This is such an excellent overview of the current stakes, and one that almost no one is discussing. I'd guess that 80% of the country, regardless of political orientation, would be thrilled to learn of the Biden's administration bold actions in this space, yet it's ignored by big media and not mentioned by the Democrats. I don't understand why so many popular actions by the administration, including those by executive order, are done quietly when they would gain widespread approval if anyone knew what they had done.
"This rage, if I had to guess, is driven less by policy disagreements and more by the anger that people feel when their moral worth is questioned." An intelligent guess. Scratch their veneer, you find this shadow denial dynamic. Go Matt.
"Khan is 32, and made her career on the idea that cheating people is wrong even if an economist chart says that it’s efficient. That just upsets a lot of lawyers"
I don't know what economics is, but it is not a science. The direction of the economy is controlled by people not by the laws of nature. The charts which describe the economy and the economy itself can be too easily manipulated and made to point in any direction like a ouija board. Crony capitalists can cheat and so can their economists if they are paid enough to do it.
Real science can be boring though, there is no cheating but it is too predictable. Economics is more like sports than science except that it actually matters (unlike sports). I'm cheering for Lina and Matt who continue to score touchdowns.
1. Any trade association of any sort is likely to reflect the interest of its more extreme members. This is as true for police unions as it is for the Chamber of Commerce. The extremists are the activists, and the association management must respond to it.
2. People like Jessica Rich are the norm in BigLaw. (I worked with them for three decades.) They have a lot invested in viewing themselves as liberals, and a lot invested in getting fees from their clients. This pushes their political activism and interests toward "social" issues, and away from "economic" issues.
Oh, and on banks. No bank should be allowed to exist with assets greater than X percent of GDP. What should X be? I'd argue for 1 percent, as that would break up the largest 17 banks.
Using 2 percent would result in the breakup of the largest 13.
Using 3, 4 or 5 percent would result in the breakup of the largest 6.
This is a reasonable standard because banks that are too big to fail are banks we can't effectively regulate. They'll engage in bad behavior and the consequences, ie bailouts, are a cost the public has to bear. We shouldn't pay for their bad behavior.
The CCP, Wall Street, The US ☭hamber Of ☭ommerce and ☭orporate Ameri☭a bribed ☭ongress to write the laws that made it legal to screw over America and allow the greatest transfer of jobs, wealth and intellectual property in modern history to an avowed enemy, Communist China, making them the threat they are today.
☭ongress and ☭orporate America are the real enemy!
That toxic calcification has quantitatively and bailed its way to the apex. The all to real threat, (gaining ever greater influence or the reprisal tantrm from change) should it continue, is eventually, they take much more important considerations down with them. Example 1a Ukraine.
Fun fact: The UF Warrington College of Business Administration actually had an anti-trust class back in 2002 or thereabouts. Sadly I don't remember much about it now.
Looks like a professor that used to work at UF, and thought highly of the anti-trust stuff there, runs a blog on antitrust and competition, and just posted a link to a paper by someone that's not a fan of Brandeis, so I guess UF antitrust must not have been particularly populist.
Aren't we shooting ourselves in the feets and cutting off our noses to spite our faces by stopping these mergers? Aren't these monopolies necessary to counter the larger international threats from China Inc, Japan Inc, Germany Inc, Korea Inc, and Taiwan Inc? Wouldn't Galbraithian price controls be better?
You should consider looking into whether the antirust efforts against Big Tech are at all being used to get them to engage in censorship. Quid Pro Quo?
This is such an excellent overview of the current stakes, and one that almost no one is discussing. I'd guess that 80% of the country, regardless of political orientation, would be thrilled to learn of the Biden's administration bold actions in this space, yet it's ignored by big media and not mentioned by the Democrats. I don't understand why so many popular actions by the administration, including those by executive order, are done quietly when they would gain widespread approval if anyone knew what they had done.
"This rage, if I had to guess, is driven less by policy disagreements and more by the anger that people feel when their moral worth is questioned." An intelligent guess. Scratch their veneer, you find this shadow denial dynamic. Go Matt.
"Khan is 32, and made her career on the idea that cheating people is wrong even if an economist chart says that it’s efficient. That just upsets a lot of lawyers"
I don't know what economics is, but it is not a science. The direction of the economy is controlled by people not by the laws of nature. The charts which describe the economy and the economy itself can be too easily manipulated and made to point in any direction like a ouija board. Crony capitalists can cheat and so can their economists if they are paid enough to do it.
Real science can be boring though, there is no cheating but it is too predictable. Economics is more like sports than science except that it actually matters (unlike sports). I'm cheering for Lina and Matt who continue to score touchdowns.
Defunding was a Libertarian project long before the Dems took it over. Libertarians are the direct descendants of the old Robber Barons.
OUTSTANDING -- thank you !!!
Two observations:
1. Any trade association of any sort is likely to reflect the interest of its more extreme members. This is as true for police unions as it is for the Chamber of Commerce. The extremists are the activists, and the association management must respond to it.
2. People like Jessica Rich are the norm in BigLaw. (I worked with them for three decades.) They have a lot invested in viewing themselves as liberals, and a lot invested in getting fees from their clients. This pushes their political activism and interests toward "social" issues, and away from "economic" issues.
I love seeing these people squirm.
Oh, and on banks. No bank should be allowed to exist with assets greater than X percent of GDP. What should X be? I'd argue for 1 percent, as that would break up the largest 17 banks.
Using 2 percent would result in the breakup of the largest 13.
Using 3, 4 or 5 percent would result in the breakup of the largest 6.
This is a reasonable standard because banks that are too big to fail are banks we can't effectively regulate. They'll engage in bad behavior and the consequences, ie bailouts, are a cost the public has to bear. We shouldn't pay for their bad behavior.
There, now I feel like an antitrust lawyer 😂
Really excellent, thank you.
The CCP, Wall Street, The US ☭hamber Of ☭ommerce and ☭orporate Ameri☭a bribed ☭ongress to write the laws that made it legal to screw over America and allow the greatest transfer of jobs, wealth and intellectual property in modern history to an avowed enemy, Communist China, making them the threat they are today.
☭ongress and ☭orporate America are the real enemy!
Quality again, Matt.
Consciousness is on the prowl.
That toxic calcification has quantitatively and bailed its way to the apex. The all to real threat, (gaining ever greater influence or the reprisal tantrm from change) should it continue, is eventually, they take much more important considerations down with them. Example 1a Ukraine.
Fun fact: The UF Warrington College of Business Administration actually had an anti-trust class back in 2002 or thereabouts. Sadly I don't remember much about it now.
Looks like a professor that used to work at UF, and thought highly of the anti-trust stuff there, runs a blog on antitrust and competition, and just posted a link to a paper by someone that's not a fan of Brandeis, so I guess UF antitrust must not have been particularly populist.
Framed as "populism vs innovation": https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3941425&dgcid=ejournal_htmlemail_antitrust:antitrust:law:policy:ejournal_abstractlink
There seems to be a lot of scholarship out there with the aim of proving that water isn't wet, I guess.
Aren't we shooting ourselves in the feets and cutting off our noses to spite our faces by stopping these mergers? Aren't these monopolies necessary to counter the larger international threats from China Inc, Japan Inc, Germany Inc, Korea Inc, and Taiwan Inc? Wouldn't Galbraithian price controls be better?
You should consider looking into whether the antirust efforts against Big Tech are at all being used to get them to engage in censorship. Quid Pro Quo?