In the October 23 issue of National Review, Robert Bork once again has penned an article in defense of recent antitrust actions taken by the Clinton Administration, while also attacking conservative or free market critics of antitrust. 

Without rehashing all of the arguments SBSC already has made against Mr. Bork's positions (see previous Facts of the Week and SBSC Cybercolumns at www.sbsc.org), there is a particular point worth addressing in Bork's piece defending the government's antitrust case against Visa and Mastercard.

Bork revealingly writes: "No one would contend that antitrust enforcers and courts never make mistakes.  The history of the policy is replete with economic fiascos, but as better economic analysis has been brought to bear over the past three decades, the law has steadily improved."

There once was a time when Robert Bork recognized the need and argued for dramatic reform of antitrust laws.  Now he says that "better economic analysis" has allowed "the law to steadily improve." 

In reality, if there has been any improvement in economic analysis over the past few decades-a dubious presumption--it is only that in certain economic circles a renewed respect for markets has taken hold.  A better understanding of how markets work-including the dynamic nature of the marketplace, the critical role of entrepreneurship, recognizing that today's businesses compete against current and future competitors, and the ultimate power of consumers-reveals no such improvement in antitrust law.  Instead, such improved understanding shows that most antitrust actions amount to little more than a gross overreach by government into the private marketplace.

Raymond J. Keating
Chief Economist
Small Business Survival Committee
and co-author of
U.S. by the Numbers:
Figuring What's Left, Right, and Wrong with America State by State