Friday, 31 Oct 2025
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • DMCA
logo logo
  • World
  • Politics
  • Crime
  • Economy
  • Tech & Science
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
  • More
    • Education
    • Celebrities
    • Culture and Arts
    • Environment
    • Health and Wellness
    • Lifestyle
  • đŸ”„
  • Trump
  • VIDEO
  • House
  • White
  • ScienceAlert
  • Trumps
  • Watch
  • man
  • Health
  • Season
Font ResizerAa
American FocusAmerican Focus
Search
  • World
  • Politics
  • Crime
  • Economy
  • Tech & Science
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
  • More
    • Education
    • Celebrities
    • Culture and Arts
    • Environment
    • Health and Wellness
    • Lifestyle
Follow US
© 2024 americanfocus.online – All Rights Reserved.
American Focus > Blog > Economy > Bryan Caplan on Antitrust – Econlib
Economy

Bryan Caplan on Antitrust – Econlib

Last updated: July 4, 2025 9:05 am
Share
Bryan Caplan on Antitrust – Econlib
SHARE

I’ve recently begun exploring Bryan Caplan’s insightful new book, Pro-Market and Pro-Business: Essays on Laissez-faire, and I’ve made my way through the first twelve succinct chapters. I initially expected to uncover a wealth of material to critique, but it turns out I find myself in agreement with nearly all of Caplan’s arguments. There is one chapter on antitrust that left me somewhat unsatisfied, though I likely concur with the underlying policy implications he presents:

Since 2007, Bill Gates has donated an astounding $28 billion, which represents 48% of his net worth. According to Frugal Dad, he’s saved nearly 6 million lives. While I haven’t verified his sources, it sounds like a reasonable estimate.

Back in the ’90s, Gates was not enjoying such favorable press and faced significant legal challenges. The U.S. government sued Microsoft for antitrust violations. In 2000, Alex Tabarrok estimated that the case cost Microsoft shareholders around $140 billion. Ultimately, Microsoft reached a relatively favorable settlement, but it’s likely that Gates would have amassed billions more without the burden of antitrust laws


If Gates’ philanthropy is as effective as many believe, the implications are staggering: the antitrust case against Microsoft may have resulted in a significant loss of life. Gates saves approximately one life for every $5,000 he spends. If the antitrust case cost him $5 billion, and he typically donates 48%, that could equate to 480,000 lives lost. If he had donated all his wealth, that figure might even reach a million. Just imagine the death toll if the government had succeeded in crippling Microsoft and bankrupting Gates. The mind boggles at the thought.

I’ve made a similar argument in discussions about Gates, but I find some of the conclusions drawn a bit extreme:

See also  Fintech middlemen like Plaid are 'massively taxing' its systems

One might counter, “By this reasoning, Gates himself is responsible for millions of deaths by not giving away even more.” If you subscribe to consequentialist ethics, that perspective holds water; it seems we are all complicit in the eyes of thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer. However, if we adhere to a more commonsensical distinction between “killing” and “letting die,” Gates remains blameless, while the government bears the guilt.

To me, this interpretation lacks common sense. I lean towards consequentialism but do not equate a failure to donate with murder. Moreover, I reject the notion that the U.S. government is guilty of killing in this scenario.

Antitrust issues intertwine both efficiency and equity considerations. I’m skeptical that the government’s antitrust case against Microsoft enhanced economic efficiency, and I suspect Caplan shares that skepticism. Thus, our policy perspectives may align closely. However, Caplan’s argument implicitly zeroes in on the implications of redistribution rather than efficiency, and that aspect merits further discussion.

The reasoning in this chapter implies that redistributing income from the wealthy to the middle class is detrimental on utilitarian grounds since the affluent generally have a greater propensity to aid the world’s poorest. In Gates’ case, this seems valid. However, public policy should not hinge on the impacts on an individual; rather, we must consider the broader consequences of any redistribution policy. Many affluent individuals expend their wealth on consumption or contribute to high-end universities and progressive foundations.

Using antitrust as a case study for these issues feels somewhat misplaced. A more appropriate approach would be to contemplate the optimal design of tax and transfer programs when making consequentialist arguments that assume transferring vast sums to billionaires would benefit the poorest globally.

See also  EU warns Trump’s 30% tariffs would eliminate transatlantic trade

If Gates were representative, it might be wise to significantly increase taxes on the middle class and upper middle class while drastically reducing taxes on billionaires. Yet, an even more effective strategy might involve instituting a steeply progressive consumption tax, directing the revenue towards foreign aid programs recently cut by the DOGE coalition. You might argue that redirecting funds to impoverished nations is politically unrealistic since many voters believe charity ought to start at home. While that’s true, a policy of sharply increased taxes on the middle class isn’t particularly popular either.

So, what is politically feasible? One answer is that whatever emerges from Congress this year constitutes the only viable tax policy currently in play. I view this reasoning as overly defeatist. A highly progressive consumption tax on the wealthy may not be an easy sell in Congress, but it’s likely to be more palatable than a regressive income tax. With a progressive consumption tax, Gates remains incentivized to assist the world’s poorest without necessitating concerns for billionaires’ welfare when devising optimal tax and antitrust policies.

Ultimately, I’m uncertain whether Caplan disagrees with these policy ideas. However, in a world where many hold consequentialist views, I worry that suggesting the richest among us should become even wealthier might be unhelpfully provocative. A steeply progressive consumption tax can achieve similar ends without alienating potential proponents of free markets and large enterprises.

Regarding antitrust, my preference would be for it to concentrate solely on efficiency issues—primarily addressing governmental barriers to market entry—while leaving redistribution questions to our tax and transfer systems. If the Microsoft case proved counterproductive, it was because it hindered economic efficiency.

See also  What causes policy mistakes? - Econlib

TAGGED:AntitrustBryanCaplanEconlib
Share This Article
Twitter Email Copy Link Print
Previous Article GelreGroen JV signs contract with Rijkswaterstaat for Dutch highway project GelreGroen JV signs contract with Rijkswaterstaat for Dutch highway project
Next Article Jake Paul Seemingly Celebrates Julio Cesar Chavez Jr.’s ICE Arrest Jake Paul Seemingly Celebrates Julio Cesar Chavez Jr.’s ICE Arrest
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Popular Posts

Florida ‘Deacon of Death’ executed for murders of two women found dumped in lake as state sets record

A Florida man notorious as the "Deacon of Death" was executed on Tuesday for the…

October 15, 2025

China warns against any agreements that harm its interests : NPR

People walk past a screen showing the CSI 300 Index at a shopping mall in…

April 21, 2025

Aging Hippies in Portland Perform CRINGE-TASTIC Musical Protest – Get Absolutely Dragged on Twitter/X | The Gateway Pundit | by Mike LaChance

Let's delve into the recent developments: This land belongs to all of us. It’s not…

October 6, 2025

The Major NJ Wildfire Shows Unexpected Urban Areas Are at Risk

New Jersey is not typically associated with wildfires, but a recent forest fire that erupted…

April 23, 2025

A Guide To Effective Online Addiction Rehab

Substance addiction and behavioral dependencies can feel all-consuming, trapping individuals in destructive cycles of relapse…

October 9, 2024

You Might Also Like

Verizon Communications Stock: Analyst Estimates & Ratings
Economy

Verizon Communications Stock: Analyst Estimates & Ratings

October 31, 2025
BTIG Remains Positive on NextEra Energy (NEE), Highlighting its “Premier Generation Development Platform”
Economy

BTIG Remains Positive on NextEra Energy (NEE), Highlighting its “Premier Generation Development Platform”

October 31, 2025
3 Must-Buy Stocks Fueling the Data Center Surge
Economy

3 Must-Buy Stocks Fueling the Data Center Surge

October 31, 2025
Shake Shack returns to profit in Q3 2025
Economy

Shake Shack returns to profit in Q3 2025

October 31, 2025
logo logo
Facebook Twitter Youtube

About US


Explore global affairs, political insights, and linguistic origins. Stay informed with our comprehensive coverage of world news, politics, and Lifestyle.

Top Categories
  • Crime
  • Environment
  • Sports
  • Tech and Science
Usefull Links
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • DMCA

© 2024 americanfocus.online –  All Rights Reserved.

Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?