Akkam’s Razor

Please tell me I'm reading this wrong - from the NYTimes via Economist's View:

A 96-year-old rule that treats as an automatic antitrust violation any agreement between a manufacturer and its retailers to adhere to a minimum resale price is considered archaic and out of touch by the Bush administration and economists of the Chicago school.

[...]

[F]our justices [defending the rule, incl. Breyers, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter], include two with substantial expertise in antitrust law: Justice Stevens, who made antitrust his specialty as a practicing lawyer before he became a federal judge, and Justice Breyer, who taught the subject at Harvard Law School.

[...]

The court’s other antitrust expert, Justice Antonin Scalia, also practiced and taught antitrust law in his pre-judicial career. Justice Scalia, however, expressed a very different view of the question. He offered a helping hand to Theodore B. Olson, the lawyer who was arguing on behalf of a leather goods manufacturer that the per se rule against resale price maintenance should be overturned.

From the transcripts:

Justice Scalia: Is it the sole object of the Sherman Act to produce low prices?

Mr. Olson: No.

Justice Scalia: I thought it was consumer welfare.

Mr. Olson: Yes, yes, it is.

Justice Scalia: And I thought some consumers would prefer more service at a higher price.

Mr. Olson: Precisely.

Justice Scalia: So the mere fact that it would increase prices doesn’t prove anything. If in fact it’s giving the consumer a choice of more service at a somewhat higher price, that would enhance consumer welfare, so long as there are competitive products at a lower price, wouldn’t it?

Mr. Olson: That’s absolutely correct.

So, protecting consumers from collusion on price-setting is not actually a fair-trade practice, but actually consumer welfare?  Brilliant! 

Popularity: 19% [?]