<blockquote>
<p>So, from my understanding, the normative theory is: anticollusion is good for consumers based on the thought of the policymakers; the positive theory is that due to the logical relation that anticollusion breaks the cartels, the market become more competitive, and consumer gain more consumer surplus, progressing consumers' advantage.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As the other +1 answer  states both statements appear to be positive. I would change the first sentence &quot;we <strong>should</strong> have anti-trust laws as they are good for consumers&quot;. This change is subtle but the should/ought is important. For example, it is empirical question if anti-trust is good for consumers, but it is moral question if we should actually do what is good for consumers (some industry lobbist could argue screw consumer do whats good for producer). Also, if you are still somewhat unclear about this I recommend reading J. Reiss Philosophy of Economics: A Contemporary Introduction, it is undergraduate text so it is easy to read and covers these issues with more nuance.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And empirical result is we did some empirical result to prove that asset growth increase after laws statistically.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is also correct, but note empirical results are by definition part of the positive economics, so this is not a separate category. Statement: &quot;asset growth increase after laws statistically&quot; is positive statement, and you came to that conclusion based on some empirical result.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-20T07:29:16.200Z
2021-08-20T07:35:54.610Z
2021-08-20T07:35:54.610Z
1muflon1
<p>Following up a <a href="https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/47277/33142">pretty long but very informative discussion with 1muflon1</a>, I want to expand and merge with consumer surplus to have a big picture.</p>
<p>In research of <a href="https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article/32/7/2587/5079300?login=true" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dasgupta, 2019</a> about that after antitrust, firms expand their asset growth and fund such asset expansion mainly by equity issuance. So, from my understanding, the <strong>normative theory</strong> is: anticollusion is good for consumers based on the thought of the policymakers; the <strong>positive theory</strong> is that due to the logical relation that anticollusion breaks the cartels, the market become more competitive, and consumer gain more <strong>consumer surplus</strong>, progressing consumers' advantage. And <strong>empirical result</strong> is we did some empirical result to prove that asset growth increase after laws statistically.</p>
<p>Is it a correct thought?</p>

<theory><soft-question>
Curiousity the validity of an example of normative, positive and consumer surplus?
Phil Nguyen
# Curiousity the validity of an example of normative, positive and consumer surplus?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-08-19)

Following up a [pretty long but very informative discussion with username_1](https://economics.stackexchange.com/a/47277/33142), I want to expand and merge with consumer surplus to have a big picture.

In research of [Dasgupta, 2019](https://academic.oup.com/rfs/article/32/7/2587/5079300?login=true) about that after antitrust, firms expand their asset growth and fund such asset expansion mainly by equity issuance. So, from my understanding, the **normative theory** is: anticollusion is good for consumers based on the thought of the policymakers; the **positive theory** is that due to the logical relation that anticollusion breaks the cartels, the market become more competitive, and consumer gain more **consumer surplus**, progressing consumers' advantage. And **empirical result** is we did some empirical result to prove that asset growth increase after laws statistically.

Is it a correct thought?

**Tags:** theory, soft-question


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2021-08-20. Score: 1

> So, from my understanding, the normative theory is: anticollusion is good for consumers based on the thought of the policymakers; the positive theory is that due to the logical relation that anticollusion breaks the cartels, the market become more competitive, and consumer gain more consumer surplus, progressing consumers' advantage.

As the other +1 answer states both statements appear to be positive. I would change the first sentence "we **should** have anti-trust laws as they are good for consumers". This change is subtle but the should/ought is important. For example, it is empirical question if anti-trust is good for consumers, but it is moral question if we should actually do what is good for consumers (some industry lobbist could argue screw consumer do whats good for producer). Also, if you are still somewhat unclear about this I recommend reading J. Reiss Philosophy of Economics: A Contemporary Introduction, it is undergraduate text so it is easy to read and covers these issues with more nuance.

> And empirical result is we did some empirical result to prove that asset growth increase after laws statistically.

This is also correct, but note empirical results are by definition part of the positive economics, so this is not a separate category. Statement: "asset growth increase after laws statistically" is positive statement, and you came to that conclusion based on some empirical result.


---

