Economy Monopolies

1447 Words6 Pages
The Economy, Monetary Policy, and Monopolies Luis Ormeno Sarah Uhimchuk Principles of Economic 05/23/2012 1. Analyze the current economic situation in the U.S. as compared to five (5) years ago. Include interest rates, inflation, and unemployment in your analysis. The economy of the United States is the world's largest national economy. Its nominal GDP was estimated to be over $15 trillion in 2011 (Lindeen, 1994), just about a quarter of nominal global GDP. The economy of the United States is a mixed economy and has maintained a stable overall GDP growth rate, a moderate unemployment rate and high levels of research and capital investment. It has been the world's largest national…show more content…
The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States affects both short term and long term interest rates by manipulating money supply through open market operations, changing reserve requirements for banks, or changing the rate at which it loans out money to banks. 2. Propose two (2) strategies that the federal government could implement that would encourage people to spend more money in order to create employment opportunities. Cutting taxes is one of the strongest strategies that government could implement to encourage people to spend. Increased government revenue is one almost immediate symptom, as the tax cut encourages people to buy more products and services, stimulating the economy and creating more jobs. Less taxes (as a percentage of earnings) going to the government coffers and more staying in the pockets of average taxpayers always has a positive effect on the overall economy and allows a vibrant free democracy to thrive and…show more content…
Section one of this act prohibits any contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce. Section two of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization or attempted monopolization, combination or conspiracies to monopolize commerce. Sue Ann Mota (November 1, 1999). The Brown Shoe Case of 1962 was possibly one of the least reasonably decided antitrust cases. Brown Shoe Company had proposed to merge with Kinney Shoe Company, another shoe manufacturer. Neither the Shoe Company comprised a significant fraction of the market, nor the merger would not have had an important effect on market absorption. The courts blocked the merger, using as their justification the incipiency precedent, which stated that even if market concentration will not be greatly increased by a horizontal merger, it is still necessary to prevent the merger so as to ensure no further threats to market concentration. The incipiency precedent, in essence, made all horizontal mergers illegal even though many might not have led to any kind of market power on the part of any firm. G. Stolyarov II (Dec 3,
Open Document