Gabriel A. Lozada is an associate professor of economics at the University of Utah, where he teaches courses in microeconomic theory, natural resource economics, and environmental economics. He grew up in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and attended Louisiana State University, where he received a BA in Economics and a BS in Physics. He then attended Stanford University, receiving there an MA in Economics, an MS in Engineering-Economic Systems, and a Ph.D. in Economics. His areas of research mostly include ecological economics and economic models of sustainability, both environmental sustainability and sustainable investment and consumption paths during an individual’s life cycle. He has also modeled the financing burdens imposed by large proposed water development projects in Utah.
Gabriel Lozada
By this expert
The New Merger Guidelines: Consumer Welfare vs. Protecting Competition Standards
Should antitrust law focus primarily on measurable performance outcomes such as price and output as indicated by Robert Bork’s Consumer Welfare Standard? Or is it more important to concentrate on whether conduct undermines the competitive process itself as per the newly revitalized Protect Competition Standard?
The Consumer Welfare Standard and the Protect Competition Standard: A Comparison and Assessment
What should courts prioritize in determining antitrust cases: measurable welfare effects, or the protection of competitive rivalry itself? The Consumer Welfare Standard and the Protect Competition Standard offer different answers.
Distribution Matters: Flawed Welfare Foundations in Classic Free Trade Arguments
The argument that free trade is always the correct policy is based on a flawed welfare analysis. Free trade results in winners and losers and economists are not competent to analyze the impact on well-being as a whole or the spillover social consequences of the discontent of the losers.
The Flawed Welfare Foundations of Pro-Free Trade Arguments
The argument that free trade is always the correct policy is based on a flawed welfare analysis. Free trade results in winners and losers and economists are not competent to analyze the impact on well-being as a whole or the spillover social consequences of the discontent of the losers.