You are here

EU Antitrust Rebuke, Record Deficit Numbers and the Costs of Global Warming Policy

Daily Update


EU Antitrust Rebuke, Record Deficit Numbers and the Costs of Global Warming Policy


European competition regulators get chastised for hiding evidence in a case against Intel.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Regulatory Studies Fellow Ryan Young on the troubling implications of the case: 

“The antitrust laws currently on the books are so vague, judges and regulators have essentially had to make up their own policies. In other words, they can pretty much do whatever they want. Look what just happened in Europe. The EU’s ombudsman recently discovered that the EU’s antitrust regulators intentionally suppressed ‘potentially exculpatory’ evidence in their case against Intel. That case, remember, resulted in a €1,000,000,000 fine against Intel. Unfortunately, the ombudsman’s finding will not affect the case’s outcome. The prosecutor lied and got away with it, in other words. One more example of why antitrust regulations result in the rule of men, not the rule of law.” 



The Congressional Budget Office reports that the federal deficit reached a new record in July.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Senior Attorney Hans Bader on the impact of Obama’s spending so far

“The federal budget deficit has already risen by $880 billion to an unprecedented $1.3 trillion. Most of the increase is attributable to recent increases in federal spending, including Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package, which the Congressional Budget Office says will actually shrink the economy in ‘the long run,’ and which ended welfare reform, destroyed thousands of jobs in the export sector, and substituted welfare for productive investments. Ironically, Obama had campaigned on a promise, since broken, to make a ‘net spending cut’ in federal spending.” 



Experts debate the economic consequences of proposed global warming legislation.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis on the economic reality of a cap and trade system

“Cap-and-trade is often called ‘market-based’ because each business, spurred by the desire to minimize costs and (if possible) amass surplus coupons it can sell for a profit, determines where and how to cut its emissions. This is in contrast to ‘command-and-control’ regulation in which a central authority prescribes the emission rates  or energy efficiencies covered entities must achieve, or the fuel types (wind, solar, geothermal) or technologies they must use. In practice, however, cap-and-trade legislation typically contains buckets of command-and-control provisions. For example, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill mandates electric generation from renewable sources and imposes tough new efficiency standards for buildings, appliances, transport systems, and industry.” 


Listen to LibertyWeek, the CEI podcast, here.