Question

1.How vital is it to eliminate and prevent monopolistic and anti-competitive practices by corporations? Has the FTC been effective in identifying and eliminating monopolistic and anti-competitive actions by corporations? Are there recent examples you can think of or locate through research where corporations have gotten away with monopolistic or anti-competitive practices? What was the FTC’s response, if any?

2.In your opinion, should states be allowed to negotiate treaties with nations whose products and services would directly impact that state’s economic growth and development? For example, should Michigan, home to major automotive manufacturers, be allowed to negotiate treaties with India, one of the fastest growing automotive suppliers in the world? Similarly, should Texas, a leader in oil and gas refinery, be allowed to negotiate treaties with Brazil, the largest South American oil and gas exporter?

a)What might be immediate benefits of state-negotiated treaties?

b)What are potential pitfalls or challenges to such negotiations?

3.Conduct an internet search for the search terms “insider trading” and “news.” Pick one news article and summarize the violation. Determine which components of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 were not complied with and make a personal judgement about whether you find this to be malicious in intent. In your summary be sure to note what penalties/punishments are and the effects this is having on the company and the person involved. Include the link to the article

Answer 1

1)

Monopoly and anti- competitive practices are regarded as anti -consumers and these practices tend to reduce the welfare of consumers.

FTC has been successful in reducing the instances of anti competitive practices. Any action or mergers are deeply scrutinized by the FTC for possible impacts on competition in country. FTC uses - H index to ascertain possible impacts of merger and monopoly power. If H-Index is larger than 1700, then FTC might take down such monopoly.

Recently, Google came under the scrutiny for causing harm to competition. But case was not upheld against the google. Google was hurting competitors but it was not hurting competition.