I thought I’d aim my opening post at the question that motivated my interest in this symposium:  is behavioral economics leading us to the end of free markets and the takeover of the regulatory state?

Consider how far we’ve come since the days of “caveat emptor,” when sellers had a legal right to fool and cheat buyers, and consumers were free to be fooled and cheated.

Read the full piece here.

Come check it out.  In addition to the TOTM bloggers, here is the list of confirmed participants (with more TBA …)

Read the full piece here. 

Here we go again.  The European Commission is after Google more formally than a few months ago (but not yet having issued a Statement of Objections).

Read the full piece here. 

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Feds (the SEC, the FBI, and federal prosecutors in New York) are about to bring a host of insider trading charges “that could ensnare consultants, investment bankers, hedge-fund and mutual-fund traders and analysts across the nation.”  The authorities, which have been investigating the situation for three years, are boasting that their criminal and civil probes “could eclipse the impact on the financial industry of any previous such investigation.”

Read the full piece here. 

Carl Shapiro’s (DOJ) speech at the ABA Fall Forum contains (at least) two interesting tidbits worth highlighting for TOTM readers.  The first is a discussion of the DOJ’s case against Blue Cross Blue Shield, which as discussed here, turns on an economic analysis of the use of most-favored nations clauses in contractual arrangements with hospitals…

Read the full piece here. 

Competition Policy International’s newest issue has been released.  The issue is focused on cartel sanctions and features a colloquium on a piece co-authored by Judge Douglas Ginsburg and me on Antitrust Sanctions, with comments from a fantastic lineup of antitrust economists and lawyers: Joseph Harrington (Johns Hopkins), Pieter Kalbfleisch (Netherlands Competition Authority), Mariana Tavares de Araujo (SDE, Brazil), and Donald Klawiter (Sheppard Mullin).  The comments are interesting and agree and disagree with a variety of features of the Ginsburg & Wright proposal for even further (but not completely) shifting the focus of antitrust sanctions from the corporation toward responsible individuals, and adding debarment to the cartel enforcement toolkit.

Read the full piece here. 

Credit cards and other electronic payment vehicles are a large and increasingly important part of how we do business. Credit cards allow consumers all over the world to have instantaneous access to credit to transact in both traditional in-person retail settings and over the Internet with businesses they will never see. In the U.S., we have become accustomed to paying for an increasing share of our purchases through electronic means.

But behind their convenience and speed lies an often misunderstood economics of consumer credit, two-sided markets, and network systems. Congressional action to regulate these markets must take into consideration the unique nature of this changing form of currency.

Professor Todd Zywicki and Professor Geoffrey Manne provide an overview of the trends and data related to credit card usage, as well as explain the mechanisms which allow them to exist.

This should be an interesting case to watch.  As I’ve discussed, if one excludes policy speeches and restricts focus to enforcement action and activity, it has been thus far difficult to distinguish the Obama Antitrust Division from the Bush II Antitrust Division when it comes to single firm or allegedly exclusionary conduct.  But the DOJ’s recent announcement of case against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan looks like the DOJ’s first major “exclusionary” conduct case — despite the fact that it is brought under Section of the Sherman Act rather than Section 2 (there is also a state antitrust law claim).

Read the full piece here. 

Ezra Klein has an interesting blog post covering Peter Diamond’s nomination to Federal Reserve Board.  The standard refrain in this debate has been something like: “See! The Republicans blocked Diamond and now he won the Nobel — don’t they look silly now.”  I don’t find the particular issue of comparing Diamond’s qualifications as an economist to those qualifications required of a Board member all too interesting and so I wont comment on that here.  Though I should say here so we can get to the point of the post that I believe Diamond should be confirmed.

Read the full piece here.