Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
American Tobacco Company, 221 U.S. 106 (1911) found to have monopolized the trade. American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781 (1946) after American Tobacco Co was broken up, the four entities were found to have achieved a collectively dominant position, which still amounted to monopolization of the market contrary to the Sherman Act §2
A trade deficit occurs when a country imports more than it exports -- and that's a good thing for a national economy. ... America’s biggest bilateral trade deficit by far is with China — $310. ...
United States trade deficits from 1997 to 2021. Deficits are over 50 billion dollars as of 2021 with the countries shown. Data from the US Census Bureau.. The balance of trade of the United States moved into substantial deficit from the late 1990s, especially with China and other Asian countries.
The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply. [2] "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not.
As the 2024 election season heats up, America’s $785 billion trade deficit will be a hot topic. But while it’s easy to blame the Trump or Biden administrations, the real culprit is the World ...
United States v. Alcoa, 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945), [1] is a landmark decision concerning United States antitrust law.Judge Learned Hand's opinion is notable for its discussion of determining the relevant market for market share analysis and—more importantly—its discussion of the circumstances under which a monopoly is guilty of monopolization under section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
However, there is no hard cap on America’s deficit. As of May, the federal government has spent $1.2 trillion more than it has collected in fiscal year 2024. In the first quarter of 2024 ...
The Court concluded that a contract offended the Sherman Act only if the contract restrained trade "unduly"—that is if the contract resulted in one of the three consequences of monopoly that the Court identified. A broader meaning, the Court suggested, would ban normal and usual contracts, and would thus infringe liberty of contract.