Washington's Worries and Monti's Defense This dialogue presents a rally of

thoughts from two sides; Washington DC and Monti. The analysis I have of this is
as follows: Washington DC's complaint: Monti favors competitors over consumers.
Monti: That's a false dichotomy. More competition is good for consumers. 1.
Washington DC, a state, is in the process of identifying Monti as someone against
them (for favoring competitors over consumers) which was claimed as a false
dichotomy (an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what
options are available) by Monti. According to his claims, the presence of
competition in the market is good for the consumers because this way, varied
choices (good or bad) will be up for decision making, and thus, creating a bigger
market for economists present inside or outside the state. Washington DC: While
Washington must prepare every antitrust case for court, Monti can rule by fiat,
with few checks and balances. Monti: The Competition Commissioner has to
convince other commissioners and member states. And the European court has
teeth, though it takes up cases years after the decision. 2. In this statement it is
evident that an antitrust case, a legal action brought against parties who are
charged with limiting free competition in the market place. But even though this
case was filed, the state still has worries such as: a. Monti can rule by fiat. (A
government-issued currency that is not backed by a commodity such as gold.) b.
Monti has the ability to control the flow of money in the state because of his power
over the fiat money he possesses. Washington DC