calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

I wasn't selling you on the tweet as being objective. Here's some info on the author.

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

You made an argument that is ignorant of history. Since history completely rejects your argument you pretend it doesn't exist and keep your narrow focus because that's where you feel safe. The real world doesn't operate that way. Adding elitist commentary like junior or Kitsap Karen doesn't strengthen your argument. It weakens it. Nothing wrong with Kitsap despite your elitist condescension.
https://www.threads.net/@jtate181/post/C07Gb09rWBr/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

I wasn't selling you on the tweet as being objective. Here's some info on the author.

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

You made an argument that is ignorant of history. Since history completely rejects your argument you pretend it doesn't exist and keep your narrow focus because that's where you feel safe. The real world doesn't operate that way.
https://www.threads.net/@jtate181/post/C07Gb09rWBr/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

---

You are utterly stupid. You cannot even differentiate administrative law from anti-trust law and wouldn't know the major question doctrine under administrative law even if I were to explain it to you like you were a third grader. Seriously, run along. No one actually thinks you know any of this **** no matter how many irrelevant articles you post and no matter how much you pass snide arrogant comments as some sign of unspoken depth of knowledge. You probably think my discussion on the SEC and Gensler were also about anti-trust and that West Virginia vs EPA case I mentioned was about history of antitrust. You are such a fake intellectual.

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

I wasn't selling you on the tweet as being objective. Here's some info on the author.

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

You made an argument that is ignorant of history. Since history completely rejects your argument you pretend it doesn't exist and keep your narrow focus because that's where you feel safe. The real world doesn't operate that way.
https://www.threads.net/@jtate181/post/C07Gb09rWBr/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

---

You are utterly stupid. You cannot even differentiate administrative law from anti-trust law and wouldn't know the major question doctrine under administrative law even if I were to explain it to you like you were a third grader. Seriously, run along. No one actually thinks you know any of this **** no matter how many irrelevant articles you post and no matter how much you pass snide arrogant comments as some sign of unspoken depth of knowledge. You probably think my discussion on the SEC and Gensler were also about anti-trust and that West Virginia vs EPA case I mentioned was about history of antitrust. You are such a fake intellectual.

---

You seem to take every difference of opinion as a personal affront and get angry and demanding about terms of discussion. Sorry but the real world doesn't work that way.

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

I wasn't selling you on the tweet as being objective. Here's some info on the author.

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

You made an argument that is ignorant of history. Since history completely rejects your argument you pretend it doesn't exist and keep your narrow focus because that's where you feel safe. The real world doesn't operate that way.
https://www.threads.net/@jtate181/post/C07Gb09rWBr/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

---

You are utterly stupid. You cannot even differentiate administrative law from anti-trust law and wouldn't know the major question doctrine under administrative law even if I were to explain it to you like you were a third grader. Seriously, run along. No one actually thinks you know any of this **** no matter how many irrelevant articles you post and no matter how much you pass snide arrogant comments as some sign of unspoken depth of knowledge. You probably think my discussion on the SEC and Gensler were also about anti-trust and that West Virginia vs EPA case I mentioned was about history of antitrust. You are such a fake intellectual.

---

You seem to take every difference of opinion as a personal affront and get angry and demanding about terms of discussion. Sorry but the real world doesn't work that way

---

Right, because you clearly know how the real world works. That's obvious to all.

I don't take differences of opinion as personal affront. I take offense to you, and you passing off zero knowledge as some expertise by making discussions into a personal insult.

Just run along. Idiots like you always start off with insults and then disingenuously claim - why are you making it personal? We all know weenies like you who start fights and then cries at the first punch.

Fake people like you who start making personal insults as you did in your response to my discussion with Yogi are just trolling, especially when they completely miss the point of the discussion. Yes, I don't like trolls like you who think resorting to insults without any actual substance or knowledge in an attempt to come across as more knowledgeable when any scratching of surface into substantive reveals complete absence of actual knowledge.

And then you write stupid crap like "real world doesn't work that way" as if you have some actual meaningful experience. Laughable.

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

I wasn't selling you on the tweet as being objective. Here's some info on the author.

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

You made an argument that is ignorant of history. Since history completely rejects your argument you pretend it doesn't exist and keep your narrow focus because that's where you feel safe. The real world doesn't operate that way.
https://www.threads.net/@jtate181/post/C07Gb09rWBr/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

---

You are utterly stupid. You cannot even differentiate administrative law from anti-trust law and wouldn't know the major question doctrine under administrative law even if I were to explain it to you like you were a third grader. Seriously, run along. No one actually thinks you know any of this **** no matter how many irrelevant articles you post and no matter how much you pass snide arrogant comments as some sign of unspoken depth of knowledge. You probably think my discussion on the SEC and Gensler were also about anti-trust and that West Virginia vs EPA case I mentioned was about history of antitrust. You are such a fake intellectual.

---

You seem to take every difference of opinion as a personal affront and get angry and demanding about terms of discussion. Sorry but the real world doesn't work that way

---

Right, because you clearly know how the real world works. That's obvious to all.

I don't take differences of opinion as personal affront. I take offense to you, and you passing off zero knowledge as some expertise by making discussions into a personal insult.

Just run along. Idiots like you always start off with insults and then disingenuously claim - why are you making it personal? We all know weenies like you who start fights and then cries at the first punch.

Fake people like you who start making personal insults as you did in your response to my discussion with Yogi are just trolling, especially when they completely miss the point of the discussion. Yes, I don't like trolls like you who think resorting to insults without any actual substance or knowledge in an attempt to come across as more knowledgeable when any scratching of surface into substantive reveals complete absence of actual knowledge.

And then you write stupid crap like "real world doesn't work that way" as if you have some actual meaningful experience. Laughable.

---

You are so self unaware you don't realize you cast the first insult in this discussion. Except you take a difference of opinion as an insult. You are as predictable as Cal88 pushing Russian propaganda or movielover brainless repeating proven misinformation. You insult. You get angry. Every time.

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

I wasn't selling you on the tweet as being objective. Here's some info on the author.

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

You made an argument that is ignorant of history. Since history completely rejects your argument you pretend it doesn't exist and keep your narrow focus because that's where you feel safe. The real world doesn't operate that way.
https://www.threads.net/@jtate181/post/C07Gb09rWBr/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==

---

You are utterly stupid. You cannot even differentiate administrative law from anti-trust law and wouldn't know the major question doctrine under administrative law even if I were to explain it to you like you were a third grader. Seriously, run along. No one actually thinks you know any of this **** no matter how many irrelevant articles you post and no matter how much you pass snide arrogant comments as some sign of unspoken depth of knowledge. You probably think my discussion on the SEC and Gensler were also about anti-trust and that West Virginia vs EPA case I mentioned was about history of antitrust. You are such a fake intellectual.

---

You seem to take every difference of opinion as a personal affront and get angry and demanding about terms of discussion. Sorry but the real world doesn't work that way

---

Right, because you clearly know how the real world works. That's obvious to all.

I don't take differences of opinion as personal affront. I take offense to you, and you passing off zero knowledge as some expertise by making discussions into a personal insult.

Just run along. Idiots like you always start off with insults and then disingenuously claim - why are you making it personal? We all know weenies like you who start fights and then cries at the first punch.

Fake people like you who start making personal insults as you did in your response to my discussion with Yogi are just trolling, especially when they completely miss the point of the discussion. Yes, I don't like trolls like you who think resorting to insults without any actual substance or knowledge in an attempt to come across as more knowledgeable when any scratching of surface into substantive reveals complete absence of actual knowledge.

And then you write stupid crap like "real world doesn't work that way" as if you have some actual meaningful experience. Laughable.

---

You are so self unaware you don't realize you cast the first insult in this discussion. Except you take a difference of opinion as an insult. You are as predictable as Cal88 pushing Russian propaganda or movielover brainless repeating proven misinformation. You insult. You get angry. Every time.

---

Gaslighting again. And bringing Cal88 and the resident trolls. Why? Your arguments are not good enough that you have to hide behind Cal88 and the Troll? Yes, folks would clearly say that you bring more substantive discussion than I do and insult less than I do. How so self aware of you.

Honest question for Calbear and Dajo. Why do you two keep engaging? I can see a little back and forth over differences of opinion and sources/interpretations of facts, but this has become like watching someone playing tennis against the wall and expecting to win. It's beyond clear that neither of you is going to concede to the other, so why spend the time?

bearister said:

---

Why everyone was so wrong about the 2023 economy


https://www.axios.com/2023/12/22/2023-economy-predictions-wrong-recession

Six charts that defined the markets in 2023


https://www.axios.com/2023/12/20/america-economy-2023-growth-investments-gdp-stock-market

---

That's a good article even though the only economist they get opinions from was Larry Summers who has been wrong about the fight against inflation. Economists are wrong frequently. They make forecasts using assumptions and models and it is not science. My view is to be wary of economists who always come to the same conclusion regardless of circumstance (i.e. economy is good so we need tax cuts. Also, economy is bad so we need tax cuts. Those types).

Interesting about this economy is the resurgent debate about whether or not inflation was "transitory". Two definitions of "transitory" - one was the common perception of the word, in that inflation would just last a couple months. That is how I was using the word when I first said I didn't think inflation would be a problem - so I don't wan't anybody feeling the need to say I am trying to rewrite history and claim I was right. I was wrong about inflation being a problem - correct for the past year about it being on the downtrend.

But for economists, the technical term of "transitory" means it will go away without needing to drive up unemployment and create a recession. In other words, that it will go away without crashing the economy. In this sense, the "transitory" economists appear to have been correct. This makes sense if you think about inflation being a response from supply chain issues and temporary high stimulus. When those things pass, inflation will pass in time.

That leads to a lot of questions about the efficacy of the Fed raising interest rates. Certainly I would think the Fed needed to get off the zero lower bound and "normalize" rates (2% - 3%). But did raising rates to the point of potentially reducing investment prove helpful or harmful? If you raise interest rates and reduce investment in new housing - how will that reduce the cost of housing? It's an interesting debate.

One thing I think the episodes of the last 15 years proves is that fiscal stimulus is very effective. The focus should be on finding the right amount of stimulus (too little can cause a slow recovery and too much can be inflationary) rather than a focus on whether or not to use fiscal stimulus at all - not using fiscal stimulus at all having been a very strong opinion for many economists.

dajo9 said:

---

By 2023 all the lost Covid jobs had already been restored. Biden created more jobs in 2023 than Trump created in any year of his Presidency.

Biden is the best President of our lifetime

---

Aren't more people working multiple jobs to make ends meet?
Aren't prices still high?
Didn't credit card debt hit an all time record?
Didn't bankruptcies hit an all time record?

Bankruptcy is cool! Just ask Mango Mussolini.

calbear93 said:

---

A lot of mixed signals.

What concerns me are the low bookings and backlog are trending. PMI still below 50 indicating continuing contraction in manufacturing. Longest period of contraction since 2001. Pricing power weakening, impacting margins in guidance provided in Q3. China's economy is still in danger: We will see more during the upcoming earnings season when companies will set initial guidance for 2024.

---

What do you make of the boom in manufacturing construction? A lot of credit to the CHIPS Act (which I know you have commented favorably on) as well as the infrastructure law.

The Biden administration's signature legislation — particularly the CHIPs Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law — has spurred a surge in construction spending that's buoyed the economy. https://t.co/iOd6YF6GwV

— Axios (@axios) January 5, 2024