Europe and Antitrust

I have been grossly holding this rather simplistic view that Europe and America has a fundamental difference in which each country approaches anti-trust.  Europe goes after "the big" or "bad" company (Microsoft in many cases) to hold interests of other companies -- in a way clip the feathers of the bird that is flying too high so competitors can participate in the market.  US on the other hand has historically looked at antitrust to ensure that there is no dominant player with extraordinary market power.  One stifles competition, the other protects customers or end-users.  This week Economist cites the paper.  It brings up a couple of good points such as -- with less stringent anti trust laws are more likely to be implemented.  The article mentions that n US there is some sentiment expressed to move towards the eastern way of managing antitrust which is to go after big companies.  This bothers me.  The fact that we got a Microsoft and Apple and Intel in US and not in Europe is for a reason.  Many reasons, in fact.  And antitrust is one component of how things played out.  I wish the policy makers understand that.  If there is one Europeon model that interests me - although I admit I don't know much about it is Swiss model.  It seems lately it has gone through some review/changes/considerations.  I need to do some more digging to find that out.

Derivatives - transparency?

Lot of talk and ink is generated in innumerable proposals to make Warren Buffet's "weapons" of mass financial destruction more transparent.  They are in the center of the credit crisis storm.  One of the most proposed solution is to have a clearing house for derivatives - including most of the OTC stuff.  I am not sure how this will be done from a practical matter.  That's one of frustrations I have reading articles even by as distinguished people like them.  How will this get done?

Market for illegal goods

One of the interesting experiences during early days in University of Chicago was going through Kevin Murphy and Gary Becker's paper in Micro class which very elegantly explains how and why prohibition in the supply side of drugs -- with the goal of reducing quantity creates exactly the right incentives for people like drug suppliers to risk jail to produce more drugs.  Such prohibition creates exactly the opposite results you would want.  Here's another finding (see this post) to the argument that potency of drugs have increased -- meaning innovation is implicitly incentivized to get more bag for the buck. 

Waxman-Markey to take us to 1875?

I can understand positions being taken on matters are debatable as climate change. However, this post was a bit skewed.  To equate that people aspiring for a reduced GHG world is going back to the world described below is non-sensical for lack of better word.

"What, the old DeLorean is up on cinder blocks in the front yard again? In that case you can test drive Waxman-Markey by sailing down to Haiti, because current CO2 emissions are where Waxman-Markey wants America's to be in 2050. Radical environmentalists think such a CO2 level will be heaven on Earth, but the place that has actually achieved it is a nation swimming in bacterial and protozoal diarrhea, hepatitis A and E, typhoid fever, dengue fever and malaria, with 47 percent illiteracy and a life expectancy of 49 years. So excuse me if I remain unconvinced."

I dont know how in world has anyone made a claim that reduction of GHG is going to create a heaven in literal sense.  But the point is interesting in a different way.  The article goes on to claim how bizarre things would be and how our pockets will be run.  My questions is -- Will the costs of electricity increase?  It appears thats what is expected.  If the costs of reducing emissions undertaken by the utility is passed on to the rate payers then what is the incentive for customers to ask the utility to reduce emissions other than pushing legislation through the local congressman.  We know how effective and brisk that process is.  What if the costs are not passed on and it is borne by the holding company similar to how energy trading is handle where a big loss in the wrong trading bet is not passed on to rate payers. Of course, the utility has a point that higher electricity prices will force customers to make a choice whether to continue their NIMBY mindsets for nuclear plants or pay a higher price because the utility has to buy "carbon credits".  Lets see how this unfolds.

Links from Barrons on Energy Investing

Follow what happens in Nuclear: 

Market Vectors Nuclear Energy ETF; Barclays iShares S&P Global Nuclear Energy

Nuclear Street,  Idaho Samizdat, Atomic Insights, NEI Nuclear blog and Fuel Cycle 

EIA;

Companies to follow: Upstream: Cameco, BHP Billinton, Rio Tinto, Us Energy

Construction: USEC, Jacobs Engineering, Fluor, Areva, The Shaw Group,Entergy