Businesses with dominant or substantial market shares are more vulnerable to antitrust claims. However, because the antitrust laws are ultimately intended to benefit consumers, and discounting results in at least short-term net benefit to consumers, the U.S. Supreme Court has set high hurdles to antitrust claims based on a predatory pricing theory. The Court requires plaintiffs to show a likelihood that the pricing practices will affect not only rivals but also competition in the market as a whole, in order to establish that there is a substantial probability of success of the attempt to monopolize.  If there is a likelihood that market entrants will prevent the predator from recouping its investment through supra competitive pricing, then there is no probability of success and the antitrust claim would fail. In addition, the Court established that for prices to be predatory, they must be below the seller's
What is limitation of diplomacy using technology give the examples? Although technology provides a good influence in the world to diplomacy because it indirectly change the DNA of diplomacy itself, but it is not impossible that technology has a bad or dangerous impact on diplomacy because in modern times everything is fast and free (Sandre, A. 2013). With a lot of information that can be accessed freely of course can also bring adverse effects, especially on diplomatic relations of a country which of course does not always go well and smooth like in want for both parties. Where with information abundance makes the government a target of excessive public opinion, not to mention the loss of privacy from the state to keep secret of what needs to be concealed.
In their argument, Daryl and Gholz suggest that the world’s economy thrives on the money countries spend importing and exporting weapons as well as the money it costs to have a war. Without either of the two, potentially harmful effects could take place in the world’s economy due to the fact that less money would be going into circulation. On top of this, some believe not going to war can do more harm than good when it comes to being a prepared nation. When countries choose not to participate in wars, they can leave themselves open to potential threats. If they do not have a well armed military or knowledge on ongoing wars, they can make other countries view them as prey.
Regulations that the government implement, licensing for example, increases the barrier of entry into the market and decreases ways for the traders to gratify consumer demand. This case is prevalent in the monopoly market. The market is sometimes best to decide how much and what to produce since it has better information and knowledge of the consumers compared to the government. Economic decisions may also not be competent when the government is motivated by political power rather than economic imperatives. Sometimes, economic policies are designed to retain power rather than to ensure maximum efficiency in the economy.
They additionally seek power within the anarchical international system without power, states can come to be subservient to the will of others or lose their security and prosperity. Anarchy for that reason compels states to increase their power, due to the fact security and bodily survival cannot be divorced from electricity maximization. As a result, the competition for power turns into a natural state of aﬀairs in international politics. If and when a single nation or coalition of states gains preponderance, however, it's going to eventually try to impose its will on others. Weaker states may want to lose their safety and, in rare cases, cease to exist Paul T.V (2004).
Kenneth Waltz identifies two reasons why the anarchic international system limits cooperation. The two reason is insecurity and unequal gains. State do not willingly place themselves in situation of increased dependence. One of the example of insecurity is the recurring dynamic of the security dilemma. Security dilemma is a situation where the action of at state to increase their military capability and it might is seen as a threat by other states.
In addition, the bilateral diplomacy also cost-saving in term of expenditure in security, accommodation, facilities and transportation. Besides of its strength and effectiveness, bilateral diplomacy also has its weaknesses likes the domination of one single state over another. There will be higher possibilities that relations between those states involved in the bilateral negotiation will result to a domination of one single state over their negotiating partner. In other words, in a bilateral negotiation the more powerful and intelligent country most likely to naturally preside or dominate the negotiation based on their excellent performance in the negotiation. This will caused imbalance between the two sides relations and impacting the weaker states or the less power one become the loser in the negotiation.
In contrast, Legrain has the opposite opinion to the transnational corporation. In chapter 5, he states that use a huge company to compare with a country is unreasonable. Companies are not powerful as a country. I agree with Legrain’s opinion, companies will try their best to attract consumers, but they can not force them to purchase their products. But the country can make a law to manage those companies and people, like tariffs.
Literature Review 2.1.1 Military spending and Economic growth: Military spending is an important issue for the international economy. It is expenditure by the government that influences beyond the resources it takes up, especially when it leads to or facilitates conflict. At the same time most countries needs some level of security to deal with internal and external threats but these can certainly have an opportunity cost as they can prevent money being used for other purposes that might improve the pace of development. The impact of defense spending on the economic growth may be positive or negative depending on the specific argument. There are various schools of thought on the nature of relationship between the defense sector and economic
On one hand, neo-liberals view this as largely a good thing. They say that nearly all countries have a comparative advantage in one way or another within the global economy. There will be groups who will be worse off, but on the whole, the benefits are greater than in the past. On the other hand, neo-Marxist scholars view the neo-liberal optimism with deep suspicion. Global capitalism, they believe, will only create and reinforce inequalities within and between countries (WEB: Held, McGrew).