UGBA C172 Final Exam 2022 with complete solution
Stages in the Histography of Antitrust >>>>>1890: progressive school/robber baron:
triumph of common man, earliest historians were contemporists/progressive historians,
...
UGBA C172 Final Exam 2022 with complete solution
Stages in the Histography of Antitrust >>>>>1890: progressive school/robber baron:
triumph of common man, earliest historians were contemporists/progressive historians,
anti-trust was a glorious victory over the greedy selfish capitalists and roosevelt hero
became a hero for breaking up monopolies and lead popular interest against business
interests, food regulation, conservation, etc.
1950 revisionism: hofstadter "age of reform"- emphasized the dark side of Populism and
Progressive Reform, middle class attacked big businesses because they weren't getting
rich as fast as the rich were up top; criticized image of roosevelt to contain backlash
against big business; made connections between populism, nazism, and maccarthyism
as potentially dangerous majority tyranny movements; theorized that middle class
support for progressive regulation wasnt so much goodwill toward working class, but to
control backlash
1960/70s radical revisionism: Kolko's critique of roosevelt = anti-trust was a lie and
roosevelt was not a hero, not impressed with what the regulators were doing, he saw it
as going along with powerful businesses, Kolko didn't think the entity was really
regulating businesses; roosevelt distinguihed between "good" and "bad" trusts, mostly
based on personal relationships that led him to evaluate leaders of good trusts and
good people; believed that trusts were inevitable given the economic changes
1970/80s: new revisionism/new school/chandlerian: McCraw: businesses driven by
economic forces, strategies merely determined by market, business good & natural,
gov't problem, free market, Brandeis was the icon of progressivism in the courts
because hated big businesses; Mccrar believed that due to the unsophisticated
understanding of economies of scale, it was difficult to tell when antitrust laws were
validly enforced versus restricted unnecessarily
Significance: American cultural ambivalence and confusion towards big business;
interpretation of antitrust legislation and the Progressive Era of late 1800s/early 1900s
depended heavily on the outlook of each of the eras that followed; love/hate,
fear/hopes; business attitudes impacts market structure
Rule of Reason >>>>>under roosevelt, rule of reason was a doctrine developed to
interpret the Sherman Antitrust Act: only combinations and contracts UNREASONABLY
restraining trade are subject to actions under the anti-trust laws, and that possession of
monopoly power is not inherently illegal
justified not breaking up structural monopolies; standard oil case of 1911
Significance: didn't actually break up large firms; it allowed concentrated industry
structure(eg. US Steel > 60% market share; United Shoe Machinery Company > 90%
market share)
[Show More]
