge in either market? Explain.

Suppose that a firm's self-interested owners or managers have no moral or ethical qualms and do not anticipate being caught if they agree to participate in a collusive conspiracy. Why might they still decide not to do so if only a moderate revenue gain would result? (Hint: How would engaging in the collusion techniques listed in Figure 27-4affect a conspiring firm's total costs?)

What would happen to electric companies' profits if regulators were to require them to set the price of electricity equal to the marginal cost of providing each unit of power?

A bank in Austin, Texas, has allowed its state banking license, under which it had been regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a U.S. bank regulator, to expire. It has switched to a federal banking license, under which it is now regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, another bank regulator. Do these regulators subject the bank to social or economic regulation?

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?

See all solutions

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