Question 2 10 pts In the most recent political cycle, antitrust received some renewed attention, albeit minor. In a 2019 interview, Senator Bernie Sanders (VT), then a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, had the following exchange with Washington Post reporter Robert Costa [link = ]: "SEN. SANDERS: . I think we need vigorous antitrust legislation in this country because you are seeing-- you name the area, whether it's pharmaceuticals, whether it is Wall Street, whether it is high tech--fewer and fewer gigantic corporations owning those sectors, and we need an Attorney General who I would appoint, who understands antitrust law, who believes in competition, who would break up these huge corporations. MR. COSTA: So a Sanders administration would have [a] DOJ that would try to break up Amazon, break up Facebook, break up Google? SEN. SANDERS: Absolutely. Facebook has unbelievable-I mean, we deal with it every day. They determine who we can communicate with. They have incredible power over the economy, over the political life of this country in a very dangerous sense." To "absolutely" break up firms in the "high tech" sector implies an aggressive antitrust policy that seeks structural remedies against "huge corporations" without qualification or exception. Does economic theory suggest that regulators should break up "huge corporations" without qualification or exception? Discuss THREE potential economic considerations that are relevant to this conversation, giving a nuanced opinion based in economic reasoning that focuses on concepts from Chapter 4 and/or Chapter 5 in the textbook. Explain your response with no more than 250 words. There is no word minimum. Use specific examples, economic logic, statute law, and case law, where appropriate. You should always use paragraphs, proper spelling, good grammar, and complete sentences. Demonstrate what you have learned from the course