University of Arizona
D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida - Levin College of Law; University of Minnesota School of Law; George Washington University Law School Competition Law Center
May 17, 2012
Southern California Law Review, Vol. 85, 2012
Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 12-15
Marking the centennial anniversary of Standard Oil Co. v. United States, we argue that much of the critique of antitrust enforcement and the skepticism about its social significance suffer from “Nirvana fallacy”— comparing existing and feasible policies to ideal normative policies, and concluding that the existing and feasible ones are inherently inefficient because of their imperfections. Antitrust law and policy have always been and will always be imperfect. However, they are alive and kicking. The antitrust discipline is vibrant, evolving, and global. This essay introduces a number of important innovations in scholarship related to Standard Oil and its modern applications and identifies shifts in antitrust that will keep the field energized for some time to come.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 22
Keywords: antitrust, standard oil, monopolization, legal history, economic history
JEL Classification: N71, K21, l41Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: May 17, 2012
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo4 in 1.422 seconds