license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Thorsten1


text:
Competition law

Competition law is the field of law that promotes or seeks to maintain market competition by regulating anti-competitive conduct by companies. Competition law is implemented through public and private enforcement. It is also known as antitrust law (or just antitrust ), anti-monopoly law, and trade practices law; the act of pushing for antitrust measures or attacking monopolistic companies (known as trusts) is commonly known as trust busting.

The history of competition law reaches back to the Roman Empire. The business practices of market traders, guilds and governments have always been subject to scrutiny, and sometimes severe sanctions. Since the 20th century, competition law has become global. The two largest and most influential systems of competition regulation are United States antitrust law and European Union competition law. National and regional competition authorities across the world have formed international support and enforcement networks.

Modern competition law has historically evolved on a national level to promote and maintain fair competition in markets principally within the territorial boundaries of nation-states. National competition law usually does not cover activity beyond territorial borders unless it has significant effects at nation-state level. Countries may allow for extraterritorial jurisdiction in competition cases based on so-called "effects doctrine". The protection of international competition is governed by international competition agreements. In 1945, during the negotiations preceding the adoption of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947, limited international competition obligations were proposed within the Charter for an International Trade Organisation. These obligations were not included in GATT, but in 1994, with the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of GATT multilateral negotiations, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created. The Agreement Establishing the WTO included a range of limited provisions on various cross-border competition issues on a sector specific basis. Competition law has failed to prevent monopolization of economic activity. "The global economy is dominated by a handful of powerful transnational corporations (TNCs). ... Only 737 top holders accumulate 80% of the control over the value of all ... network control is much more unequally distributed than wealth. In particular, the top ranked actors hold a control ten times bigger than what could be expected based on their wealth. ... Recent works have shown that when a financial network is very densely connected it is prone to systemic risk. Indeed, while in good times the network is seemingly robust, in bad times firms go into distress simultaneously. This knife-edge property was witnessed during the recent (2009) financial turmoil ..."

Starting Point
Competition law, or antitrust law, has three main elements:
 * prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business. This includes in particular the repression of free trade caused by cartels.
 * banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, and refusal to deal.
 * supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licenses or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.

Substance and practice of competition law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Protecting the interests of consumers (consumer welfare) and ensuring that entrepreneurs have an opportunity to compete in the market economy are often treated as important objectives. Competition law is closely connected with law on deregulation of access to markets, state aids and subsidies, the privatization of state owned assets and the establishment of independent sector regulators, among other market-oriented supply-side policies. In recent decades, competition law has been viewed as a way to provide better public services. Robert Bork argued that competition laws can produce adverse effects when they reduce competition by protecting inefficient competitors and when costs of legal intervention are greater than benefits for the consumers.

Roman legislation
An early example was enacted during the Roman Republic around 50 BC. To protect the grain trade, heavy fines were imposed on anyone directly, deliberately, and insidiously stopping supply ships. Under Diocletian in 301 A.D., an edict imposed the death penalty for anyone violating a tariff system, for example by buying up, concealing, or contriving the scarcity of everyday goods. More legislation came under the constitution of Zeno of 483 A.D., which can be traced into Florentine municipal laws of 1322 and 1325. This provided for confiscation of property and banishment for any trade combination or joint action of monopolies private or granted by the Emperor. Zeno rescinded all previously granted exclusive rights. Justinian I subsequently introduced legislation to pay officials to manage state monopolies.

Middle Ages
Legislation in England to control monopolies and restrictive practices was in force well before the Norman Conquest. The Domesday Book recorded that "foresteel" (i.e. forestalling, the practice of buying up goods before they reach market and then inflating the prices) was one of three forfeitures that King Edward the Confessor could carry out through England. But concern for fair prices also led to attempts to directly regulate the market. Under Henry III an act was passed in 1266 to fix bread and ale prices in correspondence with grain prices laid down by the assizes. Penalties for breach included amercements, pillory and tumbrel. A 14th-century statute labelled forestallers as "oppressors of the poor and the community at large and enemies of the whole country". Under King Edward III the Statute of Labourers of 1349 fixed wages of artificers and workmen and decreed that foodstuffs should be sold at reasonable prices. On top of existing penalties, the statute stated that overcharging merchants must pay the injured party double the sum he received, an idea that has been replicated in punitive treble damages under US antitrust law. Also under Edward III, the following statutory provision outlawed trade combination.

"... we have ordained and established, that no merchant or other shall make Confederacy, Conspiracy, Coin, Imagination, or Murmur, or Evil Device in any point that may turn to the Impeachment, Disturbance, Defeating or Decay of the said Staples, or of anything that to them pertaineth, or may pertain."

In continental Europe, competition principles developed in lex mercatoria. Examples of legislation enshrining competition principles include the constitutiones juris metallici by Wenceslaus II of Bohemia between 1283 and 1305, condemning combination of ore traders increasing prices; the Municipal Statutes of Florence in 1322 and 1325 followed Zeno's legislation against state monopolies; and under Emperor Charles V in the Holy Roman Empire a law was passed "to prevent losses resulting from monopolies and improper contracts which many merchants and artisans made in the Netherlands". In 1553, Henry VIII of England reintroduced tariffs for foodstuffs, designed to stabilize prices, in the face of fluctuations in supply from overseas. So the legislation read here that whereas,

"it is very hard and difficult to put certain prices to any such things ... [it is necessary because] prices of such victuals be many times enhanced and raised by the Greedy Covetousness and Appetites of the Owners of such Victuals, by occasion of ingrossing and regrating the same, more than upon any reasonable or just ground or cause, to the great damage and impoverishing of the King's subjects."

Around this time organizations representing various tradesmen and handicrafts people, known as guilds had been developing, and enjoyed many concessions and exemptions from the laws against monopolies. The privileges conferred were not abolished until the Municipal Corporations Act 1835.

Early competition law in Europe
The English common law of restraint of trade is the direct predecessor to modern competition law later developed in the US. It is based on the prohibition of agreements that ran counter to public policy, unless the reasonableness of an agreement could be shown. It effectively prohibited agreements designed to restrain another's trade. The 1414 Dyer's is the first known restrictive trade agreement to be examined under English common law. A dyer had given a bond not to exercise his trade in the same town as the plaintiff for six months but the plaintiff had promised nothing in return. On hearing the plaintiff's attempt to enforce this restraint, Hull J exclaimed, "per Dieu, if the plaintiff were here, he should go to prison until he had paid a fine to the King". The court denied the collection of a bond for the dyer's breach of agreement because the agreement was held to be a restriction on trade. English courts subsequently decided a range of cases which gradually developed competition related case law, which eventually were transformed into statute law.

Europe around the 16th century was changing quickly. The new world had just been opened up, overseas trade and plunder was pouring wealth through the international economy and attitudes among businessmen were shifting. In 1561 a system of Industrial Monopoly Licenses, similar to modern patents had been introduced into England. But by the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the system was reputedly much abused and used merely to preserve privileges, encouraging nothing new in the way of innovation or manufacture. In response English courts developed case law on restrictive business practices. The statute followed the unanimous decision in Darcy v. Allein 1602, also known as the Case of Monopolies, of the King's Bench to declare void the sole right that Queen Elizabeth I had granted to Darcy to import playing cards into England. Darcy, an officer of the Queen's household, claimed damages for the defendant's infringement of this right. The court found the grant void and that three characteristics of monopoly were (1) price increases, (2) quality decrease, (3) the tendency to reduce artificers to idleness and beggary. This put an end to granted monopolies until King James I began to grant them again. In 1623 Parliament passed the Statute of Monopolies, which for the most part excluded patent rights from its prohibitions, as well as guilds. From King Charles I, through the civil war and to King Charles II, monopolies continued, especially useful for raising revenue. Then in 1684, in East India Company v. Sandys it was decided that exclusive rights to trade only outside the realm were legitimate, on the grounds that only large and powerful concerns could trade in the conditions prevailing overseas.

The development of early competition law in England and Europe progressed with the diffusion of writings such as The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, who first established the concept of the market economy. At the same time industrialisation replaced the individual artisan, or group of artisans, with paid labourers and machine-based production. Commercial success became increasingly dependent on maximizing production while minimizing cost. Therefore, the size of a company became increasingly important, and a number of European countries responded by enacting laws to regulate large companies that restricted trade. Following the French Revolution in 1789 the law of 14–17 June 1791 declared agreements by members of the same trade that fixed the price of an industry or labour as void, unconstitutional, and hostile to liberty. Similarly, the Austrian Penal Code of 1852 established that "agreements ... to raise the price of a commodity ... to the disadvantage of the public should be punished as misdemeanours". Austria passed a law in 1870 abolishing the penalties, though such agreements remained void. However, in Germany laws clearly validated agreements between firms to raise prices. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, ideas that dominant private companies or legal monopolies could excessively restrict trade were further developed in Europe. However, as in the late 19th century, a depression spread through Europe, known as the Panic of 1873, ideas of competition lost favour, and it was felt that companies had to co-operate by forming cartels to withstand huge pressures on prices and profits.

Modern competition law
While the development of competition law stalled in Europe during the late 19th century, in 1889 Canada enacted what is considered the first competition statute of modern times. The Act for the Prevention and Suppression of Combinations formed in restraint of Trade was passed one year before the United States enacted the most famous legal statute on competition law, the Sherman Act of 1890. It was named after Senator John Sherman who argued that the Act "does not announce a new principle of law, but applies old and well recognised principles of common law".

United States antitrust
The Sherman Act of 1890 attempted to outlaw the restriction of competition by large companies, who co-operated with rivals to fix outputs, prices and market shares, initially through pools and later through trusts. Trusts first appeared in the US railroads, where the capital requirement of railroad construction precluded competitive services in then scarcely settled territories. This trust allowed railroads to discriminate on rates imposed and services provided to consumers and businesses and to destroy potential competitors. Different trusts could be dominant in different industries. The Standard Oil Company trust in the 1880s controlled several markets, including the market in fuel oil, lead and whiskey. Vast numbers of citizens became sufficiently aware and publicly concerned about how the trusts negatively impacted them that the Act became a priority for both major parties. A primary concern of this act is that competitive markets themselves should provide the primary regulation of prices, outputs, interests and profits. Instead, the Act outlawed anticompetitive practices, codifying the common law restraint of trade doctrine. Rudolph Peritz has argued that competition law in the United States has evolved around two sometimes conflicting concepts of competition: first that of individual liberty, free of government intervention, and second a fair competitive environment free of excessive economic power. Since the enactment of the Sherman Act enforcement of competition law has been based on various economic theories adopted by Government.

Section 1 of the Sherman Act declared illegal "every contract, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations." Section 2 prohibits monopolies, or attempts and conspiracies to monopolize. Following the enactment in 1890 US court applies these principles to business and markets. Courts applied the Act without consistent economic analysis until 1914, when it was complemented by the Clayton Act which specifically prohibited exclusive dealing agreements, particularly tying agreements and interlocking directorates, and mergers achieved by purchasing stock. From 1915 onwards the rule of reason analysis was frequently applied by courts to competition cases. However, the period was characterized by the lack of competition law enforcement. From 1936 to 1972 courts' application of antitrust law was dominated by the structure-conduct-performance paradigm of the Harvard School. From 1973 to 1991, the enforcement of antitrust law was based on efficiency explanations as the Chicago School became dominant, and through legal writings such as Judge Robert Bork's book The Antitrust Paradox. Since 1992 game theory has frequently been used in antitrust cases.

With the Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, mergers and acquisitions came into additional scrutiny from U.S. regulators. Under the act, parties must make a pre-merger notification to the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission prior to the completion of a transaction. As of February 2, 2021, the FTC reduced the Hart-Scott-Rodino reporting threshold to $92 million in combined assets for the transaction.

European Union law
Competition law gained new recognition in Europe in the inter-war years, with Germany enacting its first anti-cartel law in 1923 and Sweden and Norway adopting similar laws in 1925 and 1926 respectively. However, with the Great Depression of 1929 competition law disappeared from Europe and was revived following the Second World War when the United Kingdom and Germany, following pressure from the United States, became the first European countries to adopt fully fledged competition laws. At a regional level EU competition law has its origins in the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) agreement between France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Germany in 1951 following the Second World War. The agreement aimed to prevent Germany from re-establishing dominance in the production of coal and steel as it was felt that this dominance had contributed to the outbreak of the war. Article 65 of the agreement banned cartels and article 66 made provisions for concentrations, or mergers, and the abuse of a dominant position by companies. This was the first time that competition law principles were included in a plurilateral regional agreement and established the trans-European model of competition law. In 1957 competition rules were included in the Treaty of Rome, also known as the EC Treaty, which established the European Economic Community (EEC). The Treaty of Rome established the enactment of competition law as one of the main aims of the EEC through the "institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted". The two central provisions on EU competition law on companies were established in article 85, which prohibited anti-competitive agreements, subject to some exemptions, and article 86 prohibiting the abuse of dominant position. The treaty also established principles on competition law for member states, with article 90 covering public undertakings, and article 92 making provisions on state aid. Regulations on mergers were not included as member states could not establish consensus on the issue at the time.

Today, the Treaty of Lisbon prohibits anti-competitive agreements in Article 101(1), including price fixing. According to Article 101(2) any such agreements are automatically void. Article 101(3) establishes exemptions, if the collusion is for distributional or technological innovation, gives consumers a "fair share" of the benefit and does not include unreasonable restraints that risk eliminating competition anywhere (or compliant with the general principle of European Union law of proportionality). Article 102 prohibits the abuse of dominant position, such as price discrimination and exclusive dealing. Regulation 139/2004/EC governs mergers between firms. The general test is whether a concentration (i.e. merger or acquisition) with a community dimension (i.e. affects a number of EU member states) might significantly impede effective competition. Articles 106 and 107 provide that member state's right to deliver public services may not be obstructed, but that otherwise public enterprises must adhere to the same competition principles as companies. Article 107 lays down a general rule that the state may not aid or subsidize private parties in distortion of free competition and provides exemptions for charities, regional development objectives and in the event of a natural disaster.

Leading ECJ cases on competition law include Consten & Grundig v Commission and United Brands v Commission.

India
India responded positively by opening up its economy by removing controls during the Economic liberalisation. In quest of increasing the efficiency of the nation's economy, the Government of India acknowledged the Liberalization Privatization Globalization era. As a result, Indian market faces competition from within and outside the country. This led to the need of a strong legislation to dispense justice in commercial matters and the Competition Act, 2002 was passed. The history of competition law in India dates back to the 1960s when the first competition law, namely the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (MRTP) was enacted in 1969. But after the economic reforms in 1991, this legislation was found to be obsolete in many aspects and as a result, a new competition law in the form of the Competition Act, 2002 was enacted in 2003. The Competition Commission of India, is the quasi judicial body established for enforcing provisions of the Competition Act.

China
The Anti Monopoly Law of China came into effect in 2008. For years, it was enforced by three different branches of government, but since 2018 its enforcement has been the responsibility of the State Administration for Market Regulation. The People's Daily reported that the law had generated 11 billion RMB of penalties between 2008 and 2018.

International expansion
By 2008 111 countries had enacted competition laws, which is more than 50 percent of countries with a population exceeding 80,000 people. 81 of the 111 countries had adopted their competition laws in the past 20 years, signaling the spread of competition law following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the expansion of the European Union. Currently competition authorities of many states closely co-operate, on everyday basis, with foreign counterparts in their enforcement efforts, also in such key area as information / evidence sharing.

In many of Asia's developing countries, including India, Competition law is considered a tool to stimulate economic growth. In Korea and Japan, the competition law prevents certain forms of conglomerates. In addition, competition law has promoted fairness in China and Indonesia as well as international integration in Vietnam. Hong Kong's Competition Ordinance came into force in the year 2015.

ASEAN member states
As part of the creation of the ASEAN Economic Community, the member states of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) pledged to enact competition laws and policies by the end of 2015. Today, all ten member states have general competition legislation in place. While there remains differences between regimes (for example, over merger control notification rules, or leniency policies for whistle-blowers), and it is unlikely that there will be a supranational competition authority for ASEAN (akin to the European Union), there is a clear trend towards increase in infringement investigations or decisions on cartel enforcement.

Enforcement
Competition law is enforced at the national level through competition authorities, as well as private enforcement. The United States Supreme Court explained:

"Every violation of the antitrust laws is a blow to the free-enterprise system envisaged by Congress. This system depends on strong competition for its health and vigor, and strong competition depends, in turn, on compliance with antitrust legislation. In enacting these laws, Congress had many means at its disposal to penalize violators. It could have, for example, required violators to compensate federal, state, and local governments for the estimated damage to their respective economies caused by the violations. But, this remedy was not selected. Instead, Congress chose to permit all persons to sue to recover three times their actual damages every time they were injured in their business or property by an antitrust violation."

In the European Union, the so-called "Modernisation Regulation", Regulation 1/2003, established that the European Commission was no longer the only body capable of public enforcement of European Union competition law. This was done to facilitate quicker resolution of competition-related inquiries. In 2005 the Commission issued a Green Paper on Damages actions for the breach of the EC antitrust rules, which suggested ways of making private damages claims against cartels easier.

Some EU Member States enforce their competition laws with criminal sanctions. As analysed by Whelan, these types of sanctions engender a number of significant theoretical, legal and practical challenges.

Antitrust administration and legislation can be seen as a balance between:
 * guidelines which are clear and specific to the courts, regulators and business but leave little room for discretion that prevents the application of laws from resulting in unintended consequences.
 * guidelines which are broad, hence allowing administrators to sway between improving economic outcomes versus succumbing to political policies to redistribute wealth.

Chapter 5 of the post-war Havana Charter contained an Antitrust code but this was never incorporated into the WTO's forerunner, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1947. Office of Fair Trading Director and Richard Whish wrote sceptically that it "seems unlikely at the current stage of its development that the WTO will metamorphose into a global competition authority". Despite that, at the ongoing Doha round of trade talks for the World Trade Organization, discussion includes the prospect of competition law enforcement moving up to a global level. While it is incapable of enforcement itself, the newly established International Competition Network (ICN) is a way for national authorities to coordinate their own enforcement activities.

Classical perspective
Under the doctrine of laissez-faire, antitrust is seen as unnecessary as competition is viewed as a long-term dynamic process where firms compete against each other for market dominance. In some markets, a firm may successfully dominate, but it is because of superior skill or innovativeness. However, according to laissez-faire theorists, when it tries to raise prices to take advantage of its monopoly position it creates profitable opportunities for others to compete. A process of creative destruction begins which erodes the monopoly. Therefore, government should not try to break up monopoly but should allow the market to work.

The classical perspective on competition was that certain agreements and business practice could be an unreasonable restraint on the individual liberty of tradespeople to carry on their livelihoods. Restraints were judged as permissible or not by courts as new cases appeared and in the light of changing business circumstances. Hence the courts found specific categories of agreement, specific clauses, to fall foul of their doctrine on economic fairness, and they did not contrive an overarching conception of market power. Earlier theorists like Adam Smith rejected any monopoly power on this basis.

"A monopoly granted either to an individual or to a trading company has the same effect as a secret in trade or manufactures. The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly under-stocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate."

In The Wealth of Nations (1776) Adam Smith also pointed out the cartel problem, but did not advocate specific legal measures to combat them.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."

By the latter half of the 19th century, it had become clear that large firms had become a fact of the market economy. John Stuart Mill's approach was laid down in his treatise On Liberty (1859).

"Again, trade is a social act. Whoever undertakes to sell any description of goods to the public, does what affects the interest of other persons, and of society in general; and thus his conduct, in principle, comes within the jurisdiction of society... both the cheapness and the good quality of commodities are most effectually provided for by leaving the producers and sellers perfectly free, under the sole check of equal freedom to the buyers for supplying themselves elsewhere. This is the so-called doctrine of Free Trade, which rests on grounds different from, though equally solid with, the principle of individual liberty asserted in this Essay. Restrictions on trade, or on production for purposes of trade, are indeed restraints; and all restraint, qua restraint, is an evil..."

Neo-classical synthesis
After Mill, there was a shift in economic theory, which emphasized a more precise and theoretical model of competition. A simple neo-classical model of free markets holds that production and distribution of goods and services in competitive free markets maximizes social welfare. This model assumes that new firms can freely enter markets and compete with existing firms, or to use legal language, there are no barriers to entry. By this term economists mean something very specific, that competitive free markets deliver allocative, productive and dynamic efficiency. Allocative efficiency is also known as Pareto efficiency after the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto and means that resources in an economy over the long run will go precisely to those who are willing and able to pay for them. Because rational producers will keep producing and selling, and buyers will keep buying up to the last marginal unit of possible output – or alternatively rational producers will be reduce their output to the margin at which buyers will buy the same amount as produced – there is no waste, the greatest number wants of the greatest number of people become satisfied and utility is perfected because resources can no longer be reallocated to make anyone better off without making someone else worse off; society has achieved allocative efficiency. Productive efficiency simply means that society is making as much as it can. Free markets are meant to reward those who work hard, and therefore those who will put society's resources towards the frontier of its possible production. Dynamic efficiency refers to the idea that business which constantly competes must research, create and innovate to keep its share of consumers. This traces to Austrian-American political scientist Joseph Schumpeter's notion that a "perennial gale of creative destruction" is ever sweeping through capitalist economies, driving enterprise at the market's mercy. This led Schumpeter to argue that monopolies did not need to be broken up (as with Standard Oil) because the next gale of economic innovation would do the same.

Contrasting with the allocatively, productively and dynamically efficient market model are monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels. When only one or a few firms exist in the market, and there is no credible threat of the entry of competing firms, prices rise above the competitive level, to either a monopolistic or oligopolistic equilibrium price. Production is also decreased, further decreasing social welfare by creating a deadweight loss. Sources of this market power are said to include the existence of externalities, barriers to entry of the market, and the free rider problem. Markets may fail to be efficient for a variety of reasons, so the exception of competition law's intervention to the rule of laissez faire is justified if government failure can be avoided. Orthodox economists fully acknowledge that perfect competition is seldom observed in the real world, and so aim for what is called "workable competition". This follows the theory that if one cannot achieve the ideal, then go for the second best option by using the law to tame market operation where it can.

Chicago school

A group of economists and lawyers, who are largely associated with the University of Chicago, advocate an approach to competition law guided by the proposition that some actions that were originally considered to be anticompetitive could actually promote competition. The U.S. Supreme Court has used the Chicago school approach in several recent cases. One view of the Chicago school approach to antitrust is found in United States Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner's books Antitrust Law and Economic Analysis of Law.

Robert Bork was highly critical of court decisions on United States antitrust law in a series of law review articles and his book The Antitrust Paradox. Bork argued that both the original intention of antitrust laws and economic efficiency was the pursuit only of consumer welfare, the protection of competition rather than competitors. Furthermore, only a few acts should be prohibited, namely cartels that fix prices and divide markets, mergers that create monopolies, and dominant firms pricing predatorily, while allowing such practices as vertical agreements and price discrimination on the grounds that it did not harm consumers. Running through the different critiques of US antitrust policy is the common theme that government interference in the operation of free markets does more harm than good. "The only cure for bad theory," writes Bork, "is better theory." Harvard Law School professor Philip Areeda, who favours more aggressive antitrust policy, in at least one Supreme Court case challenged Robert Bork's preference for non-intervention.

Dominance and monopoly
When firms hold large market shares, consumers risk paying higher prices and getting lower quality products than compared to competitive markets. However, the existence of a very high market share does not always mean consumers are paying excessive prices since the threat of new entrants to the market can restrain a high-market-share firm's price increases. Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power that a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices. Market dominance is connected with decreased innovation and increased political connectedness.

First, it is necessary to determine whether a firm is dominant, or whether it behaves "to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumer". Under EU law, very large market shares raise a presumption that a firm is dominant, which may be rebuttable. If a firm has a dominant position, then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market". Similarly as with collusive conduct, market shares are determined with reference to the particular market in which the firm and product in question is sold. Then although the lists are seldom closed, certain categories of abusive conduct are usually prohibited under the country's legislation. For instance, limiting production at a shipping port by refusing to raise expenditure and update technology could be abusive. Tying one product into the sale of another can be considered abuse too, being restrictive of consumer choice and depriving competitors of outlets. This was the alleged case in Microsoft v. Commission leading to an eventual fine of million for including its Windows Media Player with the Microsoft Windows platform. A refusal to supply a facility which is essential for all businesses attempting to compete to use can constitute an abuse. One example was in a case involving a medical company named Commercial Solvents. When it set up its own rival in the tuberculosis drugs market, Commercial Solvents were forced to continue supplying a company named Zoja with the raw materials for the drug. Zoja was the only market competitor, so without the court forcing supply, all competition would have been eliminated.

Forms of abuse relating directly to pricing include price exploitation. It is difficult to prove at what point a dominant firm's prices become "exploitative" and this category of abuse is rarely found. In one case however, a French funeral service was found to have demanded exploitative prices, and this was justified on the basis that prices of funeral services outside the region could be compared. A more tricky issue is predatory pricing. This is the practice of dropping prices of a product so much that one's smaller competitors cannot cover their costs and fall out of business. The Chicago school considers predatory pricing to be unlikely. However, in France Telecom SA v. Commission a broadband internet company was forced to pay $13.9 million for dropping its prices below its own production costs. It had "no interest in applying such prices except that of eliminating competitors" and was being cross-subsidized to capture the lion's share of a booming market. One last category of pricing abuse is price discrimination. An example of this could be a company offering rebates to industrial customers who export their sugar, but not to customers who are selling their goods in the same market.

Example
According to The World Bank's "Republic of Armenia Accumulation, Competition, and Connectivity Global Competition" report which was published in 2013, the Global Competitiveness Index suggests that Armenia ranks lowest among ECA (Europe and Central Asia) countries in the effectiveness of anti-monopoly policy and the intensity of competition. This low ranking somehow explains the low employment and low incomes in Armenia.

Mergers and acquisitions
A merger or acquisition involves, from a competition law perspective, the concentration of economic power in the hands of fewer than before. This usually means that one firm buys out the shares of another. The reasons for oversight of economic concentrations by the state are the same as the reasons to restrict firms who abuse a position of dominance, only that regulation of mergers and acquisitions attempts to deal with the problem before it arises, ex ante prevention of market dominance. In the United States merger regulation began under the Clayton Act, and in the European Union, under the Merger Regulation 139/2004 (known as the "ECMR"). Competition law requires that firms proposing to merge gain authorization from the relevant government authority. The theory behind mergers is that transaction costs can be reduced compared to operating on an open market through bilateral contracts. Concentrations can increase economies of scale and scope. However often firms take advantage of their increase in market power, their increased market share and decreased number of competitors, which can adversely affect the deal that consumers get. Merger control is about predicting what the market might be like, not knowing and making a judgment. Hence the central provision under EU law asks whether a concentration would, if it went ahead, "significantly impede effective competition... in particular as a result of the creation or strengthening off a dominant position..." and the corresponding provision under US antitrust states similarly,

"No person shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital... of the assets of one or more persons engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where... the effect of such acquisition, of such stocks or assets, or of the use of such stock by the voting or granting of proxies or otherwise, may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly."

What amounts to a substantial lessening of, or significant impediment to competition is usually answered through empirical study. The market shares of the merging companies can be assessed and added, although this kind of analysis only gives rise to presumptions, not conclusions. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index is used to calculate the "density" of the market, or what concentration exists. Aside from the maths, it is important to consider the product in question and the rate of technical innovation in the market. A further problem of collective dominance, or oligopoly through "economic links" can arise, whereby the new market becomes more conducive to collusion. It is relevant how transparent a market is, because a more concentrated structure could mean firms can coordinate their behavior more easily, whether firms can deploy deterrents and whether firms are safe from a reaction by their competitors and consumers. The entry of new firms to the market, and any barriers that they might encounter should be considered. If firms are shown to be creating an uncompetitive concentration, in the US they can still argue that they create efficiencies enough to outweigh any detriment, and similar reference to "technical and economic progress" is mentioned in Art. 2 of the ECMR. Another defense might be that a firm which is being taken over is about to fail or go insolvent, and taking it over leaves a no less competitive state than what would happen anyway. Mergers vertically in the market are rarely of concern, although in AOL/Time Warner the European Commission required that a joint venture with a competitor Bertelsmann be ceased beforehand. The EU authorities have also focused lately on the effect of conglomerate mergers, where companies acquire a large portfolio of related products, though without necessarily dominant shares in any individual market.

Intellectual property, innovation and competition
Competition law has become increasingly intertwined with intellectual property, such as copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and in some jurisdictions trade secrets. It is believed that promotion of innovation through enforcement of intellectual property rights may promote as well as limit competitiveness. The question rests on whether it is legal to acquire monopoly through accumulation of intellectual property rights. In which case, the judgment needs to decide between giving preference to intellectual property rights or to competitiveness:
 * Should antitrust laws accord special treatment to intellectual property.
 * Should intellectual rights be revoked or not granted when antitrust laws are violated.

Concerns also arise over anti-competitive effects and consequences due to:
 * Intellectual properties that are collaboratively designed with consequence of violating antitrust laws (intentionally or otherwise).
 * The further effects on competition when such properties are accepted into industry standards.
 * Cross-licensing of intellectual property.
 * Bundling of intellectual property rights to long-term business transactions or agreements to extend the market exclusiveness of intellectual property rights beyond their statutory duration.
 * Trade secrets, if they remain a secret, having an eternal length of life.

Some scholars suggest that a prize instead of patent would solve the problem of deadweight loss, when innovators got their reward from the prize, provided by the government or non-profit organization, rather than directly selling to the market, see Millennium Prize Problems. However, innovators may accept the prize only when it is at least as much as how much they earn from patent, which is a question difficult to determine.

title: Competition law


text:
Tasciovanus

Celtic gold stater Catuvellauni Tasciovanus.jpg, Tasciovanus, "Hidden Faces" gold stater.

Obv: stylized crescents and wreaths with hidden faces.

Rev: Celtic warrior on horse right, carrying carnyx.]] Tasciovanus (died c. 9 AD) was a historical king of the Catuvellauni tribe before the Roman conquest of Britain.

History
Tasciovanus is known only through numismatic evidence. He appears to have become king of the Catuvellauni c. 20 BC, ruling from Verlamion (the site of modern-day St Albans). He is believed to have moved the tribal capital to that site from an earlier settlement, near modern-day Wheathampstead. For a brief period c. 15–10 BC, he issued coins from Camulodunum (Colchester), apparently supplanting Addedomarus of the Trinovantes. After this, he once again issued his coins from Verlamion, now bearing the legend RICON, for *Rigonos, Common Brittonic for "great/divine/legitimate king". Some of his coins bear other abbreviated names such as "DIAS", "SEGO" and "ANDOCO": these are generally considered to be the names of co-rulers or subordinate kings, but may instead be mint-marks. He died c. AD 9, succeeded by his son Cunobeline, who ruled primarily from Camulodunum. Another son, Epaticcus, expanded his territory westwards into the lands of the Atrebates.

Medieval traditions

A genealogy preserved in the medieval Welsh manuscript British Library Harley MS 3859 (see Harleian genealogies) contains three generations which read "Caratauc map Cinbelin map Teuhant". This is the equivalent of "Caratacus, son of Cunobelinus, son of Tasciovanus", putting the three historical figures in the correct order, although the wrong historical context, the degree of linguistic change suggesting a long period of oral transmission. The remainder of the genealogy contains the names of a sequence of Roman emperors, and two Welsh mythological figures, Guidgen (Gwydion) and Lou (Lleu).

He appears in Geoffrey of Monmouth's fictional Historia Regum Britanniae (1136) as the legendary king Tenvantius, son of Lud. When his father died, he and his older brother Androgeus were still minors, so the kingship of Britain was given to their uncle Cassibelanus. Tenvantius was made Duke of Cornwall and participated in his uncle's defence of Britain against Julius Caesar. Androgeus went to Rome with Caesar, so when Cassibelanus died, Tenvantius succeeded him as king. He was in turn succeeded by his son Kimbelinus (Cunobeline), who had been brought up at the court of Augustus.

In Middle Welsh versions of Geoffrey's Historia, his name appears as Teneufan and Trahayant.

Under the name of Tenewan ap Lludd (Geoffrey of Monmouth's Tenvantius Welshified), he is claimed as a paternal ancestor in the Mostyn Ms. 117 by the Mathrafal Dynasty (The Lleision Tribal Princes) and therefore subsequently the Kings of Rhwng Gwy Y Hafren (The Iorwerthion Tribal Princes) also.

title: Tasciovanus


text:
Black garden ant

The black garden ant (Lasius niger), also known as the common black ant, is a formicine ant, the type species of the subgenus Lasius, which is found across Europe and in some parts of North America, South America, Asia and Australasia. The European species was split into two species; L. niger, which are found in open areas; and L. platythorax, which is found in forest habitats. It is monogynous, meaning colonies contain a single queen.

Lasius niger colonies normally range from 4,000 to 7,000 workers, but can reach 40,000 in rare cases. A Lasius niger queen can live for up to 29 years the longest recorded lifespan for any eusocial insect. Lasius niger queens in the early stages of founding can have two to three other queens in the nest. They will tolerate each other until the first workers come, then it is most likely they will fight until one queen remains. Under laboratory conditions, workers can live at least 4 years.

Lasius niger is host to a number of temporary social parasites of the Lasius mixtus group including Lasius mixtus and Lasius umbratus.

Mating flights
Ants mate on the wing, so "flying ants" are alates (reproductive individuals), which include males and gynes (virgin queens). The mating (or nuptial) flights of Lasius niger usually occur around June to September throughout the species' range; in North America flights usually occur during the autumn, whereas in Europe they generally take place during the hot summer months of July and August. Flights can contain thousands of winged males and females.

Disparities between local weather conditions can cause nuptial flights to be out of phase amongst widespread populations of L. niger. During long-lasting, hot summers, flights can take place simultaneously across the country, but overcast weather with local patches of sunshine results in a far less synchronized emergence of alates.

Once the queens have mated they will land and discard their wings and begin to find a suitable place to dig a tunnel. Meanwhile, males generally only live for a day or two after the mating flights and will then die.

New nest
After removing her wings, a queen will move quickly to find moist ground, then start digging a tunnel. Once the tunnel has been completed, the queen will block the entrance and retreat to the bottom. Subsequently, she will dig out a small chamber. This will serve as the claustral chamber of the new colony. Generally, a queen will begin to lay eggs immediately after the construction of the chamber, and the eggs will develop to imagines in 8–10 weeks. Until the eggs hatch and the larvae grow to maturity, a Lasius niger queen will not eat, relying on the protein of her wing muscles to be broken down and digested. In some cases, a Lasius niger queen may eat her own eggs in order to survive.

Egg to ant
Lasius niger, like other ants, have four stages of development: egg, larva, pupa, and adult. Lasius niger lay tiny, white, kidney-shaped eggs with a smooth sticky surface which helps them to be carried in a group instead of one by one. After hatching Lasius niger proceed onto the larva stage resembling tiny maggots. The larvae need to be fed by the queen (or workers in the case of an established colony) if they are to mature; as they feed the larvae grow, shedding their skin, doing so usually three times in total. With each molt, the larvae grow hooked hairs which allow them to be carried in groups. When Lasius niger larvae reach the last molt they are generally too big to be carried as part of a group and so are carried individually. Once the larva grows big enough it spins a cocoon around itself. To aid this process a queen (or workers) may bury the larva so that it can spin its cocoon undisturbed, and begin a process of metamorphosis. Once the process is complete the Lasius niger worker emerges from the cocoon. At this stage, the callow worker is completely white but will darken over the course of an hour until it has turned black.

Colony established
The first worker ants that emerge are very small compared to later generations. At this point the workers immediately begin to expand the nest and care for the queen and brood; they eventually remove the seal from the entrance to the nest and begin to forage above ground. This is a critical time for the colony as they need to gather food quickly to support future growth and particularly to feed the starved queen, who would have lost around 50% of her body weight. From this point on the queen's egg laying output will increase significantly, becoming the queen's sole function. The later generations of worker ants will be bigger, stronger and more aggressive because there is more nutrition for them at the larval stage. The initial brood being fed only by the scarce resources available to a queen will be much smaller than brood supported by a team of foraging and nursing workers. Provided workers are able to find food, at this stage the colony will see an exponential rise in population. After several years, once the colony is well established, the queen will lay eggs that will become queens and males. Black ants often make large nests with extensive tunnel connections.

Quarantine behavior
When building their colony, the ants structure it so as to inhibit the transmission of different contagions. Different communities within the colony are segregated by a limited number of connective nodes, allowing for greater protection of vulnerable hive members, such as larvae and pupae, and the queen.

Additionally, individual infected ants have been observed as spending more time foraging outside of the hive, venturing farther than other ants, and limiting their interactions once within the hive again.

Long-lived queens
Although worker ants live for a couple of months, queens typically survive for almost 15 years but there have been instances of queens living up to 29 years, the longest recorded lifespan for any eusocial insect. Understanding the basis for the greater longevity of queens has a bearing on the general unsolved problem in biology of the causes of aging. In the study of long-lived queen ants it was found that queens have a higher expression than genetically identical workers of genes involved in processing damaged macromolecules. Genes with higher expression included those that are necessary for repair of DNA damage (see DNA damage theory of aging) and genes involved in proteasome-mediated, ubiquitin-dependent, protein catabolic processes.

Mutualisms

Lasius niger removes predators such as ladybirds from the vicinity of black bean aphid thus keeping their "milch cows" safe. On a test plot of field beans (Vicia faba), plants without black bean aphids yielded an average of 56 seeds per plant, those with aphids and no ants yielded 17 seeds, and those with both ants and aphids averaged eight seeds per plant. Vicia faba also produces extrafloral nectaries that Lasius niger can feed from directly.

The Plebejus argus butterfly lays eggs near nests of L. niger, forming a mutualistic relationship. This mutualistic relationship benefits the adult butterfly by reducing the need for parental investment. Once the eggs hatch, the ants chaperone the larvae, averting the attacks of predatory organisms like wasps and spiders as well as parasites. In return, the ants receive a saccharine secretion fortified with amino acids from an eversible gland on the larvae's back. As first instar larvae prepare to pupate, the ants carry the larvae into their nests. Once the larvae become pupae, the ants continue to provide protection against predation and parasitism. The butterfly leaves the nest when it emerges in June.

title: Black garden ant


text:
Talk:Patriots' Day

Massachusetts
I had no idea this was not a national holiday before I moved away from Boston to the west coast.

The fact that we now have the national day of Patriot Day confused everyone to whom I asked here whether or not we get Patriot's Day off.

Patriot's Day is a state government and bank holiday (in Massachusetts), it is sometimes also a work holiday but this varies among employers. (Smaller locally-based companies are more likely to honor the day this way than national and multinational companies.)

KeithTyler — Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Wisconsin
Someone put Wisconsin on the list of states celebrating it. The Wisconsin Statutes, section 895.20 Legal holidays, does not include Patriot's Day. I did find that the public schools take it as a holiday (http://dpi.wi.gov/eis/observe.html). --Mark Adler 22:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Future dates
Is this section really necessary? It'll have to be updated every year, which is really needless work. -- LGagnon 19:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Nah, not really. I was just adding some mildly helpful info.  It doesn't need to be updated every year, because we already know the next three years.  But, still, it's OK to delete it if you'd rather. —Mark Adler (markles)  00:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think a future date section is needed since it's easily predictable. (3rd Monday in April) It's holidays that are based on Lunar Calendars that need future dates. (Most or all Jewish Holidays, some Christian Holidays, etc.) Joncnunn 14:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

District of Columbia
Patriot's Day is also a legal holiday in the District of Columbia and IRS allows the extra day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackacregirl (talk • contribs) 15:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

 * This isn't true.  DC and other areas got the extra day for tax returns because the IRS processing center is in MA, where it is a legal holiday.  - Severinus 19:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * This is probably confusing because there was nothing preventing those outside of MA from going to their post office on the 17th. Joncnunn 15:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The confusion is understandable, but the April holiday in the District of Columbia is Emancipation Day, first recognized in 2005.   It's now coninciding with the tax filing date and Patriots' Day.  The IRS explains how it's the DC holiday, with its ripple effect on many federal activities nationwide, that is causing the extension.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.166.223 (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

 * The original poster was correct. Here is the announcement on the IRS web site. "the following day, Monday, April 16, is Emancipation Day, a legal holiday in the District of Columbia.".  It doesn't make sense the way you said it.  There is more than one IRS processing center and in the past when Patriot's day fell on Tax Day only the states serviced by the Andover,MA preccessing center got the extension.  This year all states get the extension. APL 21:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Tax Day
Umm, can someone explain this to me... if Patriots Day is today (Wednesday, April 19th), how did it delay Tax Day for those of us in the Northeast USA? It shouldn't have affected anything. I'm kinda lost on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostalker (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

 * "Since 1969, however, the holiday has been observed on the third Monday." April 17 was Patriot's Day, not April 19.  And April 17th was Tax Day.  Hence the delay. -Severinus 21:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, Connecticut federal tax returns are now filed to Kansas City. No Patriots' Day extra day for us.
 * Lux Interior — Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 * My editing is not the best so if someone else wants to add this I have included the link to the info on the IRS website. This year due to the Noreaster that hit, certain states were granted an additional 2 days for taxes bringing the deadline to April 19th.  Thay have to write "April 16 Storm" on the return.  Here is link.  :::http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=169523,00.html
 * Oa164 — Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tax deadline extensions for Patriots' Day are properly part of this article. Tax problems caused by weather have no place here, nor do the effects of Emancipation Day. Weather and Emancipation Day do not belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oklahoma City Bombing
This event did not occur on Patriots' Day. It occurred on April 19, but in 1995, Patriots' Day was on April 17. I think this link should be removed, as it's confusing and irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.39.88.241 (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 * It depends what date you want to use as Patriots' Day -- the original, traditional date or the currently observed date. The bombing occurred on the anniversary of the Battle of Lexington and Concord and it is that anniversary that Patriots' Day celebrates.  The bombing's date was chosen not because it was Patriots' Day but because it was the anniversary of the bombing.  The bombing was the bomber's way to marking the anniversary.  Should it be mentioned here?  I think so, but only in passing because it is connected though not in a casual way. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Third monday?
According to the article, Patriot's day is the third Monday of April. The article also lists April 19th, 2010, as a previous Patriot's Day, and April 21st, 2014, as a future Patriot's Day.

Both of these dates are on the 4th Monday of April for that year. What gives? Other sources describe the same "Third Monday" rule, but this doesn't seem to be so. --173.166.106.34 (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

 * No - check your calendars again. They are both the third Monday of the month.- DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Petition to make it a National Holiday
There is currently a White House petition to make Patriots' Day a National Holiday. - Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm pretty sure a failed internet petition is not encyclopedia material. Besides, are you sure it was a petition about Patriots Day, the anniversary of Lexington and Concord battles, and not the September 11 "Patriot Day"? - Kzirkel (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Menotomy
User:RavensAtRest, thank you for your additions re the Battle of Menotomy, but... I'm not finding any sources that Patriot's day was established to commemorate that battle. Maybe it should have been, but that's entirely different.

For instance, this article about North Dakota joining the bandwagon says "Patriots' Day commemorates the battles of Lexington and Concord, which were the first battles of the Revolutionary War.". That could be just the writer's interpretation, but that seems to be the common understanding, I think.

I'd like to see Governor Frederic T. Greenhalge 1894 proclamation, but I don't have it. But the article does say "In 1894 the Lexington Historical Society petitioned the Massachusetts State Legislature to proclaim April 19 as 'Lexington Day'. Concord countered with 'Concord Day'. Governor Frederic T. Greenhalge opted for a compromise: Patriots' Day". No mention of Metonomy, and it sounds like -- for better or worse, and as unfair to Arlington as it might be -- that the battles of Lexington and Concord may have been in play, and no others.

So I've rolled all that back for the present. There's also some promotional stuff about tours, and some speculation as to reasons for Menotomy to be unincluded, so... there's good stuff in there too, and I'm thinking that best approach would be to create an article Battle of Menotomy and point to that from here. Herostratus (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

 * Herostratus - thank you for your explanation of why you chose to undo my work. I have read it carefully and given it some thought.Based on my evaluation of the information you have provided, specifically your reliance on a news article from a Bismarck, North Dakota newspaper, I have restored my work. RavensAtRestRavensAtRest (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)--RavensAtRest (talk) 03:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

 * , this is fine. I'm not going to object, let's leave it in for now. We want to get this right, and there's no hurry.
 * As we discussed on your talk page, we definitely need an article Battle of Menotomy. So here's, using the material here or other material. (If you don't want to or are too busy, that's fine, I'll do it myself eventually.)
 * We can put a lot of the material that you've added here into that article, and more. This does not (necessarily) mean that the material can't be in this article also, or some of it. Also, Battles of Lexington and Concord could have its Menotomy material expanded (a little maybe; that article is already pretty long). That article presents the fight as one running battle, from Lexington to Concord and back to Boston, all under the title "Battles of Lexington and Concord". But breaking out the action at Menotomy will be good tho, in any case. Herostratus (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wisconsin and North Dakota
Why those states, out of all states not in New England? More info needed. 2A00:23C3:E284:900:25B9:611:9D20:EEA8 (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant material about Menotomy battle should be removed
I have commented out, and want to remove, several sentences from the History section that are irrelevant to this article. They talk about "the biggest battle fought on this day was in the town of Menotomy, now Arlington, Massachusetts" rather than Lexington or Concord - which may be true but has nothing to do with Patriot's Day.

Any thoughts? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 * A good edit was made but IMHO it still had way too much detail about the Menotomy battle - I have commented it out to see what people think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree, David. The battle information was obscuring the important paragraphs about the history Patriots' Day. The article about the Battle of Menotomy is the right place for such detail. I left it, as a single condensed paragraph, only because some editors object to editing early American history as vigorously as anything else.
 * I would be happy to delete the paragraph and integrate it into the article about the battle. With your support, I will proceed boldly.
 * Incidentally, I found my way to the article about Patriots' Day after exploring the article about patriots. I wanted to find out when the revolutionaries began calling themselves Patriots. See my talk topic there. The 1894 proclamation in Massachusetts is the earliest official use of the term that I have found. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Excellent - go for it! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Patriots' Day


text:
User talk:Scousefreddy

Your ads have been deleted. Please do not place ads here.

UninvitedCompany 22:12, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Blacks.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Blacks.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Scousefreddy


text:
Porirua City Council

The Porirua City Council is the territorial authority for the city of Porirua, New Zealand.

The council is made up of a mayor elected at-large and 10 councillors elected from two general wards (Onepoto General Ward and Pāuatahanui General Ward) and one Māori ward (Parirua Māori Ward). They are elected using a single transferable vote system in triennial elections, with the most recent election being held in 2022.

The current mayor is.

History
Local Government in the Porirua basin began on 1 June 1854 with the Porirua Road Board being declared in the Wellington Provincial Council Gazette. Road boards were set up by the provincial governments to develop and maintain local and district roads.

The first election for the Porirua Road District, held under the District Highways Act 1856, took place on 20 September 1856. On 7th November 1864, the Takapu Road District was declared and wardens for the district were elected annually. The Wellington Highway District Board (Hutt County) was given control of the district in 1872.

In 1876, Makara and Porirua ridings were made part of the Karori-Makara Highway Board and elections were conducted. Later that year, Porirua was established as one of six ridings making up Hutt County, which in turn was established by the Counties Act 1876 as one of 12 counties which would replace the Wellington Province. It elected 2 councillors to the Hutt County Council.

In 1908, Makara County was separated from Hutt County, amalgamating the Porirua riding with the Makara riding and Tawa. The first elections for Makara County were held on 28 January 1908.

Following the construction of a new business district on the site of the village of Porirua beginning in the 1950s, the autonomous Borough of Porirua was established on 1 September 1962, the day after Makara County was abolished. The rest of what had been the Makara County was re-incorporated into Hutt County as the Makara Riding. Tawa had already separated from the county to form its own Town Board in 1951.

Porirua was declared to be a city in 1965 by Governor-general Sir Bernard Fergusson.

On 1 April 1973, the city of Porirua was expanded to include large areas to the north-east and some to the south, transferred from Hutt County, along with Mana Island. In 1988, it was further expanded to include the Horokiri riding, which contained most of Whitby and large rural areas, before Hutt County was abolished in the 1989 local government reforms, which transferred to Wellington City most of the southern fringe areas that had been added in 1973 - notably the Takapu Valley and Arohata.

Council and committees
The elected mayor and councillors provide governance for the city by setting the policy direction of the council, monitoring its performance, representing the city's interests, and employing the Chief Executive.

The Chief Executive is in charge of the administration of the council and employs all other council staff to achieve its strategic priorities. The Chief Executive is currently Wendy Walker.

Wards
The 10 councillors are elected from three wards: Onepoto General Ward, Pāuatahanui General Ward, and Parirua Māori Ward.

Candidates standing in the general wards are elected by voters registered on the general electoral roll, while those standing in the Māori ward are elected by voters registered on the Māori electoral roll.

Parirua Māori Ward
The Parirua Māori Ward elects 1 councillor and covers the whole city of Porirua.

The Parirua Māori Ward was established following a council vote in May 2021, a representation review and an appeal to the Local Government Commission which upheld its establishment.

Onepoto General Ward
The Onepoto General Ward elects 5 councillors and covers: • Rangituhi / Colonial Knob

• Elsdon

• Kenepuru

• Mana Island

• Onepoto

• Porirua Central

• Takapūwāhia

• Tītahi Bay

• Aotea

• Ascot Park

• Cannons Creek

• Rānui

• Waitangirua

Pāuatahanui General Ward
The Pāuatahanui General Ward elects 4 councillors and covers: • Camborne

• Hongoeka

• Judgeford

• Karehana Bay

• Mana

• Paekākāriki Hill

• Papakōwhai

• Paremata

• Pāuatahanui

• Plimmerton

• Pukerua Bay

• Whitby

Coat of arms
Porirua City was granted a Coat of Arms by the Earl Marshal of England on 1 December 1965. The city officially adopted the coat of arms via a bylaw on 27 November 1969.

Notable councillors

 * Whitford Brown, the first Mayor of Porirua
 * Ken Douglas, trade union leader
 * Ken Gray, All Black
 * Gary McCormick, poet, radio and television personality
 * Helen Smith, first member of the Values Party to be elected to local government
 * Rex Willing

External link

 * Official website

title: Porirua City Council


text:
Provinces of Zambia

Zambia is divided into 10 provinces for administrative purposes. Each province is headed by a minister appointed by the President and there are ministries of central government for each province. The administrative head of each province is the Permanent Secretary, appointed by the President. There are Deputy Permanent Secretary, heads of government departments and civil servants at the provincial level.

Provinces are further divided into districts and almost all the district headquarters are the same as the district names. Each of the 116 districts in the 10 provinces has a council which is headed by an elected representative, called councilor. Each councilor holds office for five years. Each council is responsible for raising and collecting local taxes and the budgets of the council are audited and submitted every year after the annual budget. Zambia has predominantly rural provinces and hence there are only four municipal councils. The government stipulates 63 different functions for the councils with the majority of them being infrastructure management and local administration.

Western Province is the largest in terms of area, having 126386 km2, while Lusaka is the smallest with 21896 km2. In terms of population, Lusaka is the most populated and most densely populated with a population of 2,191,225 and density of 100 persons per square kilometre.

Agriculture is the major profession in most of the provinces in Zambia. Maize, mixed beans, rice, sorghum, soya beans, sunflower, sweet potatoes and wheat are the major crops in the provinces. Among all provinces, Central has the maximum area of 391593.23 ha constituting 20.64 per cent of the totals, while Luapula has the smallest area at 3.06 per cent.

Administration
Provincial government is set up purely for administrative purposes. Each province is headed by a minister appointed by the President and there are ministries of central government for each province. The administrative head of each province is the Permanent Secretary, appointed by the President. There are Deputy Permanent Secretary, heads of government departments and civil servants at the provincial level. Provinces are further divided into districts and almost all the district headquarters are the same as the district names. Each of the 116 districts in the 10 provinces has a council which is headed by an elected representative, called councilor. Each councilor holds office for three years. The administrative staff of the council is selected based on Local Government Service Commission from within or outside the district. The office of the provincial government is located in each of the district headquarters and has provincial local government officers and auditors. Each council is responsible for raising and collecting local taxes and the budgets of the council are audited and submitted every year after the annual budget. The elected members of the council do not draw salaries, but are paid allowances from the council. Zambia has predominantly rural provinces and hence there are only four city councils (Lusaka; Ndola; Kitwe; Chipata) as of 2017. The government stipulates 63 different functions for the councils with the majority of them being infrastructure management and local administration. Councils are mandated to maintain each of their community centres, zoos, local parks, drainage system, playgrounds, cemeteries, caravan sites, libraries, museums and art galleries. They also work along with specific government departments for helping in agriculture, conservation of natural resources, postal service, establishing and maintaining hospitals, schools and colleges. The councils prepare schemes that encourage community participation.

Primary data
Western Province is the largest in terms of area, having 126,386 km2, while Lusaka was the smallest with 21,896 km2. In terms of population, Lusaka is the most populated and most densely populated with a population of 2,191,225 and densf 100 persons per km2. As of 2010, Western Province had the best sex ratio of 108 females for every 100 males, while Copperbelt had the lowest of 101. Northern had the highest number of basic schools, while Copperbelt had the highest number of high schools. The unemployment rate of youth (55%) and general unemployment rate (32%) was the highest in Copperbelt province, while Eastern had the lowest unemployment rate of 6 per cent. AIDS death was maximum in Copperbelt with 26,799 recorded deaths in 2010, while it was lowest in North-Western with 2,859 recorded deaths. Lusaka Province had the most doctors and fewest malaria related incidents, while North-Western has the lowest number of doctors.

Economy
Agriculture is the major profession in most of the provinces in Zambia. Maize, mixed beans, rice, sorghum, soya beans, sunflower, sweet potatoes and wheat are the major crops in the provinces. Among all provinces, Central had the maximum area, 391593.23 ha, constituting 20.64 per cent of the total, while Luapula had the smallest area at 3.06 per cent. Maize production was maximum in Eastern (22.5%), mixed beans (51.66%) in Northern, sorghum in Southern (40.62%), sunflower in Eastern (70.2%), soya beans (45.06%), sweet potatoes (28.5%) and wheat (49.51%) in Central Province.

Human Development
This is a list of 9 provinces by Human Development Index as of 2017.

title: Provinces of Zambia


text:
Debt of developing countries

The debt of developing countries usually refers to the external debt incurred by governments of developing countries.

There have been several historical episodes of governments of developing countries borrowing in quantities beyond their ability to repay. "Unpayable debt" is external debt with interest that exceeds what the country's politicians think they can collect from taxpayers, based on the nation's gross domestic product, thus preventing it from ever being repaid. The debt can result from many causes.

Some of the high levels of debt were amassed following the 1973 oil crisis. Increases in oil prices forced many poorer nations' governments to borrow heavily to purchase politically essential supplies. At the same time, OPEC funds deposited and "recycled" through western banks provided a ready source of funds for loans. While a portion of borrowed funds went towards infrastructure and economic development financed by central governments, a portion was lost to corruption and about one-fifth was spent on arms.

Debt abolition
There is much debate about whether the richer countries should be asked for money which has to be repaid. The Jubilee Debt Campaign gives six reasons why the third world debts should be cancelled. Firstly, several governments want to spend more money on poverty reduction but they lose that money in paying off their debts. Economist Jeff Rubin agrees with this stance on the basis that the money could have been used for basic human needs and says it is odious debt. Secondly, the lenders knew that they gave to dictators or oppressive regimes and thus, they are responsible for their actions, not the people living in the countries of those regimes. For example, South Africa has been paying off $22 billion which was lent to stimulate the apartheid regime. They have yet to recover from this, their external debt has increased to $136.6 billion while the number of people in the housing backlog has increased to 2.1 million from 1994's 1.5 million. Also, many lenders knew that a great proportion of the money would sometime be stolen through corruption. Next, the developing projects that some loans would support were often unwisely led and failed because of the lender's incompetence. Also, many of the debts were signed with unfair terms, several of the loan takers have to pay the debts in foreign currency such as dollars, which make them vulnerable to world market changes. The unfair terms can make a loan extremely expensive, many of the loan takers have already paid the sum they loaned several times, but the debt grows faster than they can repay it. Finally, many of the loans were contracted illegally, not following proper processes.

A seventh reason for canceling out some debts is that the money loaned by banks is generally created out of thin air, sometimes subject to a small capital adequacy requirement imposed by such institutions as the Bank of International Settlements. Maurice Félix Charles Allais, 1988 winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, commented on this by stating: "The 'miracles' performed by credit are fundamentally comparable to the 'miracles' an association of counterfeiters could perform for its benefit by lending its forged banknotes in return for interest. In both cases, the stimulus to the economy would be the same, and the only difference is who benefits."

Consequences of debt abolition
Some people argue against forgiving debt on the basis that it would motivate countries to default on their debts, or to deliberately borrow more than they can afford, and that it would not prevent a recurrence of the problem. Economists refer to this as a moral hazard. It would also be difficult to determine which debt is odious. Moreover, investors could stop lending to developing countries entirely.

Debt as a mechanism in economic crisis
An example of debt playing a role in economic crisis was the 1998–2002 Argentine great depression. During the 1980s, Argentina, like many Latin American economies, experienced hyperinflation. As a part of the process put in place to bring inflation under control, a fixed exchange rate was put into place between Argentina's new currency and the US dollar. This guaranteed that inflation would not restart, since for every new unit of currency issued by the Argentine Central Bank, the Central Bank had to hold a US dollar against this – therefore in order to print more Argentine currency, the government required additional US dollars. Before this currency regime was in place, if the government had needed money to finance a budget deficit, it could simply print more money (thus creating inflation). Under the new system, if the government spent more than it earned through taxation in a given year, it needed to cover the gap with US dollars, rather than by simply printing more money. The only way the government could get these US dollars to finance the gap was through higher tax of exporters' earnings or through borrowing the needed US dollars. A fixed exchange rate was incompatible with a structural (i.e., recurrent) budget deficit, as the government needed to borrow more US Dollars every year to finance its budget deficit, eventually leading to an unsustainable amount of US dollar debt.

Argentina's debt grew continuously during the 1990s, increasing to above US$120 billion. As a structural budget deficit continued, the government kept borrowing more, creditors continued to lend money, while the IMF suggested less state spending to stop the government's ongoing need to keep borrowing more and more. As the debt pile grew, it became increasingly clear the government's structural budget deficit was not compatible with a low inflation fixed exchange rate – either the government had to start earning as much as it spent, or it had to start (inflationary) printing of money (and thus abandoning the fixed exchange rate as it would not be able to borrow the needed amounts of US dollars to keep the exchange rate stable). Investors started to speculate that the government would never stop spending more than it earned, and so there was only one option for the government – inflation and the abandonment of the fixed exchange rate. In a similar fashion to Black Wednesday, investors began to sell the Argentine currency, betting it would become worthless against the US dollar when the inevitable inflation started. This became a self-fulfilling prophecy, quickly leading to the government's US dollar reserves being exhausted. The crisis led to riots in December 2001. In 2002, a default on about $93 billion of the debt was declared. Investment fled the country, and capital flow towards Argentina ceased almost completely.

The Argentine government met severe challenges trying to refinance the debt. Some creditors denounced the default as sheer robbery. Vulture funds who had acquired debt bonds during the crisis, at very low prices, asked to be repaid immediately. For four years, Argentina was effectively shut out of the international financial markets.

Argentina finally got a deal by which 77% of the defaulted bonds were exchanged by others, of a much lower nominal value and at longer terms. The exchange was not accepted by the rest of the private debt holders, who continue to challenge the government to repay them a greater percentage of the money which they originally loaned. The holdouts have formed groups such as American Task Force Argentina to lobby the Argentine government, in addition to seeking redress by attempting to seize Argentine foreign reserves.

In 2016, Argentina cancelled its debt with the holdout creditors, which received returns in the order of the hundreds of percentage points.

The determinants of external debt crises in developing countries
Some of the major risk factors which increase the probability of the external debt crises in developing countries include high level of inflation, relatively large share of short term debt in external debt, denomination of the debt in foreign currency, decrease of the terms of trade over time, unsustainable total debt service relative to GNI, high income inequality, and high share of agriculture in GDP. At the same time, holding foreign exchange reserves is a strong protective measure against an external debt crisis.

Recent debt relief
37 impoverished countries have recently received partial or full cancellation of loans from foreign governments and international financial institutions, such as the IMF and World Bank under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, see table below. A further two countries, Eritrea and Sudan, are in the process towards full debt relief; Zimbabwe has unsustainable debt but has not made the reforms necessary to participate in the program.

Under the Jubilee 2000 banner, a coalition of groups joined together to demand debt cancellation at the G7 meeting in Cologne, Germany. As a result, finance ministers of the world's wealthiest nations agreed to debt relief on loans owed by qualifying countries.

A 2004 World Bank/IMF study found that in countries receiving debt relief, poverty reduction initiatives doubled between 1999 and 2004. Tanzania used savings to eliminate school fees, hire more teachers, and build more schools. Burkina Faso drastically reduced the cost of life-saving drugs and increased access to clean water. Uganda more than doubled school enrollment.

In 2005, the Make Poverty History campaign, mounted in the run-up to the G8 Summit in Scotland, brought the issue of debt once again to the attention of the media and world leaders. Some have claimed that it was the Live 8 concerts which were instrumental in raising the profile of the debt issue at the G8, but these were announced after the Summit pre-negotiations had essentially agreed the terms of the debt announcement made at the Summit, and so can only have been of marginal utility. Make Poverty History, in contrast, had been running for five months prior to the Live 8 announcement and, in form of the Jubilee 2000 campaign (of which Make Poverty History was essentially a re-branding) for ten years. Debt cancellation for the 18 countries qualifying under this new initiative has also brought impressive results on paper. For example, it has been reported that Zambia used savings to significantly increase its investment in health, education, and rural infrastructure. The fungibility of savings from debt service makes such claims difficult to establish. Under the terms of the G8 debt proposal, the funding sources available to Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) are also curtailed; some researchers have argued that the net financial benefit of the G8 proposals is negligible, even though on paper the debt burden seems temporarily alleviated.

The 2005 HIPC agreement did not wipe all debt from HIPC countries, as is stated in the article. The total debt has been reduced by two-thirds, so that their debt service obligations fall to less than 2 million in one year. While celebrating the successes of these individual countries, debt campaigners continue to advocate for the extension of the benefits of debt cancellation to all countries that require cancellation to meet basic human needs and as a matter of justice.

To assist in the reinvestment of released capital, most international financial institutions provide guidelines indicating probable shocks, programs to reduce a country's vulnerability through export diversification, food buffer stocks, enhanced climate prediction methods, more flexible and reliable aid disbursement mechanisms by donors, and much higher and more rapid contingency financing. Sometimes outside experts are brought to control the country's financial institutions.

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake
When the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami hit, the G7 announced a moratorium on debts of twelve affected nations and the Paris Club suspended loan payments of three more. By the time the Paris Club met in January 2005, its 19 member-countries had pledged $3.4 billion in aid to the countries affected by the tsunami.

The debt relief for tsunami-affected nations was not universal. Sri Lanka was left with a debt of more than $8 billion and an annual debt service bill of $493 million. Indonesia retained a foreign debt of more than $132 billion and debt service payments to the World Bank amounted to $1.9 billion in 2006. In 2015 the total debt of Sri Lanka is $55 billion. Some of this is due to borrowing to help with infrastructure and some of it is due to corruption. The last time they sought help from the IMF was 2009, they received a $2.6 billion loan. They have yet to recover from the tsunami.

G8 Summit 2005: aid to Africa and debt cancellation
The traditional meeting of G8 finance ministers before the summit took place in London on 10 and 11 June 2005, hosted by then-Chancellor Gordon Brown. On 11 June, agreement was reached to write off the entire US$40 billion debt owed by 18 Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the African Development Fund. The annual saving in debt payments amounts to just over US$1 billion. War on Want estimates that US$45.7 billion would be required for 62 countries to meet the Millennium Development Goals. The ministers stated that twenty more countries, with an additional US$15 billion in debt, would be eligible for debt relief if they met targets on fighting corruption and continue to fulfill structural adjustment conditionalities that eliminate impediments to investment and calls for countries to privatize industries, liberalize their economies, eliminate subsidies, and reduce budgetary expenditures. The agreement came into force in July 2006 and has been called the "Multilateral Debt Reduction Initiative", MDRI. It can be thought of as an extension of the HIPC initiative. This decision was heavily influenced and applauded by international development organizations like Jubilee 2000 and the ONE Campaign.

Opponents of debt cancellation suggested that structural adjustment policies should be continued. Structural adjustments had been criticized for years for devastating poor countries. For example, in Zambia, structural adjustment reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s included massive cuts to health and education budgets, the introduction of user fees for many basic health services and for primary education, and the cutting of crucial programs such as child immunization initiatives.

Criticism of G8 debt exceptions
Countries that qualify for the HIPC process will only have debts to the World Bank, IMF and African Development Bank canceled. Criticism was raised over the exceptions to this agreement as Asian countries will still have to repay debt to the Asian Development Bank and Latin American countries will still have to repay debt to the Inter-American Development Bank. Between 2006 and 2010 this amounts to US$1.4 billion for the qualifying Latin American countries of Bolivia, Guyana, Honduras and Nicaragua.

title: Debt of developing countries