Talk:Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Clayton Act § 3[edit]

Article incorrectly notes that rule of reason applies to Clayton Act § 3 claims. While the approach of courts resembles a rule of reason approach, courts still refer to it as selectively applying per se treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.52.73 (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

As the first paragraph says, the Sherman act had major loopholes, and isn't very specific. For example, with respect to monopolists, the Sherman act prohibited only unlawful maintenance or acquisition of monopoly; Mergers were legal, so, the Sherman act didn't prevent a merger that would create a monopolist. The Clayton act provides a prophylactic against that. I will provide some information on the legislative history when I have more time. Non_Curat_Lex 13 November 2006 thanks!

Clayton Act should be considered HIGH IMPORTANCE[edit]

If the past 6 U. S. presidents had been enforcing Section 7 of this Clayton act we wouldn't have had the crisis involving 10 or more companies that are "too big to fail" - AIG, Bank of America [Merrill Lynch], Citigroup,Wells-Fargo [Wachovia] that now need government bailout. Therefore the Clayton Act is VERY IMPORTANT !!! not of low importance. 76.179.218.251 (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To change an importance rating, visit the WikiProject that assigned the rating (in this case, the Business and Law projects) and make your case there. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 17:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really have a "gross national product" anymore[edit]

This is just a question on the fact that since we don't use "GNP" anymore, and instead, use "GDP" (gross domestic product), which is quite distinct from "GNP" (virtually unused in today's increasingly globalist business parlance), could it be another loophole in the enforcement of the Clayton Act? I have not observed much vigorous involvement by the government in the affairs of many mega-business deals (the latest that comes to mind being the high-profile Comcast/Time Warner 2015 merger which was broken up, but I do not know if the Clayton Act was involved here, or if some other act was applied). It seems the only time the government swoops into business mergers is when it would be highly obvious and embarrassing if they simply stood by, but even then, they can't fight all of them (TheStreet, April 28, 2016) . Again, I am not sure if this is even in part a result of the "GNP"/"GDP" distinction, but there certainly does seem to be selective enforcement of these monopoly laws, considering the more favorable Charter/Time Warner Cable merger which appears to be a shoe-in (CNN Money, April 26, 2016), and the recent spate of health care mergers, to name just a few (NJ.com, March 31, 2016 also, The Atlantic, January 9, 2016). Just some thoughts by a non-professional observer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.181.108 (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article written in past tense?[edit]

Unless I'm grossly mistaken, the Clayton Antitrust Act hasn't been repealed and is under active enforcement. Is there a particular reason everything is past tense? cnzx (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same question here! This is very confusing! Ds77 (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like an essay for specialists[edit]

This is not a very good article. It's more like an obscure blog post that escaped to Wikipedia. This article is light on sources, has too little history, and is written in an essay-like style that spends too much time on how e.g. the Sherman Act might be applied in theory, rather than how the Clayton Act actually is and has been applied by prosecutors and interpreted by courts. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 17:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]