Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ConfidenceFairy t1_j2u2vwq wrote

The main point is political economics.

EU did not decide to create competitive and well regulated market regulators. There was no political desire to do so. Local companies and workers lobbied their governments against competition as always. But when only way to protect companies in your own country was to create fair game for everyone, it had to be done. Distrust and self interest forced EU to it.

Philippon (one of the authors) have written a great book: "The Great Reversal: How America Gave Up on Free Markets" Belknap Press, 2019. that looks the other side of the pond.

8

primarysrc t1_j2u7ppk wrote

From what I've read in the paper and your comment I can see how the incentives and game theory involved would result in a stronger intra-country regulator (EU) that promotes competition and antitrust regulation better than individual national regulators. (Although it's not clear to me how such a regulator would naturally emerge since it would require the voluntary relinquishing of power from the prior political/economic actors. I haven't followed recent European development so there could be some reasonable logic/history for it, though.)

That said, I'm not sure there is much in terms of normative recommendations for the US. It's not like the US will be forming some economic pact with North American or Western nations and creating some ultra EU-like entity. For the US, regulations come with the ebb and flow of political parties or as a response to big market disruptions/crashes.

1