I hope it helps you.dajo9 said:Good response. I hope that helped.calbear93 said:dajo9 said:It is obvious what you are doing in your calls for more advanced and in-depth discussion of economics on an obscure Off Topic message board when people are posting the latest headlines. You are trying to bring up 'things are not as good as they seem" messaging. It's just politics People on the left do it when Republicans are President and people on the right do it when Democrats are President.calbear93 said:dajo9 said:Eventually there will be a recession and you will be able to claim you are right. I congratulate you in advance.calbear93 said:dajo9 said:
Strong jobs report +199k with unemployment back down to 3.7% extending Biden's low unemployment record. Strong wage gains too.
Get out your mugs. There will be more tears from the haters.
If we're playing at least checkers instead of tic tac toe, that means the FED will not be lowering interest rate any time soon and that the annual wage increase rate has slowed to 4% but still higher than the FED target.
To discuss this at a meaningful level, there is still an unknown on whether there will be a hard landing or soft landing when the interest rate starts going down but what I am seeing across most industries is an uncommon low rate of voluntary attrition among non-hourly wage roles indicating lack of desirable jobs in the white collar job market. What I anticipate and hearing are more restructuring in 2024 (initial hope was for the costs of structured, large layoffs of white collar roles to be mostly incurred in 2023) as lack of voluntary attrition leads to still too many employees at too high costs partly from over reaction to the now quaint Great Resignation.
No amount of tic tac toe thinking will cause people in the investment community or average worker to think this economy is great. Otherwise Biden would not be trailing the unelectable, potential future convicted criminal. Not sure whether you are truly just a tic tac toe player or are just playing the part, but not sure this is the great news you are selling. It seems meh to me.
You think at a third grade level but pretend to be some professor. The discussion on recession that you keep referring to was the debate on the right definition or indication of recession. My point that two quarters of decelerating growth are commonly seen as indicators of recession is played by you as some gotcha when we had agreed that the economy was still stable. Shall we regurgitate your calls? Calling peak of equity in 2017 right before the market run, claiming monetary and spending policy not creating inflation right before inflation, calling inflation transitory, calling for investment on treasury when all indications were interest rates were going to rise. I think you need to stop. No one here based on your past calls and especially by people who engage with actual experts who have skin in the game think you have any clue. The only people you fool are people who are actually more interested in politics than facts and have no clue on the markets and the economy. Congrats on being the lead dog of financial illiterates.
My point about recession was based squarely on your posts here. It is only you who gets angry and goes back to the same old arguments over and over again. I'm sorry that you are so unsettled about your call back in 2022 in-real-time that we were already in recession that you are seeing ghosts today.
Don't project your inauthentic persona to others. I have never asked for more detailed analysis from anyone. You are the one who pretends to be a proud expert who understands true economic trends. I do not mock the economic position of others since they are more curious as opposed to dismissive like you when you are still absolutely wrong on fundamental realities.
I am not unsettled. And it's you who seem confused. When a statement that, based on leading rule of thumb, we are in a recession based on two quarters of growth deceleration but the economy is stable, is viewed as a gotcha for you, you are the one who is seeking nuances on an OT board.
Look, I have no idea why you choose to be so fake here. Is it working for you? You may fool people for awhile but everyone eventually figures out the fake.
Bidenomics
64,024 Views |
803 Replies |
Last: 19 days ago by bear2034
I don't know who Joe Tzu is but the dude is spot on.
Dow Jones sets a record high
America has a record number of jobs
America has unemployment under 4% for a record length of time
America has a record number of jobs
America has unemployment under 4% for a record length of time
And yet, the Democrats dropped the term, Bidenomics.
But Bidenflation remains.
But Bidenflation remains.
It's true that many blue collar workers have seen an increase in their wages.dajo9 said:
Blue collar workers are better off than before covidOh, and blue-collar real wages — which were very distorted by composition effects for a while, but less so now — appear to be higher than they were on the eve of the pandemic (PS: they fell under Reagan) 6/ pic.twitter.com/iBWCMFSbpJ
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) June 28, 2023
However, I'll have to assert that Biden deserves zero credit for this.
In his 1st SOTU address in 2021, Biden promised to raise the Federal Minimum Wage to $15. However, when the wage increase was added to the 2021 Covid Relief Bill, the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that it couldn't be added to the bill because it would affect the budget -- so it wasn't able to pass via reconciliation, like the rest of the Covid bill. It would be subjected to the Senate filibuster, where it would surely be shot down by both Republicans and corporate Dems.
Did Biden fight for the Minimum Wage bill? No. Not at all. IF he wanted to, he could've told Chuck Schumer to fire the parliamentarian, & jam it in. But then, if the Minimum Wage increase was in the Covid relief bill, it wouldn't even get 50% in the Senate, because 'Shadow President' Manchin & Kyrsten Sinema would've voted 'No' on Covid relief IF the Minimum Wage increase was in it. Neither Manchin nor Sinema paid any political price for gutting Biden's so-called Agenda.
So Biden said "Oh well..." and dropped his "fight" for the $15 Federal Minimum Wage.
It was only after nearly every piece of the 2021 "Biden Agenda" got shot down by President Manchin that U.S. Workers decided to get serious about getting organized. They saw that Biden & the Democrats in Congress were not going to help them, or make their lives better -- so they took matters into their own hands.
'They are fed up': US labor on the march in 2021 after years of decline
So improving blue-collar wages have very little to do with "Bidenomics" -- unless you're going to make the case that the dramatic increases in consumer prices forced employers to increase compensation in order to retain their most valuable & productive employees. I'm not sure that's a good look for Joe.
The sad reality is that 60% of all U.S. households are living paycheck-to-paycheck, increasingly sensitive to increases in rent, food, and energy. This is while corporate profits exploded through, and after, Covid.
The best -- if not only -- way for U.S. Workers to increase their pay is to organize. Because the "Democratic" Party is committed to NOT helping Workers.
That said....
I give Joe Biden a very hard time for all his foibles.
HOWEVER, I have to give him credit where it's due -- and that is in the area of Anti-Trust enforcement.
California Management Review: Biden's Antitrust Turn: The 2021 Antitrust Executive Order and its implications for Firms and their Executives
I give Joe Biden a very hard time for all his foibles.
HOWEVER, I have to give him credit where it's due -- and that is in the area of Anti-Trust enforcement.
California Management Review: Biden's Antitrust Turn: The 2021 Antitrust Executive Order and its implications for Firms and their Executives
Biden should be congratulated for every victory on the anti-monopolization front. Instead, his GOP & conservative critics call him a Socialist or a Communist (!!) -- because in a Capitalist economy, he's trying to make markets more competitive. Go figure...Quote:
US President Joseph Biden issued an executive order (EO) on antitrust policy in July 2021 declaring: "We're now 40 years into the experiment of letting giant corporations accumulate more and more power. I believe the experiment failed."[1]. Over that period, price-cost markups have tripled[2]; the rate of new business formation fell by fifty percent[3]; In three quarters of U.S. industries, concentration is higher than two decades prior[4] and wages have decreased by more than fifteen percent in key sectors of the US economy[5]. The Biden Administration argues these are prima facie evidence of the need for action in antitrust policy. The EO launches seventy-two actions to address these concerns. The EO orders a "whole-of-government competition policy" requiring coordination of federal agencies that influence competition policy. This, the EO claims, is to address "overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in the American economy"[6].
Yes, I have thought about posting an entire thread around the Biden Administration efforts around anti-trust but I haven't gotten around to it. The strongest anti-trust enforcement we've seen in I don't know how long and very long overdue. Anti-trust and wealth taxes are how you break the oligarchy grip on America. Republicans and Trumpers are totally against it. The media, which is made up of large companies is totally against it. Just another great thing Biden is doing for the American people that goes unnoticed.cbbass1 said:
That said....
I give Joe Biden a very hard time for all his foibles.
HOWEVER, I have to give him credit where it's due -- and that is in the area of Anti-Trust enforcement.
California Management Review: Biden's Antitrust Turn: The 2021 Antitrust Executive Order and its implications for Firms and their ExecutivesBiden should be congratulated for every victory on the anti-monopolization front. Instead, his GOP & conservative critics call him a Socialist or a Communist (!!) -- because in a Capitalist economy, he's trying to make markets more competitive. Go figure...Quote:
US President Joseph Biden issued an executive order (EO) on antitrust policy in July 2021 declaring: "We're now 40 years into the experiment of letting giant corporations accumulate more and more power. I believe the experiment failed."[1]. Over that period, price-cost markups have tripled[2]; the rate of new business formation fell by fifty percent[3]; In three quarters of U.S. industries, concentration is higher than two decades prior[4] and wages have decreased by more than fifteen percent in key sectors of the US economy[5]. The Biden Administration argues these are prima facie evidence of the need for action in antitrust policy. The EO launches seventy-two actions to address these concerns. The EO orders a "whole-of-government competition policy" requiring coordination of federal agencies that influence competition policy. This, the EO claims, is to address "overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in the American economy"[6].
The natural evolution of capitalism is consolidation. That isn't a conspiracy or Marxist, that is the natural result of trying to be more efficient. Bigger is more efficient for capital than smaller. But over time, as companies get bigger and too efficient (relative to workers and customers) steps have to be taken to reduce that efficiency so workers and customers can have some leverage. That is what the liberal movement in America is about, economically.
You are not anywhere near corporate development, are you?dajo9 said:Yes, I have thought about posting an entire thread around the Biden Administration efforts around anti-trust but I haven't gotten around to it. The strongest anti-trust enforcement we've seen in I don't know how long and very long overdue. Anti-trust and wealth taxes are how you break the oligarchy grip on America. Republicans and Trumpers are totally against it. The media, which is made up of large companies is totally against it. Just another great thing Biden is doing for the American people that goes unnoticed.cbbass1 said:
That said....
I give Joe Biden a very hard time for all his foibles.
HOWEVER, I have to give him credit where it's due -- and that is in the area of Anti-Trust enforcement.
California Management Review: Biden's Antitrust Turn: The 2021 Antitrust Executive Order and its implications for Firms and their ExecutivesBiden should be congratulated for every victory on the anti-monopolization front. Instead, his GOP & conservative critics call him a Socialist or a Communist (!!) -- because in a Capitalist economy, he's trying to make markets more competitive. Go figure...Quote:
US President Joseph Biden issued an executive order (EO) on antitrust policy in July 2021 declaring: "We're now 40 years into the experiment of letting giant corporations accumulate more and more power. I believe the experiment failed."[1]. Over that period, price-cost markups have tripled[2]; the rate of new business formation fell by fifty percent[3]; In three quarters of U.S. industries, concentration is higher than two decades prior[4] and wages have decreased by more than fifteen percent in key sectors of the US economy[5]. The Biden Administration argues these are prima facie evidence of the need for action in antitrust policy. The EO launches seventy-two actions to address these concerns. The EO orders a "whole-of-government competition policy" requiring coordination of federal agencies that influence competition policy. This, the EO claims, is to address "overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in the American economy"[6].
Only someone who has no practical experience or has never ever worked on an M&A execution either on the business side or in the legal side would make this kind of statement.
Banks, investors, lawyers, and corporate development leaders who are liberal and conservative are universal in thinking Lina Khan has been a disaster. More losses in the courts in the history of the FTC, proposing to dictate on a national basis without authorization from congress on non-compete clauses, and proposing to turn a simple HSR filing into a pseudo, second review process without the actual man-power to do so, and destroying value by wasting even more money on extra lawyer fees, government workers, etc.
This is what I mean by people here having no clue but acting like they know. A simple discussion with actual practitioners, including those who are liberal, on how bad the FTC has been under this administration from an actual practical perspective would have provided you with some actual insight. Both liberals and conservatives I know who actually know what they are talking about think the FTC has been a disaster under Biden, and they will keep losing in the courts (including under judges appointed by Obama). As bad as Gensler has been, at least he is starting to realize that dictatorship by unelected agency is not going to fly under our constitution.
If Khan and Gensler had gone in wanting to be faithful to their granted authority instead of trying to be what folks claim they are afraid Trump will be - a dictator - they could have made a real difference. They could have, for the SEC, protected investors, and, for the FTC, protected consumer welfare. But what will happen is that, as a result of their overreach, the courts will further narrow the scope of all these agencies (as the SEC has witnessed, with now their gun-shy efforts on climate-related disclosure delayed once again and their share repurchase rules basically killed by the courts) so that both Gensler and Khan would have made both these agencies permanently that much weaker once they are done. Great job.
Counting down to you making some glib, non-substantive name-calling insult that disguises how little you actually know about this stuff.
I would completely expect for you and your friends to be against what Lina Khan is trying to do. It doesn't matter. The status quo from the Reagan era is going to come under more and more scrutiny. Young people are going to continue to challenge your status quo.calbear93 said:You are not anywhere near corporate development, are you?dajo9 said:Yes, I have thought about posting an entire thread around the Biden Administration efforts around anti-trust but I haven't gotten around to it. The strongest anti-trust enforcement we've seen in I don't know how long and very long overdue. Anti-trust and wealth taxes are how you break the oligarchy grip on America. Republicans and Trumpers are totally against it. The media, which is made up of large companies is totally against it. Just another great thing Biden is doing for the American people that goes unnoticed.cbbass1 said:
That said....
I give Joe Biden a very hard time for all his foibles.
HOWEVER, I have to give him credit where it's due -- and that is in the area of Anti-Trust enforcement.
California Management Review: Biden's Antitrust Turn: The 2021 Antitrust Executive Order and its implications for Firms and their ExecutivesBiden should be congratulated for every victory on the anti-monopolization front. Instead, his GOP & conservative critics call him a Socialist or a Communist (!!) -- because in a Capitalist economy, he's trying to make markets more competitive. Go figure...Quote:
US President Joseph Biden issued an executive order (EO) on antitrust policy in July 2021 declaring: "We're now 40 years into the experiment of letting giant corporations accumulate more and more power. I believe the experiment failed."[1]. Over that period, price-cost markups have tripled[2]; the rate of new business formation fell by fifty percent[3]; In three quarters of U.S. industries, concentration is higher than two decades prior[4] and wages have decreased by more than fifteen percent in key sectors of the US economy[5]. The Biden Administration argues these are prima facie evidence of the need for action in antitrust policy. The EO launches seventy-two actions to address these concerns. The EO orders a "whole-of-government competition policy" requiring coordination of federal agencies that influence competition policy. This, the EO claims, is to address "overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in the American economy"[6].
Only someone who has no practical experience or has never ever worked on an M&A execution either on the business side or in the legal side would make this kind of statement.
Banks, investors, lawyers, and corporate development leaders who are liberal and conservative are universal in thinking Lina Khan has been a disaster. More losses in the courts in the history of the FTC, proposing to dictate on a national basis without authorization from congress on non-compete clauses, and proposing to turn a simple HSR filing into a pseudo, second review process without the actual man-power to do so, and destroying value by wasting even more money on extra lawyer fees, government workers, etc.
This is what I mean by people here having no clue but acting like they know. A simple discussion with actual practitioners, including those who are liberal, on how bad the FTC has been under this administration from an actual practical perspective would have provided you with some actual insight. Both liberals and conservatives I know who actually know what they are talking about think the FTC has been a disaster under Biden, and they will keep losing in the courts (including under judges appointed by Obama). As bad as Gensler has been, at least he is starting to realize that dictatorship by unelected agency is not going to fly under our constitution.
If Khan and Gensler had gone in wanting to be faithful to their granted authority instead of trying to be what folks claim they are afraid Trump will be - a dictator - they could have made a real difference. They could have, for the SEC, protected investors, and, for the FTC, protected consumer welfare. But what will happen is that, as a result of their overreach, the courts will further narrow the scope of all these agencies (as the SEC has witnessed, with now their gun-shy efforts on climate-related disclosure delayed once again and their share repurchase rules basically killed by the courts) so that both Gensler and Khan would have made both these agencies permanently that much weaker once they are done. Great job.
Counting down to you making some glib, non-substantive name-calling insult that disguises how little you actually know about this stuff.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/06/law-students-antitrust-lina-khan-00124240
It is fine she is losing cases in court - she is pushing the boundaries what has been considered a bipartisan norm for loo long. It's like the District Attorneys who brag about never losing a case and meanwhile, tons of criminals in their jurisdiction get off scott free because trying to bring them to justice might have ruined their record. Lina Khan is taking the opposite approach and that is a good thing. She is doing great things and getting all the hate you would expect from it.
A different perspective. I readily admit that I don't know much about the mechanics of anti-trust other than that we've been going in the wrong direction on anti-trust for decades.calbear93 said:You are not anywhere near corporate development, are you?dajo9 said:Yes, I have thought about posting an entire thread around the Biden Administration efforts around anti-trust but I haven't gotten around to it. The strongest anti-trust enforcement we've seen in I don't know how long and very long overdue. Anti-trust and wealth taxes are how you break the oligarchy grip on America. Republicans and Trumpers are totally against it. The media, which is made up of large companies is totally against it. Just another great thing Biden is doing for the American people that goes unnoticed.cbbass1 said:
That said....
I give Joe Biden a very hard time for all his foibles.
HOWEVER, I have to give him credit where it's due -- and that is in the area of Anti-Trust enforcement.
California Management Review: Biden's Antitrust Turn: The 2021 Antitrust Executive Order and its implications for Firms and their ExecutivesBiden should be congratulated for every victory on the anti-monopolization front. Instead, his GOP & conservative critics call him a Socialist or a Communist (!!) -- because in a Capitalist economy, he's trying to make markets more competitive. Go figure...Quote:
US President Joseph Biden issued an executive order (EO) on antitrust policy in July 2021 declaring: "We're now 40 years into the experiment of letting giant corporations accumulate more and more power. I believe the experiment failed."[1]. Over that period, price-cost markups have tripled[2]; the rate of new business formation fell by fifty percent[3]; In three quarters of U.S. industries, concentration is higher than two decades prior[4] and wages have decreased by more than fifteen percent in key sectors of the US economy[5]. The Biden Administration argues these are prima facie evidence of the need for action in antitrust policy. The EO launches seventy-two actions to address these concerns. The EO orders a "whole-of-government competition policy" requiring coordination of federal agencies that influence competition policy. This, the EO claims, is to address "overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in the American economy"[6].
Only someone who has no practical experience or has never ever worked on an M&A execution either on the business side or in the legal side would make this kind of statement.
Banks, investors, lawyers, and corporate development leaders who are liberal and conservative are universal in thinking Lina Khan has been a disaster. More losses in the courts in the history of the FTC, proposing to dictate on a national basis without authorization from congress on non-compete clauses, and proposing to turn a simple HSR filing into a pseudo, second review process without the actual man-power to do so, and destroying value by wasting even more money on extra lawyer fees, government workers, etc.
This is what I mean by people here having no clue but acting like they know. A simple discussion with actual practitioners, including those who are liberal, on how bad the FTC has been under this administration from an actual practical perspective would have provided you with some actual insight. Both liberals and conservatives I know who actually know what they are talking about think the FTC has been a disaster under Biden, and they will keep losing in the courts (including under judges appointed by Obama). As bad as Gensler has been, at least he is starting to realize that dictatorship by unelected agency is not going to fly under our constitution.
If Khan and Gensler had gone in wanting to be faithful to their granted authority instead of trying to be what folks claim they are afraid Trump will be - a dictator - they could have made a real difference. They could have, for the SEC, protected investors, and, for the FTC, protected consumer welfare. But what will happen is that, as a result of their overreach, the courts will further narrow the scope of all these agencies (as the SEC has witnessed, with now their gun-shy efforts on climate-related disclosure delayed once again and their share repurchase rules basically killed by the courts) so that both Gensler and Khan would have made both these agencies permanently that much weaker once they are done. Great job.
Counting down to you making some glib, non-substantive name-calling insult that disguises how little you actually know about this stuff.
Breaking: Google lost a case brought by Epic Games as a jury found the search giant had created an antitrust market with its app store https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 12, 2023
A former big law attorney writes a piece attacking the anti-monopoly movement as a failure the day after Google just lost its first major antitrust case. Does he mention it? Nope! Instead it's just pure gossip from anonymous big tech lawyers. https://t.co/mMo7HsghPE
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) December 14, 2023
Not sure we can trust these tweets as objective.Genocide Joe said:A different perspective. I readily admit that I don't know much about the mechanics of anti-trust other than that we've been going in the wrong direction on anti-trust for decades.calbear93 said:You are not anywhere near corporate development, are you?dajo9 said:Yes, I have thought about posting an entire thread around the Biden Administration efforts around anti-trust but I haven't gotten around to it. The strongest anti-trust enforcement we've seen in I don't know how long and very long overdue. Anti-trust and wealth taxes are how you break the oligarchy grip on America. Republicans and Trumpers are totally against it. The media, which is made up of large companies is totally against it. Just another great thing Biden is doing for the American people that goes unnoticed.cbbass1 said:
That said....
I give Joe Biden a very hard time for all his foibles.
HOWEVER, I have to give him credit where it's due -- and that is in the area of Anti-Trust enforcement.
California Management Review: Biden's Antitrust Turn: The 2021 Antitrust Executive Order and its implications for Firms and their ExecutivesBiden should be congratulated for every victory on the anti-monopolization front. Instead, his GOP & conservative critics call him a Socialist or a Communist (!!) -- because in a Capitalist economy, he's trying to make markets more competitive. Go figure...Quote:
US President Joseph Biden issued an executive order (EO) on antitrust policy in July 2021 declaring: "We're now 40 years into the experiment of letting giant corporations accumulate more and more power. I believe the experiment failed."[1]. Over that period, price-cost markups have tripled[2]; the rate of new business formation fell by fifty percent[3]; In three quarters of U.S. industries, concentration is higher than two decades prior[4] and wages have decreased by more than fifteen percent in key sectors of the US economy[5]. The Biden Administration argues these are prima facie evidence of the need for action in antitrust policy. The EO launches seventy-two actions to address these concerns. The EO orders a "whole-of-government competition policy" requiring coordination of federal agencies that influence competition policy. This, the EO claims, is to address "overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in the American economy"[6].
Only someone who has no practical experience or has never ever worked on an M&A execution either on the business side or in the legal side would make this kind of statement.
Banks, investors, lawyers, and corporate development leaders who are liberal and conservative are universal in thinking Lina Khan has been a disaster. More losses in the courts in the history of the FTC, proposing to dictate on a national basis without authorization from congress on non-compete clauses, and proposing to turn a simple HSR filing into a pseudo, second review process without the actual man-power to do so, and destroying value by wasting even more money on extra lawyer fees, government workers, etc.
This is what I mean by people here having no clue but acting like they know. A simple discussion with actual practitioners, including those who are liberal, on how bad the FTC has been under this administration from an actual practical perspective would have provided you with some actual insight. Both liberals and conservatives I know who actually know what they are talking about think the FTC has been a disaster under Biden, and they will keep losing in the courts (including under judges appointed by Obama). As bad as Gensler has been, at least he is starting to realize that dictatorship by unelected agency is not going to fly under our constitution.
If Khan and Gensler had gone in wanting to be faithful to their granted authority instead of trying to be what folks claim they are afraid Trump will be - a dictator - they could have made a real difference. They could have, for the SEC, protected investors, and, for the FTC, protected consumer welfare. But what will happen is that, as a result of their overreach, the courts will further narrow the scope of all these agencies (as the SEC has witnessed, with now their gun-shy efforts on climate-related disclosure delayed once again and their share repurchase rules basically killed by the courts) so that both Gensler and Khan would have made both these agencies permanently that much weaker once they are done. Great job.
Counting down to you making some glib, non-substantive name-calling insult that disguises how little you actually know about this stuff.Breaking: Google lost a case brought by Epic Games as a jury found the search giant had created an antitrust market with its app store https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 12, 2023A former big law attorney writes a piece attacking the anti-monopoly movement as a failure the day after Google just lost its first major antitrust case. Does he mention it? Nope! Instead it's just pure gossip from anonymous big tech lawyers. https://t.co/mMo7HsghPE
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) December 14, 2023
What I do know is my experience in M&A, and the update I received earlier this year on the proposals on changes to the HSR from the GC of the Board where I serve made it clear that Khan had never actually practiced as an M&A professional (mostly academic). And I have a lot of close friends at law firms from my practice as well as bankers, and they make it clear that Khan is over her skis, and she has experienced significant attrition.
So, again, we get into this cycle of misinformation and people getting worked up or thinking they have figured things out based on these tweets and tik tok videos. All these instant, superficial, political tweets by people who don't know what they are talking about creates more ignorance instead of less ignorance, and we have people getting worked up on both sides talking conspiracy or supporting things that are not workable.
And not sure what we mean by going int he wrong direction for anti-trust. From a consumer perspective, prices, until Biden, have been steady and consumers had, if anything, too many options. What is it that the FTC is trying to solve? Too much natural power from some tech companies where most of the liberals put food on their table? Anti-trust was never intended to slow down market shares gained from just better products.
Also, what role did the FTC play in the loss by Google? FTC had no role in the civil litigation between Epic Games and Google. FTC keeps losing cases that they brought to stop mergers. Not sure why people who have no clue what they are talking about are connecting the Google loss (which was determined by the skills of Epic Games and their lawyers) to countering the incompetence of Khan.
I think anybody interested in Lina Khan and her new approach to antitrust should listen to this Bloomberg produced podcast in which they interview Lina Khan
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/odd-lots-ftcs-khan-sending-message-to-pe-industry-podcast
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/odd-lots-ftcs-khan-sending-message-to-pe-industry-podcast
That's helpful because she gets to decide the scope and authority of her unelected position as if she can be not only the law maker, enforcer and the judge but also determine what the agency should and can do irrespective of the authority granted by Congress. Nothing unconstitutional about that. Wait until Trump wins, and then the next FTC chair thinks the FTC's role should also include shutting down liberal media because they decided that anticompetition consideration should include breaking up NYT and CNN, or shutting down wind farms.dajo9 said:
I think anybody interested in Lina Khan and her new approach to antitrust should listen to this Bloomberg produced podcast in which they interview Lina Khan
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/odd-lots-ftcs-khan-sending-message-to-pe-industry-podcast
What is all this talk about dictators? Liberals are always thinking them breaking norms will never come back to harm them twice as much.
"At this point I think we might be living at our in-laws house until we are old and grey"
— Wall Street Silver (@WallStreetSilv) October 5, 2023
🔊 ...🧐
"Why is a one bedroom, one bath $800,000? Rent is absolutely insane, you can't save anything to buy a place. They don't want us to own anything. They want to destroy your dreams… pic.twitter.com/9utljPbJEb
Why is a 1 bedroom 1 bath $800k? Maybe because you insist on living in the most overpopulated island in the country, or some other fancy downtown. I'd like to live on the beach in CA but I don't get to. We don't always get to live exactly where we want to.
I went to zillow and searched all of New Jersey for an $800k 1 bedroom. There were a handful and they were all on the Hudson River looking at Manhattan.
I went to zillow and searched all of New Jersey for an $800k 1 bedroom. There were a handful and they were all on the Hudson River looking at Manhattan.
dajo9 said:
Why is a 1 bedroom 1 bath $800k? Maybe because you insist on living in the most overpopulated island in the country, or some other fancy downtown. I'd like to live on the beach in CA but I don't get to. We don't always get to live exactly where we want to.
The easiest way to live on the beach in CA is to get a dirty van with no windows, renovate the inside, park overnight, and dare democrat politicians to move you away from some of the most expensive real estate in the world.
oski003 said:dajo9 said:
Why is a 1 bedroom 1 bath $800k? Maybe because you insist on living in the most overpopulated island in the country, or some other fancy downtown. I'd like to live on the beach in CA but I don't get to. We don't always get to live exactly where we want to.
The easiest way to live on the beach in CA is to get a dirty van with no windows, renovate the inside, park overnight, and dare democrat politicians to move you away from some of the most expensive real estate in the world.
The original post said 1 bedroom 1 bath. I should have been more specific.
dajo9 said:
Why is a 1 bedroom 1 bath $800k? Maybe because you insist on living in the most overpopulated island in the country, or some other fancy downtown. I'd like to live on the beach in CA but I don't get to. We don't always get to live exactly where we want to.
I went to zillow and searched all of New Jersey for an $800k 1 bedroom. There were a handful and they were all on the Hudson River looking at Manhattan.
NYC, Boston, DC, Seattle, south FL and pretty much every coastal CA town - that's about a third of the country. For people who have roots there, family, and who grew up in those places It's not an easy choice.
As well, this is a generational and fairly recent issue, a product of the FIRE debt-driven overfinancialized economy. Poor infrastructure and regulatory processes resulting in bad public transit and high construction costs are part of the problem.
Most of her generation has no clue what putting in a full day of hard work even means.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Cal88 said:dajo9 said:
Why is a 1 bedroom 1 bath $800k? Maybe because you insist on living in the most overpopulated island in the country, or some other fancy downtown. I'd like to live on the beach in CA but I don't get to. We don't always get to live exactly where we want to.
I went to zillow and searched all of New Jersey for an $800k 1 bedroom. There were a handful and they were all on the Hudson River looking at Manhattan.
NYC, Boston, DC, Seattle, south FL and pretty much every coastal CA town - that's about a third of the country.
The downtowns of those cities is not anywhere near 1/3 of the country. If you think so I'd love to show you one of my rentals. But I know you aren't stupid enough to believe your own propaganda.
The median home price in the U.S. is $431k and you can bet most of them have more than 1 bedroom.
dajo9 said:Cal88 said:dajo9 said:
Why is a 1 bedroom 1 bath $800k? Maybe because you insist on living in the most overpopulated island in the country, or some other fancy downtown. I'd like to live on the beach in CA but I don't get to. We don't always get to live exactly where we want to.
I went to zillow and searched all of New Jersey for an $800k 1 bedroom. There were a handful and they were all on the Hudson River looking at Manhattan.
NYC, Boston, DC, Seattle, south FL and pretty much every coastal CA town - that's about a third of the country.
The downtowns of those cities is not anywhere near 1/3 of the country. If you think so I'd love to show you one of my rentals. But I know you aren't stupid enough to believe your own propaganda.
In the downtown of those cities, $800k might only get you a studio.
Here's a graph of coastal demography, the coastal cities in bright red represent 1/3 of total US population.
https://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/039/
bearister said:
Most of her generation has no clue what putting in a full day of hard work even means.
OK Boomer!
Her generation is graduating with 6 figure student debt and most of her disposable income is going to be sucked up by her rent.
Cal88 said:dajo9 said:Cal88 said:dajo9 said:
Why is a 1 bedroom 1 bath $800k? Maybe because you insist on living in the most overpopulated island in the country, or some other fancy downtown. I'd like to live on the beach in CA but I don't get to. We don't always get to live exactly where we want to.
I went to zillow and searched all of New Jersey for an $800k 1 bedroom. There were a handful and they were all on the Hudson River looking at Manhattan.
NYC, Boston, DC, Seattle, south FL and pretty much every coastal CA town - that's about a third of the country.
The downtowns of those cities is not anywhere near 1/3 of the country. If you think so I'd love to show you one of my rentals. But I know you aren't stupid enough to believe your own propaganda.
In the downtown of those cities, $800k might only get you a studio.
Here's a graph of coastal demography, the coastal cities in bright red represent 1/3 of total US population.
https://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/039/
Who do you think you are trying to fool here with your stupid propaganda? I own 3 properties in the red - 2 of them middle class relative to the community and one of them above middle class.
In the cities I am in (all of them in your red areas) there are exactly zero properties for sale for $800k 1 br.
Someone who knows nothing about administrative law, how M&A works, or even ever worked on an M&A transaction says she is doing great things, so that must mean she is doing great things. But tell us what great thing she has done other than cost the government millions, use threat of litigation to make legal acquisition that go through anyway more costly for government, have not only massive staff losses so that she can't even get normal things done but also have other commissioners depart with scathing exit letters. Even people who originally advocated for her are now saying she needs to learn how to be a leader and lead a team.dajo9 said:I would completely expect for you and your friends to be against what Lina Khan is trying to do. It doesn't matter. The status quo from the Reagan era is going to come under more and more scrutiny. Young people are going to continue to challenge your status quo.calbear93 said:You are not anywhere near corporate development, are you?dajo9 said:Yes, I have thought about posting an entire thread around the Biden Administration efforts around anti-trust but I haven't gotten around to it. The strongest anti-trust enforcement we've seen in I don't know how long and very long overdue. Anti-trust and wealth taxes are how you break the oligarchy grip on America. Republicans and Trumpers are totally against it. The media, which is made up of large companies is totally against it. Just another great thing Biden is doing for the American people that goes unnoticed.cbbass1 said:
That said....
I give Joe Biden a very hard time for all his foibles.
HOWEVER, I have to give him credit where it's due -- and that is in the area of Anti-Trust enforcement.
California Management Review: Biden's Antitrust Turn: The 2021 Antitrust Executive Order and its implications for Firms and their ExecutivesBiden should be congratulated for every victory on the anti-monopolization front. Instead, his GOP & conservative critics call him a Socialist or a Communist (!!) -- because in a Capitalist economy, he's trying to make markets more competitive. Go figure...Quote:
US President Joseph Biden issued an executive order (EO) on antitrust policy in July 2021 declaring: "We're now 40 years into the experiment of letting giant corporations accumulate more and more power. I believe the experiment failed."[1]. Over that period, price-cost markups have tripled[2]; the rate of new business formation fell by fifty percent[3]; In three quarters of U.S. industries, concentration is higher than two decades prior[4] and wages have decreased by more than fifteen percent in key sectors of the US economy[5]. The Biden Administration argues these are prima facie evidence of the need for action in antitrust policy. The EO launches seventy-two actions to address these concerns. The EO orders a "whole-of-government competition policy" requiring coordination of federal agencies that influence competition policy. This, the EO claims, is to address "overconcentration, monopolization, and unfair competition in the American economy"[6].
Only someone who has no practical experience or has never ever worked on an M&A execution either on the business side or in the legal side would make this kind of statement.
Banks, investors, lawyers, and corporate development leaders who are liberal and conservative are universal in thinking Lina Khan has been a disaster. More losses in the courts in the history of the FTC, proposing to dictate on a national basis without authorization from congress on non-compete clauses, and proposing to turn a simple HSR filing into a pseudo, second review process without the actual man-power to do so, and destroying value by wasting even more money on extra lawyer fees, government workers, etc.
This is what I mean by people here having no clue but acting like they know. A simple discussion with actual practitioners, including those who are liberal, on how bad the FTC has been under this administration from an actual practical perspective would have provided you with some actual insight. Both liberals and conservatives I know who actually know what they are talking about think the FTC has been a disaster under Biden, and they will keep losing in the courts (including under judges appointed by Obama). As bad as Gensler has been, at least he is starting to realize that dictatorship by unelected agency is not going to fly under our constitution.
If Khan and Gensler had gone in wanting to be faithful to their granted authority instead of trying to be what folks claim they are afraid Trump will be - a dictator - they could have made a real difference. They could have, for the SEC, protected investors, and, for the FTC, protected consumer welfare. But what will happen is that, as a result of their overreach, the courts will further narrow the scope of all these agencies (as the SEC has witnessed, with now their gun-shy efforts on climate-related disclosure delayed once again and their share repurchase rules basically killed by the courts) so that both Gensler and Khan would have made both these agencies permanently that much weaker once they are done. Great job.
Counting down to you making some glib, non-substantive name-calling insult that disguises how little you actually know about this stuff.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/06/law-students-antitrust-lina-khan-00124240
It is fine she is losing cases in court - she is pushing the boundaries what has been considered a bipartisan norm for loo long. It's like the District Attorneys who brag about never losing a case and meanwhile, tons of criminals in their jurisdiction get off scott free because trying to bring them to justice might have ruined their record. Lina Khan is taking the opposite approach and that is a good thing. She is doing great things and getting all the hate you would expect from it.
But Dajo says she is doing great stuff while people who deal with this from both sides of the aisle are saying she is weakening the agency without any actual accomplishments. Kind of like how the far right says the disruptors in the House who accomplished nothing but make things more costly are doing great things. Typical empty post with ignorant conclusion without backup as if you are some expert.
dajo9 said:Cal88 said:dajo9 said:Cal88 said:dajo9 said:
Why is a 1 bedroom 1 bath $800k? Maybe because you insist on living in the most overpopulated island in the country, or some other fancy downtown. I'd like to live on the beach in CA but I don't get to. We don't always get to live exactly where we want to.
I went to zillow and searched all of New Jersey for an $800k 1 bedroom. There were a handful and they were all on the Hudson River looking at Manhattan.
NYC, Boston, DC, Seattle, south FL and pretty much every coastal CA town - that's about a third of the country.
The downtowns of those cities is not anywhere near 1/3 of the country. If you think so I'd love to show you one of my rentals. But I know you aren't stupid enough to believe your own propaganda.
In the downtown of those cities, $800k might only get you a studio.
Here's a graph of coastal demography, the coastal cities in bright red represent 1/3 of total US population.
https://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/039/
Who do you think you are trying to fool here with your stupid propaganda? I own 3 properties in the red - 2 of them middle class relative to the community and one of them above middle class.
$950k 3 br
$500k 2 br
$1M 5 br
In the cities I am in (all of them in your red areas) there are exactly zero properties for sale for $800k 1 br.
In those cities you could indeed find more affordable housing in outer burbs or some ghettos, with hour plus commutes to work and unsafe living conditions.
Cal88 said:dajo9 said:Cal88 said:dajo9 said:Cal88 said:dajo9 said:
Why is a 1 bedroom 1 bath $800k? Maybe because you insist on living in the most overpopulated island in the country, or some other fancy downtown. I'd like to live on the beach in CA but I don't get to. We don't always get to live exactly where we want to.
I went to zillow and searched all of New Jersey for an $800k 1 bedroom. There were a handful and they were all on the Hudson River looking at Manhattan.
NYC, Boston, DC, Seattle, south FL and pretty much every coastal CA town - that's about a third of the country.
The downtowns of those cities is not anywhere near 1/3 of the country. If you think so I'd love to show you one of my rentals. But I know you aren't stupid enough to believe your own propaganda.
In the downtown of those cities, $800k might only get you a studio.
Here's a graph of coastal demography, the coastal cities in bright red represent 1/3 of total US population.
https://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/039/
Who do you think you are trying to fool here with your stupid propaganda? I own 3 properties in the red - 2 of them middle class relative to the community and one of them above middle class.
In the cities I am in (all of them in your red areas) there are exactly zero properties for sale for $800k 1 br.
In those cities you could indeed find more affordable housing in outer burbs or some ghettos, with hour plus commutes to work and unsafe living conditions.
You posted a garbage tweet. Fine. Unlike you, I support politicians that would introduce regulations that would get hedge funds and airbnb's out of the home market. You are all lies and phoniness.
dajo9 said:Cal88 said:dajo9 said:Cal88 said:dajo9 said:Cal88 said:dajo9 said:
Why is a 1 bedroom 1 bath $800k? Maybe because you insist on living in the most overpopulated island in the country, or some other fancy downtown. I'd like to live on the beach in CA but I don't get to. We don't always get to live exactly where we want to.
I went to zillow and searched all of New Jersey for an $800k 1 bedroom. There were a handful and they were all on the Hudson River looking at Manhattan.
NYC, Boston, DC, Seattle, south FL and pretty much every coastal CA town - that's about a third of the country.
The downtowns of those cities is not anywhere near 1/3 of the country. If you think so I'd love to show you one of my rentals. But I know you aren't stupid enough to believe your own propaganda.
In the downtown of those cities, $800k might only get you a studio.
Here's a graph of coastal demography, the coastal cities in bright red represent 1/3 of total US population.
https://www.census.gov/dataviz/visualizations/039/
Who do you think you are trying to fool here with your stupid propaganda? I own 3 properties in the red - 2 of them middle class relative to the community and one of them above middle class.
$950k 3 br
$500k 2 br
$1M 5 br
In the cities I am in (all of them in your red areas) there are exactly zero properties for sale for $800k 1 br.
In those cities you could indeed find more affordable housing in outer burbs or some ghettos, with hour plus commutes to work and unsafe living conditions.
You posted a garbage tweet. Fine. Unlike you, I support politicians that would introduce regulations that would get hedge funds and airbnb's out of the home market. You are all lies and phoniness.
Those politicians created the problem to start with.
I wasn't selling you on the tweet as being objective. Here's some info on the author.calbear93 said:Not sure we can trust these tweets as objective.Genocide Joe said:A different perspective. I readily admit that I don't know much about the mechanics of anti-trust other than that we've been going in the wrong direction on anti-trust for decades.calbear93 said:
You are not anywhere near corporate development, are you?
Only someone who has no practical experience or has never ever worked on an M&A execution either on the business side or in the legal side would make this kind of statement.
Banks, investors, lawyers, and corporate development leaders who are liberal and conservative are universal in thinking Lina Khan has been a disaster. More losses in the courts in the history of the FTC, proposing to dictate on a national basis without authorization from congress on non-compete clauses, and proposing to turn a simple HSR filing into a pseudo, second review process without the actual man-power to do so, and destroying value by wasting even more money on extra lawyer fees, government workers, etc.
This is what I mean by people here having no clue but acting like they know. A simple discussion with actual practitioners, including those who are liberal, on how bad the FTC has been under this administration from an actual practical perspective would have provided you with some actual insight. Both liberals and conservatives I know who actually know what they are talking about think the FTC has been a disaster under Biden, and they will keep losing in the courts (including under judges appointed by Obama). As bad as Gensler has been, at least he is starting to realize that dictatorship by unelected agency is not going to fly under our constitution.
If Khan and Gensler had gone in wanting to be faithful to their granted authority instead of trying to be what folks claim they are afraid Trump will be - a dictator - they could have made a real difference. They could have, for the SEC, protected investors, and, for the FTC, protected consumer welfare. But what will happen is that, as a result of their overreach, the courts will further narrow the scope of all these agencies (as the SEC has witnessed, with now their gun-shy efforts on climate-related disclosure delayed once again and their share repurchase rules basically killed by the courts) so that both Gensler and Khan would have made both these agencies permanently that much weaker once they are done. Great job.
Counting down to you making some glib, non-substantive name-calling insult that disguises how little you actually know about this stuff.Breaking: Google lost a case brought by Epic Games as a jury found the search giant had created an antitrust market with its app store https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 12, 2023A former big law attorney writes a piece attacking the anti-monopoly movement as a failure the day after Google just lost its first major antitrust case. Does he mention it? Nope! Instead it's just pure gossip from anonymous big tech lawyers. https://t.co/mMo7HsghPE
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) December 14, 2023
Matt Stoller is a Fellow at the Open Markets Institute. Previously, he was a Senior Policy Advisor and Budget Analyst to the Senate Budget Committee. He also worked in the US House of Representatives on financial services policy, including Dodd-Frank, the Federal Reserve, and the foreclosure crisis. He has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, Vice, and Salon. He lives in Washington, DC. Goliath is his first book.
https://www.amazon.com/Goliath-100-Year-Between-Monopoly-Democracy/dp/1501183087
So while you are never slow to tout your own resume when discussing these subjects, don't think that it makes your perspective the only valid one. And unlike dajo, I don't pretend to hold expertise I don't have.
In this case however, two things may be true at the same time. Khan may be in over her skis to be running the FTC as a 30-something academic with no experience running a large organization, but that doesn't mean that too much power isn't concentrated in two few large companies.
Too much market power for any one company, regardless of what the prices are, is a bad thing. A big thing that led to the disastrous decisions in the bank bailouts were that these institutions were "too big to fail." Know how you keep something from being too big to fail? Don't let it get that big in the first place. And whether that's an appropriate function for the FTC or not, the government can always create a new law or agency to act in whatever it deems the public interest, provided of course that the government gives a damn about the public interest which it certainly doesn't right now.Quote:
And not sure what we mean by going in the wrong direction for anti-trust. From a consumer perspective, prices, until Biden, have been steady and consumers had, if anything, too many options.
Genocide Joe said:I wasn't selling you on the tweet as being objective. Here's some info on the author.calbear93 said:Not sure we can trust these tweets as objective.Genocide Joe said:A different perspective. I readily admit that I don't know much about the mechanics of anti-trust other than that we've been going in the wrong direction on anti-trust for decades.calbear93 said:
You are not anywhere near corporate development, are you?
Only someone who has no practical experience or has never ever worked on an M&A execution either on the business side or in the legal side would make this kind of statement.
Banks, investors, lawyers, and corporate development leaders who are liberal and conservative are universal in thinking Lina Khan has been a disaster. More losses in the courts in the history of the FTC, proposing to dictate on a national basis without authorization from congress on non-compete clauses, and proposing to turn a simple HSR filing into a pseudo, second review process without the actual man-power to do so, and destroying value by wasting even more money on extra lawyer fees, government workers, etc.
This is what I mean by people here having no clue but acting like they know. A simple discussion with actual practitioners, including those who are liberal, on how bad the FTC has been under this administration from an actual practical perspective would have provided you with some actual insight. Both liberals and conservatives I know who actually know what they are talking about think the FTC has been a disaster under Biden, and they will keep losing in the courts (including under judges appointed by Obama). As bad as Gensler has been, at least he is starting to realize that dictatorship by unelected agency is not going to fly under our constitution.
If Khan and Gensler had gone in wanting to be faithful to their granted authority instead of trying to be what folks claim they are afraid Trump will be - a dictator - they could have made a real difference. They could have, for the SEC, protected investors, and, for the FTC, protected consumer welfare. But what will happen is that, as a result of their overreach, the courts will further narrow the scope of all these agencies (as the SEC has witnessed, with now their gun-shy efforts on climate-related disclosure delayed once again and their share repurchase rules basically killed by the courts) so that both Gensler and Khan would have made both these agencies permanently that much weaker once they are done. Great job.
Counting down to you making some glib, non-substantive name-calling insult that disguises how little you actually know about this stuff.Breaking: Google lost a case brought by Epic Games as a jury found the search giant had created an antitrust market with its app store https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 12, 2023A former big law attorney writes a piece attacking the anti-monopoly movement as a failure the day after Google just lost its first major antitrust case. Does he mention it? Nope! Instead it's just pure gossip from anonymous big tech lawyers. https://t.co/mMo7HsghPE
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) December 14, 2023
Matt Stoller is a Fellow at the Open Markets Institute. Previously, he was a Senior Policy Advisor and Budget Analyst to the Senate Budget Committee. He also worked in the US House of Representatives on financial services policy, including Dodd-Frank, the Federal Reserve, and the foreclosure crisis. He has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, Vice, and Salon. He lives in Washington, DC. Goliath is his first book.
https://www.amazon.com/Goliath-100-Year-Between-Monopoly-Democracy/dp/1501183087
So while you are never slow to tout your own resume when discussing these subjects, don't think that it makes your perspective the only valid one. And unlike dajo, I don't pretend to hold expertise I don't have.
In this case however, two things may be true at the same time. Khan may be in over her skis to be running the FTC as a 30-something academic with no experience running a large organization, but that doesn't mean that too much power isn't concentrated in two few large companies.Too much market power for any one company, regardless of what the prices are, is a bad thing. A big thing that led to the disastrous decisions in the bank bailouts were that these institutions were "too big to fail." Know how you keep something from being too big to fail? Don't let it get that big in the first place. And whether that's an appropriate function for the FTC or not, the government can always create a new law or agency to act in whatever it deems the public interest, provided of course that the government gives a damn about the public interest which it certainly doesn't right now.Quote:
And not sure what we mean by going in the wrong direction for anti-trust. From a consumer perspective, prices, until Biden, have been steady and consumers had, if anything, too many options.
Yogi, although you and I probably disagree on most things, I don't like when people here play mean girls with you. And i have rarely participated. That's because I believe, unlike many here, you state what you really believe. And I respect that.
I don't necessarily disagree with you here. But big tech is different from big banks that were too big to fail since our economic and financial system is entirely dependent on credibility of the banks. There is no longer a gold standard. It's all based on trust. But tech is different. If you pull up my posts from six years ago, you know my biggest issue with big tech isn't their liberal or conservative tilt or their size It's their algorithms, data mining, AI, and automation that create mind warp for profit. They take small interest of normal people and turn that into extremism and create and feed the destructive ignorance bred from little bit of truth. And then they pretend they are liberal and doing good over some greenwashing bull**** on ESG. I made a crap load of money from tech companies but, having seen from the inside, I also know how unintentionally evil they are.
My issue with Biden's appointments for the FTC and SEC are not their policies. It is the dictatorship nature of the leaders Biden appointed with disregard for the constitution and separation of power, and lack of practicality and destruction of assets that could be better spent instead of holy crusade with no achievement. Want to influence allocation of capital? Good. Let the elected legislative body do it. Want to push for climate protection? So do I. But who the hell elected wonky Gensler in the SEC when we actually elected members of congress? Want to take down big tech? Good, but who elected some wonky 30 year old true believer teacher without practical experience to crusade under the guise of FTC leadership? Do you want Trump, when he wins, to appoint a new SEC leader and force companies not to fund ESG causes under the guise of investor protection? Do you want Trump to appoint some far right wacko to head Homeland Security and force states to reject actual election results under the guise of national security? These power grabs by unelected agencies who already have too much unchecked power are dangerous. And liberals think these breaking of norms is good since they have power. But the norms, once broken, will remain broken and will come back to bite them twice as hard. And no one will care when they cry just like no one cared when filibuster was destroyed for federal judges by the liberals and the liberals then cried foul that Republicans did the same for Supreme Court justice appointment. There is stupid "Trump the dictator" propaganda by the left when they cheer their own party's power grab through administrative law and then cry foul that the Supreme Court is appropriately checking the agency power with the help of West Virginia, as the EPA learned.
We all should be afraid of people like Gensler and Khan who break norms under the narcissistic fallacy that they have been appointed as gods to do good, because the other side will then carry on those new norms, and either the original authority they had to do good will be gone or someone else will use the same breaking of norms and the same power grab to do something really bad. Stupid people are always cheering for expedient measures because they have never played chess and cannot even see the next play, much less three steps in the future.
calbear93 said:Genocide Joe said:I wasn't selling you on the tweet as being objective. Here's some info on the author.calbear93 said:Not sure we can trust these tweets as objective.Genocide Joe said:A different perspective. I readily admit that I don't know much about the mechanics of anti-trust other than that we've been going in the wrong direction on anti-trust for decades.calbear93 said:
You are not anywhere near corporate development, are you?
Only someone who has no practical experience or has never ever worked on an M&A execution either on the business side or in the legal side would make this kind of statement.
Banks, investors, lawyers, and corporate development leaders who are liberal and conservative are universal in thinking Lina Khan has been a disaster. More losses in the courts in the history of the FTC, proposing to dictate on a national basis without authorization from congress on non-compete clauses, and proposing to turn a simple HSR filing into a pseudo, second review process without the actual man-power to do so, and destroying value by wasting even more money on extra lawyer fees, government workers, etc.
This is what I mean by people here having no clue but acting like they know. A simple discussion with actual practitioners, including those who are liberal, on how bad the FTC has been under this administration from an actual practical perspective would have provided you with some actual insight. Both liberals and conservatives I know who actually know what they are talking about think the FTC has been a disaster under Biden, and they will keep losing in the courts (including under judges appointed by Obama). As bad as Gensler has been, at least he is starting to realize that dictatorship by unelected agency is not going to fly under our constitution.
If Khan and Gensler had gone in wanting to be faithful to their granted authority instead of trying to be what folks claim they are afraid Trump will be - a dictator - they could have made a real difference. They could have, for the SEC, protected investors, and, for the FTC, protected consumer welfare. But what will happen is that, as a result of their overreach, the courts will further narrow the scope of all these agencies (as the SEC has witnessed, with now their gun-shy efforts on climate-related disclosure delayed once again and their share repurchase rules basically killed by the courts) so that both Gensler and Khan would have made both these agencies permanently that much weaker once they are done. Great job.
Counting down to you making some glib, non-substantive name-calling insult that disguises how little you actually know about this stuff.Breaking: Google lost a case brought by Epic Games as a jury found the search giant had created an antitrust market with its app store https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 12, 2023A former big law attorney writes a piece attacking the anti-monopoly movement as a failure the day after Google just lost its first major antitrust case. Does he mention it? Nope! Instead it's just pure gossip from anonymous big tech lawyers. https://t.co/mMo7HsghPE
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) December 14, 2023
Matt Stoller is a Fellow at the Open Markets Institute. Previously, he was a Senior Policy Advisor and Budget Analyst to the Senate Budget Committee. He also worked in the US House of Representatives on financial services policy, including Dodd-Frank, the Federal Reserve, and the foreclosure crisis. He has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, Vice, and Salon. He lives in Washington, DC. Goliath is his first book.
https://www.amazon.com/Goliath-100-Year-Between-Monopoly-Democracy/dp/1501183087
So while you are never slow to tout your own resume when discussing these subjects, don't think that it makes your perspective the only valid one. And unlike dajo, I don't pretend to hold expertise I don't have.
In this case however, two things may be true at the same time. Khan may be in over her skis to be running the FTC as a 30-something academic with no experience running a large organization, but that doesn't mean that too much power isn't concentrated in two few large companies.Too much market power for any one company, regardless of what the prices are, is a bad thing. A big thing that led to the disastrous decisions in the bank bailouts were that these institutions were "too big to fail." Know how you keep something from being too big to fail? Don't let it get that big in the first place. And whether that's an appropriate function for the FTC or not, the government can always create a new law or agency to act in whatever it deems the public interest, provided of course that the government gives a damn about the public interest which it certainly doesn't right now.Quote:
And not sure what we mean by going in the wrong direction for anti-trust. From a consumer perspective, prices, until Biden, have been steady and consumers had, if anything, too many options.
Yogi, although you and I probably disagree on most things, I don't like when people here play mean girls with you. And i have rarely participated. That's because I believe, unlike many here, you state what you really believe. And I respect that.
I don't necessarily disagree with you here. But big tech is different from big banks that were too big to fail since our economic and financial system is entirely dependent on credibility of the banks. There is no longer a gold standard. It's all based on trust. But tech is different. If you pull up my posts from six years ago, you know my biggest issue with big tech isn't their liberal or conservative tilt or their size It's their algorithms, data mining, AI, and automation that create mind warp for profit. They take small interest of normal people and turn that into extremism and create and feed the destructive ignorance bred from little bit of truth. And then they pretend they are liberal and doing good over some greenwashing bull**** on ESG. I made a crap load of money from tech companies but, having seen from the inside, I also know how unintentionally evil they are.
My issue with Biden's appointments for the FTC and SEC are not their policies. It is the dictatorship nature of the leaders Biden appointed with disregard for the constitution and separation of power, and lack of practicality and destruction of assets that could be better spent instead of holy crusade with no achievement. Want to influence allocation of capital? Good. Let the elected legislative body do it. Want to push for climate protection? So do I. But who the hell elected wonky Gensler in the SEC when we actually elected members of congress? Want to take down big tech? Good, but who elected some wonky 30 year old true believer teacher without practical experience to crusade under the guise of FTC leadership? Do you want Trump, when he wins, to appoint a new SEC leader and force companies not to fund ESG causes under the guise of investor protection? Do you want Trump to appoint some far right wacko to head Homeland Security and force states to reject actual election results under the guise of national security? These power grabs by unelected agencies who already have too much unchecked power are dangerous. And liberals think these breaking of norms is good since they have power. But the norms, once broken, will remain broken and will come back to bite them twice as hard. And no one will care when they cry just like no one cared when filibuster was destroyed for federal judges by the liberals and the liberals then cried foul that Republicans did the same for Supreme Court justice appointment. There is stupid "Trump the dictator" propaganda by the left when they cheer their own party's power grab through administrative law and then cry foul that the Supreme Court is appropriately checking the agency power with the help of West Virginia, as the EPA learned.
We all should be afraid of people like Gensler and Khan who break norms under the narcissistic fallacy that they have been appointed as gods to do good, because the other side will then carry on those new norms, and either the original authority they had to do good will be gone or someone else will use the same breaking of norms and the same power grab to do something really bad. Stupid people are always cheering for expedient measures because they have never played chess and cannot even see the next play, much less three steps in the future.
This write-up ignores the history of anti-trust in America. Anti-trust has reshaped itself many times. From a historical perspective, Calbear93 isn't really against changing norms in anti-trust - he just believes the last changing of norms from Reagan should be permanent. Or that the norms he was successful with in his career, should be unchanged.
This Harvard Business Review article has a good write-up of how anti-trust norms have changed over time. None of it led to dictatorship.
https://hbr.org/2017/12/the-rise-fall-and-rebirth-of-the-u-s-antitrust-movement#:~:text=Antitrust%2C%20observed%20the%20historian%2C%20once,but%20without%20any%20antitrust%20movement.
dajo9 said:calbear93 said:Genocide Joe said:I wasn't selling you on the tweet as being objective. Here's some info on the author.calbear93 said:Not sure we can trust these tweets as objective.Genocide Joe said:A different perspective. I readily admit that I don't know much about the mechanics of anti-trust other than that we've been going in the wrong direction on anti-trust for decades.calbear93 said:
You are not anywhere near corporate development, are you?
Only someone who has no practical experience or has never ever worked on an M&A execution either on the business side or in the legal side would make this kind of statement.
Banks, investors, lawyers, and corporate development leaders who are liberal and conservative are universal in thinking Lina Khan has been a disaster. More losses in the courts in the history of the FTC, proposing to dictate on a national basis without authorization from congress on non-compete clauses, and proposing to turn a simple HSR filing into a pseudo, second review process without the actual man-power to do so, and destroying value by wasting even more money on extra lawyer fees, government workers, etc.
This is what I mean by people here having no clue but acting like they know. A simple discussion with actual practitioners, including those who are liberal, on how bad the FTC has been under this administration from an actual practical perspective would have provided you with some actual insight. Both liberals and conservatives I know who actually know what they are talking about think the FTC has been a disaster under Biden, and they will keep losing in the courts (including under judges appointed by Obama). As bad as Gensler has been, at least he is starting to realize that dictatorship by unelected agency is not going to fly under our constitution.
If Khan and Gensler had gone in wanting to be faithful to their granted authority instead of trying to be what folks claim they are afraid Trump will be - a dictator - they could have made a real difference. They could have, for the SEC, protected investors, and, for the FTC, protected consumer welfare. But what will happen is that, as a result of their overreach, the courts will further narrow the scope of all these agencies (as the SEC has witnessed, with now their gun-shy efforts on climate-related disclosure delayed once again and their share repurchase rules basically killed by the courts) so that both Gensler and Khan would have made both these agencies permanently that much weaker once they are done. Great job.
Counting down to you making some glib, non-substantive name-calling insult that disguises how little you actually know about this stuff.Breaking: Google lost a case brought by Epic Games as a jury found the search giant had created an antitrust market with its app store https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 12, 2023A former big law attorney writes a piece attacking the anti-monopoly movement as a failure the day after Google just lost its first major antitrust case. Does he mention it? Nope! Instead it's just pure gossip from anonymous big tech lawyers. https://t.co/mMo7HsghPE
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) December 14, 2023
Matt Stoller is a Fellow at the Open Markets Institute. Previously, he was a Senior Policy Advisor and Budget Analyst to the Senate Budget Committee. He also worked in the US House of Representatives on financial services policy, including Dodd-Frank, the Federal Reserve, and the foreclosure crisis. He has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, Vice, and Salon. He lives in Washington, DC. Goliath is his first book.
https://www.amazon.com/Goliath-100-Year-Between-Monopoly-Democracy/dp/1501183087
So while you are never slow to tout your own resume when discussing these subjects, don't think that it makes your perspective the only valid one. And unlike dajo, I don't pretend to hold expertise I don't have.
In this case however, two things may be true at the same time. Khan may be in over her skis to be running the FTC as a 30-something academic with no experience running a large organization, but that doesn't mean that too much power isn't concentrated in two few large companies.Too much market power for any one company, regardless of what the prices are, is a bad thing. A big thing that led to the disastrous decisions in the bank bailouts were that these institutions were "too big to fail." Know how you keep something from being too big to fail? Don't let it get that big in the first place. And whether that's an appropriate function for the FTC or not, the government can always create a new law or agency to act in whatever it deems the public interest, provided of course that the government gives a damn about the public interest which it certainly doesn't right now.Quote:
And not sure what we mean by going in the wrong direction for anti-trust. From a consumer perspective, prices, until Biden, have been steady and consumers had, if anything, too many options.
Yogi, although you and I probably disagree on most things, I don't like when people here play mean girls with you. And i have rarely participated. That's because I believe, unlike many here, you state what you really believe. And I respect that.
I don't necessarily disagree with you here. But big tech is different from big banks that were too big to fail since our economic and financial system is entirely dependent on credibility of the banks. There is no longer a gold standard. It's all based on trust. But tech is different. If you pull up my posts from six years ago, you know my biggest issue with big tech isn't their liberal or conservative tilt or their size It's their algorithms, data mining, AI, and automation that create mind warp for profit. They take small interest of normal people and turn that into extremism and create and feed the destructive ignorance bred from little bit of truth. And then they pretend they are liberal and doing good over some greenwashing bull**** on ESG. I made a crap load of money from tech companies but, having seen from the inside, I also know how unintentionally evil they are.
My issue with Biden's appointments for the FTC and SEC are not their policies. It is the dictatorship nature of the leaders Biden appointed with disregard for the constitution and separation of power, and lack of practicality and destruction of assets that could be better spent instead of holy crusade with no achievement. Want to influence allocation of capital? Good. Let the elected legislative body do it. Want to push for climate protection? So do I. But who the hell elected wonky Gensler in the SEC when we actually elected members of congress? Want to take down big tech? Good, but who elected some wonky 30 year old true believer teacher without practical experience to crusade under the guise of FTC leadership? Do you want Trump, when he wins, to appoint a new SEC leader and force companies not to fund ESG causes under the guise of investor protection? Do you want Trump to appoint some far right wacko to head Homeland Security and force states to reject actual election results under the guise of national security? These power grabs by unelected agencies who already have too much unchecked power are dangerous. And liberals think these breaking of norms is good since they have power. But the norms, once broken, will remain broken and will come back to bite them twice as hard. And no one will care when they cry just like no one cared when filibuster was destroyed for federal judges by the liberals and the liberals then cried foul that Republicans did the same for Supreme Court justice appointment. There is stupid "Trump the dictator" propaganda by the left when they cheer their own party's power grab through administrative law and then cry foul that the Supreme Court is appropriately checking the agency power with the help of West Virginia, as the EPA learned.
We all should be afraid of people like Gensler and Khan who break norms under the narcissistic fallacy that they have been appointed as gods to do good, because the other side will then carry on those new norms, and either the original authority they had to do good will be gone or someone else will use the same breaking of norms and the same power grab to do something really bad. Stupid people are always cheering for expedient measures because they have never played chess and cannot even see the next play, much less three steps in the future.
This write-up ignores the history of anti-trust in America. Anti-trust has reshaped itself many times. From a historical perspective, Calbear93 isn't really against changing norms in anti-trust - he just believes the last changing of norms from Reagan should be permanent. Or that the norms he was successful with in his career, should be unchanged.
This Harvard Business Review article has a good write-up of how anti-trust norms have changed over time. None of it led to dictatorship.
https://hbr.org/2017/12/the-rise-fall-and-rebirth-of-the-u-s-antitrust-movement#:~:text=Antitrust%2C%20observed%20the%20historian%2C%20once,but%20without%20any%20antitrust%20movement.
Trying to act like you know what you are talking about but completely missing the point as always. Read that and still missed that the whole point was about separation of power and breaking norms on authority granted under administrative law. Clueless.
Sit this one out junior. You too are over your skis on this.
As is typical, you are ignorant of history and seem to believe the world began with your career. Change is coming regardless of your lamentations.calbear93 said:dajo9 said:calbear93 said:Genocide Joe said:I wasn't selling you on the tweet as being objective. Here's some info on the author.calbear93 said:Not sure we can trust these tweets as objective.Genocide Joe said:A different perspective. I readily admit that I don't know much about the mechanics of anti-trust other than that we've been going in the wrong direction on anti-trust for decades.calbear93 said:
You are not anywhere near corporate development, are you?
Only someone who has no practical experience or has never ever worked on an M&A execution either on the business side or in the legal side would make this kind of statement.
Banks, investors, lawyers, and corporate development leaders who are liberal and conservative are universal in thinking Lina Khan has been a disaster. More losses in the courts in the history of the FTC, proposing to dictate on a national basis without authorization from congress on non-compete clauses, and proposing to turn a simple HSR filing into a pseudo, second review process without the actual man-power to do so, and destroying value by wasting even more money on extra lawyer fees, government workers, etc.
This is what I mean by people here having no clue but acting like they know. A simple discussion with actual practitioners, including those who are liberal, on how bad the FTC has been under this administration from an actual practical perspective would have provided you with some actual insight. Both liberals and conservatives I know who actually know what they are talking about think the FTC has been a disaster under Biden, and they will keep losing in the courts (including under judges appointed by Obama). As bad as Gensler has been, at least he is starting to realize that dictatorship by unelected agency is not going to fly under our constitution.
If Khan and Gensler had gone in wanting to be faithful to their granted authority instead of trying to be what folks claim they are afraid Trump will be - a dictator - they could have made a real difference. They could have, for the SEC, protected investors, and, for the FTC, protected consumer welfare. But what will happen is that, as a result of their overreach, the courts will further narrow the scope of all these agencies (as the SEC has witnessed, with now their gun-shy efforts on climate-related disclosure delayed once again and their share repurchase rules basically killed by the courts) so that both Gensler and Khan would have made both these agencies permanently that much weaker once they are done. Great job.
Counting down to you making some glib, non-substantive name-calling insult that disguises how little you actually know about this stuff.Breaking: Google lost a case brought by Epic Games as a jury found the search giant had created an antitrust market with its app store https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 12, 2023A former big law attorney writes a piece attacking the anti-monopoly movement as a failure the day after Google just lost its first major antitrust case. Does he mention it? Nope! Instead it's just pure gossip from anonymous big tech lawyers. https://t.co/mMo7HsghPE
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) December 14, 2023
Matt Stoller is a Fellow at the Open Markets Institute. Previously, he was a Senior Policy Advisor and Budget Analyst to the Senate Budget Committee. He also worked in the US House of Representatives on financial services policy, including Dodd-Frank, the Federal Reserve, and the foreclosure crisis. He has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, Vice, and Salon. He lives in Washington, DC. Goliath is his first book.
https://www.amazon.com/Goliath-100-Year-Between-Monopoly-Democracy/dp/1501183087
So while you are never slow to tout your own resume when discussing these subjects, don't think that it makes your perspective the only valid one. And unlike dajo, I don't pretend to hold expertise I don't have.
In this case however, two things may be true at the same time. Khan may be in over her skis to be running the FTC as a 30-something academic with no experience running a large organization, but that doesn't mean that too much power isn't concentrated in two few large companies.Too much market power for any one company, regardless of what the prices are, is a bad thing. A big thing that led to the disastrous decisions in the bank bailouts were that these institutions were "too big to fail." Know how you keep something from being too big to fail? Don't let it get that big in the first place. And whether that's an appropriate function for the FTC or not, the government can always create a new law or agency to act in whatever it deems the public interest, provided of course that the government gives a damn about the public interest which it certainly doesn't right now.Quote:
And not sure what we mean by going in the wrong direction for anti-trust. From a consumer perspective, prices, until Biden, have been steady and consumers had, if anything, too many options.
Yogi, although you and I probably disagree on most things, I don't like when people here play mean girls with you. And i have rarely participated. That's because I believe, unlike many here, you state what you really believe. And I respect that.
I don't necessarily disagree with you here. But big tech is different from big banks that were too big to fail since our economic and financial system is entirely dependent on credibility of the banks. There is no longer a gold standard. It's all based on trust. But tech is different. If you pull up my posts from six years ago, you know my biggest issue with big tech isn't their liberal or conservative tilt or their size It's their algorithms, data mining, AI, and automation that create mind warp for profit. They take small interest of normal people and turn that into extremism and create and feed the destructive ignorance bred from little bit of truth. And then they pretend they are liberal and doing good over some greenwashing bull**** on ESG. I made a crap load of money from tech companies but, having seen from the inside, I also know how unintentionally evil they are.
My issue with Biden's appointments for the FTC and SEC are not their policies. It is the dictatorship nature of the leaders Biden appointed with disregard for the constitution and separation of power, and lack of practicality and destruction of assets that could be better spent instead of holy crusade with no achievement. Want to influence allocation of capital? Good. Let the elected legislative body do it. Want to push for climate protection? So do I. But who the hell elected wonky Gensler in the SEC when we actually elected members of congress? Want to take down big tech? Good, but who elected some wonky 30 year old true believer teacher without practical experience to crusade under the guise of FTC leadership? Do you want Trump, when he wins, to appoint a new SEC leader and force companies not to fund ESG causes under the guise of investor protection? Do you want Trump to appoint some far right wacko to head Homeland Security and force states to reject actual election results under the guise of national security? These power grabs by unelected agencies who already have too much unchecked power are dangerous. And liberals think these breaking of norms is good since they have power. But the norms, once broken, will remain broken and will come back to bite them twice as hard. And no one will care when they cry just like no one cared when filibuster was destroyed for federal judges by the liberals and the liberals then cried foul that Republicans did the same for Supreme Court justice appointment. There is stupid "Trump the dictator" propaganda by the left when they cheer their own party's power grab through administrative law and then cry foul that the Supreme Court is appropriately checking the agency power with the help of West Virginia, as the EPA learned.
We all should be afraid of people like Gensler and Khan who break norms under the narcissistic fallacy that they have been appointed as gods to do good, because the other side will then carry on those new norms, and either the original authority they had to do good will be gone or someone else will use the same breaking of norms and the same power grab to do something really bad. Stupid people are always cheering for expedient measures because they have never played chess and cannot even see the next play, much less three steps in the future.
This write-up ignores the history of anti-trust in America. Anti-trust has reshaped itself many times. From a historical perspective, Calbear93 isn't really against changing norms in anti-trust - he just believes the last changing of norms from Reagan should be permanent. Or that the norms he was successful with in his career, should be unchanged.
This Harvard Business Review article has a good write-up of how anti-trust norms have changed over time. None of it led to dictatorship.
https://hbr.org/2017/12/the-rise-fall-and-rebirth-of-the-u-s-antitrust-movement#:~:text=Antitrust%2C%20observed%20the%20historian%2C%20once,but%20without%20any%20antitrust%20movement.
Trying to act like you know what you are talking about but completely missing the point as always. Read that and still missed that the whole point was about separation of power and breaking norms on authority granted under administrative law. Clueless.
Sit this one out junior. You too are over your skis on this.
dajo9 said:As is typical, you are ignorant of history and seem to believe the world began with your career. Change is coming regardless of your lamentations.calbear93 said:dajo9 said:calbear93 said:Genocide Joe said:I wasn't selling you on the tweet as being objective. Here's some info on the author.calbear93 said:Not sure we can trust these tweets as objective.Genocide Joe said:A different perspective. I readily admit that I don't know much about the mechanics of anti-trust other than that we've been going in the wrong direction on anti-trust for decades.calbear93 said:
You are not anywhere near corporate development, are you?
Only someone who has no practical experience or has never ever worked on an M&A execution either on the business side or in the legal side would make this kind of statement.
Banks, investors, lawyers, and corporate development leaders who are liberal and conservative are universal in thinking Lina Khan has been a disaster. More losses in the courts in the history of the FTC, proposing to dictate on a national basis without authorization from congress on non-compete clauses, and proposing to turn a simple HSR filing into a pseudo, second review process without the actual man-power to do so, and destroying value by wasting even more money on extra lawyer fees, government workers, etc.
This is what I mean by people here having no clue but acting like they know. A simple discussion with actual practitioners, including those who are liberal, on how bad the FTC has been under this administration from an actual practical perspective would have provided you with some actual insight. Both liberals and conservatives I know who actually know what they are talking about think the FTC has been a disaster under Biden, and they will keep losing in the courts (including under judges appointed by Obama). As bad as Gensler has been, at least he is starting to realize that dictatorship by unelected agency is not going to fly under our constitution.
If Khan and Gensler had gone in wanting to be faithful to their granted authority instead of trying to be what folks claim they are afraid Trump will be - a dictator - they could have made a real difference. They could have, for the SEC, protected investors, and, for the FTC, protected consumer welfare. But what will happen is that, as a result of their overreach, the courts will further narrow the scope of all these agencies (as the SEC has witnessed, with now their gun-shy efforts on climate-related disclosure delayed once again and their share repurchase rules basically killed by the courts) so that both Gensler and Khan would have made both these agencies permanently that much weaker once they are done. Great job.
Counting down to you making some glib, non-substantive name-calling insult that disguises how little you actually know about this stuff.Breaking: Google lost a case brought by Epic Games as a jury found the search giant had created an antitrust market with its app store https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg https://t.co/xN0IddPHKg
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 12, 2023A former big law attorney writes a piece attacking the anti-monopoly movement as a failure the day after Google just lost its first major antitrust case. Does he mention it? Nope! Instead it's just pure gossip from anonymous big tech lawyers. https://t.co/mMo7HsghPE
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) December 14, 2023
Matt Stoller is a Fellow at the Open Markets Institute. Previously, he was a Senior Policy Advisor and Budget Analyst to the Senate Budget Committee. He also worked in the US House of Representatives on financial services policy, including Dodd-Frank, the Federal Reserve, and the foreclosure crisis. He has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, Vice, and Salon. He lives in Washington, DC. Goliath is his first book.
https://www.amazon.com/Goliath-100-Year-Between-Monopoly-Democracy/dp/1501183087
So while you are never slow to tout your own resume when discussing these subjects, don't think that it makes your perspective the only valid one. And unlike dajo, I don't pretend to hold expertise I don't have.
In this case however, two things may be true at the same time. Khan may be in over her skis to be running the FTC as a 30-something academic with no experience running a large organization, but that doesn't mean that too much power isn't concentrated in two few large companies.Too much market power for any one company, regardless of what the prices are, is a bad thing. A big thing that led to the disastrous decisions in the bank bailouts were that these institutions were "too big to fail." Know how you keep something from being too big to fail? Don't let it get that big in the first place. And whether that's an appropriate function for the FTC or not, the government can always create a new law or agency to act in whatever it deems the public interest, provided of course that the government gives a damn about the public interest which it certainly doesn't right now.Quote:
And not sure what we mean by going in the wrong direction for anti-trust. From a consumer perspective, prices, until Biden, have been steady and consumers had, if anything, too many options.
Yogi, although you and I probably disagree on most things, I don't like when people here play mean girls with you. And i have rarely participated. That's because I believe, unlike many here, you state what you really believe. And I respect that.
I don't necessarily disagree with you here. But big tech is different from big banks that were too big to fail since our economic and financial system is entirely dependent on credibility of the banks. There is no longer a gold standard. It's all based on trust. But tech is different. If you pull up my posts from six years ago, you know my biggest issue with big tech isn't their liberal or conservative tilt or their size It's their algorithms, data mining, AI, and automation that create mind warp for profit. They take small interest of normal people and turn that into extremism and create and feed the destructive ignorance bred from little bit of truth. And then they pretend they are liberal and doing good over some greenwashing bull**** on ESG. I made a crap load of money from tech companies but, having seen from the inside, I also know how unintentionally evil they are.
My issue with Biden's appointments for the FTC and SEC are not their policies. It is the dictatorship nature of the leaders Biden appointed with disregard for the constitution and separation of power, and lack of practicality and destruction of assets that could be better spent instead of holy crusade with no achievement. Want to influence allocation of capital? Good. Let the elected legislative body do it. Want to push for climate protection? So do I. But who the hell elected wonky Gensler in the SEC when we actually elected members of congress? Want to take down big tech? Good, but who elected some wonky 30 year old true believer teacher without practical experience to crusade under the guise of FTC leadership? Do you want Trump, when he wins, to appoint a new SEC leader and force companies not to fund ESG causes under the guise of investor protection? Do you want Trump to appoint some far right wacko to head Homeland Security and force states to reject actual election results under the guise of national security? These power grabs by unelected agencies who already have too much unchecked power are dangerous. And liberals think these breaking of norms is good since they have power. But the norms, once broken, will remain broken and will come back to bite them twice as hard. And no one will care when they cry just like no one cared when filibuster was destroyed for federal judges by the liberals and the liberals then cried foul that Republicans did the same for Supreme Court justice appointment. There is stupid "Trump the dictator" propaganda by the left when they cheer their own party's power grab through administrative law and then cry foul that the Supreme Court is appropriately checking the agency power with the help of West Virginia, as the EPA learned.
We all should be afraid of people like Gensler and Khan who break norms under the narcissistic fallacy that they have been appointed as gods to do good, because the other side will then carry on those new norms, and either the original authority they had to do good will be gone or someone else will use the same breaking of norms and the same power grab to do something really bad. Stupid people are always cheering for expedient measures because they have never played chess and cannot even see the next play, much less three steps in the future.
This write-up ignores the history of anti-trust in America. Anti-trust has reshaped itself many times. From a historical perspective, Calbear93 isn't really against changing norms in anti-trust - he just believes the last changing of norms from Reagan should be permanent. Or that the norms he was successful with in his career, should be unchanged.
This Harvard Business Review article has a good write-up of how anti-trust norms have changed over time. None of it led to dictatorship.
https://hbr.org/2017/12/the-rise-fall-and-rebirth-of-the-u-s-antitrust-movement#:~:text=Antitrust%2C%20observed%20the%20historian%2C%20once,but%20without%20any%20antitrust%20movement.
Trying to act like you know what you are talking about but completely missing the point as always. Read that and still missed that the whole point was about separation of power and breaking norms on authority granted under administrative law. Clueless.
Sit this one out junior. You too are over your skis on this.
Junior, you are having an imaginary conversation no one else is having. We are talking about administrative law. No one other than you is even arguing or stating anything about the history of anti-trust law, but if we were, anyone here would know more than you. If you want to talk about administrative law that we have been discussing, we will wait until you find an article whose heading you have read to act like you are an expert. Until then, run along.
Featured Stories
See All
The Rodcast: The Greatest Drive Ever?
by Rod Benson
Cal Hosts Stanford In 127th Big Game
by Cal Athletics
Cal Wins Thriller Over Auburn
by Cal Athletics
Depleted Bears Hold Off Air Force, 78-69
by Jim McGill