WALTER BLOCK
With the resignation of Christine Wilson from the Federal Trade Commission due to Lina Khans’s unwarranted and totalitarian anti-trust policies, Robert Bork is now in the news, again. Yes, he was unfairly “Borked” by the Democratic Party for his political views, mainly on civil rights legislation. We believe in piling on. We are now going to Bork him for his irrational views on economics, sub category, anti-trust policy.
What is his perspective on this matter? Bork is most famously associated with the stance that anti-trust policy should be predicated not on the basis of promoting the economic welfare of business, but, rather, that of consumers. As stated, there is nothing egregiously wrong with such a policy. The kicker comes in when we realize that he is urging this public policy as an aspect of free enterprise, with which he has been long and falsely associated. Even opinion molders such as the Wall Street Journal, who are otherwise strong advocates of private property rights, limited government and laissez-faire capitalism have fallen for Bork’s siren song. They are not at all in opposition to his call to place the big fat thumb of government on the supposed side of consumers in any other sector of the economy, but they have fallen like a ton of bricks for this one.
Suppose that the price of a unit of beans is $3. Consumers are complaining this this price is too high. What would a socialist, interventionist “consumer welfare standard” implement in response? Simple: Impose a price control on this item. But as any freshman who has honestly earned a C or better in economics 101 full well knows, this would create a shortage. Similarly, if consumers protest that their wages are too low, the ostensible remedy would be to create a minimum wage law, and/or raise its level (or more compulsory unionization). But again, apart from economic illiterates, it is a basic law of economics that these policies will lead to a surplus of labor, e.g., to unemployment.
Be seeing you
MCViewPoint 