The Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act just moved through the U.S. House of Representatives, supported by a weird bipartisan coalition. This is very, very good news.
Arrogance and greed will be the downfall of these monopolistic corporations. The public is now seeing that the market power of these companies is a direct cause of income inequality that affects their livelihood. The real question is, will the voters elect legislators that will represent them and not the elites. We need a congress to will start regulating big corporations. An unfettered and unregulated economy is not a free market economy.
Negotiations on the IPEF are going on, mostly in secret, with Gina Raimondo in charge of 3 of the 4 pillars and Lina Khan in charge of one - so, as with others of our trade deals, there could well be provisions that moot what Congress does decide - and Big Tech is heavily involved
I think this would be a good thing for Matt to check out - before the bubble gets burst ...
A primer on the political economy of antitrust politics. Just awesome. Thanks for the headwork it took to put the piece together. And it's all good news to boot.
This is the best political-economy news I've read in months. Maybe all year. I wish I could do more than give my meager thanks to American Economic Liberties Project, Khan, Kanter, and you.
Great article and some welcome good news. One small note, Jordan is the ranking member at Judiciary, not Chairman, although that may change in January.
The fight for antitrust needs better marketing. It needs to counter the narrative (esp among tech bro “libertarians”) that the govt doesn’t have the expertise to regulate businesses. The lack of expertise is represented by, unfortunately, politicians scoring political points.
The message ought to be the FTC’s job is to promote competition. Period. That mission is right on its website. “Consumer welfare” comes from competition. Lower prices come from competition. Innovation comes from competition. Competition is the heart of capitalism. It’s less “socialist” than monopolization.
We never hear from the thousands of small and medium sized businesses, usually still founder owned and operated, that benefit from strong antitrust. Big, inefficient, unethical goliaths (to borrow a word) should be vilified not just vis-a-vis consumers and workers, but wrt to the real backbone of the economy, but also the businesses worth 10s and 100s of millions.
my guess is the State Court change is the change that drove the "bipartisan" vote. Whenever you see "bipartisan" vote that is a clue that something hidden is going on. In this case, youtube and facebook have control over voter turnout with their algorithms, so if FB and YT don't make both sides happy, we get bipartisan legislation to regulate them.
Matt, can you pass along when the Act moves to the Senate so your readers, like me can put pressure on our lawmakers to make the Act law? Thanks for all you do.
‘’In a fascinating illustration of the bureaucratic reservoirs of corporate power, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts came out against the legislation, arguing that it will burden the court system with too many suits. Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf, who runs that office, wrote Congress that it would foster a “problem” of too much antitrust enforcement. Senators Klobuchar and Mike Lee responded by calling the letter from the courts “inappropriate,” as it “closely mirror[s] the arguments made by Google in its response to the antitrust complaints of Texas and other states.’’
Seems that enforcing laws causes problems for bureaucrats. Here’s a solution: get rid of ALL the laws so bureaucrats can take more coffee breaks. /s
Arrogance and greed will be the downfall of these monopolistic corporations. The public is now seeing that the market power of these companies is a direct cause of income inequality that affects their livelihood. The real question is, will the voters elect legislators that will represent them and not the elites. We need a congress to will start regulating big corporations. An unfettered and unregulated economy is not a free market economy.
Before getting too excited about the prospects for Leg reform - you might want to check out
https://anchor.fm/rethinking-trade/episodes/Treat-IPEF-with-Sunlight-To-Avoid-Harm-e1o5hhq
Negotiations on the IPEF are going on, mostly in secret, with Gina Raimondo in charge of 3 of the 4 pillars and Lina Khan in charge of one - so, as with others of our trade deals, there could well be provisions that moot what Congress does decide - and Big Tech is heavily involved
I think this would be a good thing for Matt to check out - before the bubble gets burst ...
A primer on the political economy of antitrust politics. Just awesome. Thanks for the headwork it took to put the piece together. And it's all good news to boot.
This is the best political-economy news I've read in months. Maybe all year. I wish I could do more than give my meager thanks to American Economic Liberties Project, Khan, Kanter, and you.
Great article and some welcome good news. One small note, Jordan is the ranking member at Judiciary, not Chairman, although that may change in January.
The fight for antitrust needs better marketing. It needs to counter the narrative (esp among tech bro “libertarians”) that the govt doesn’t have the expertise to regulate businesses. The lack of expertise is represented by, unfortunately, politicians scoring political points.
The message ought to be the FTC’s job is to promote competition. Period. That mission is right on its website. “Consumer welfare” comes from competition. Lower prices come from competition. Innovation comes from competition. Competition is the heart of capitalism. It’s less “socialist” than monopolization.
We never hear from the thousands of small and medium sized businesses, usually still founder owned and operated, that benefit from strong antitrust. Big, inefficient, unethical goliaths (to borrow a word) should be vilified not just vis-a-vis consumers and workers, but wrt to the real backbone of the economy, but also the businesses worth 10s and 100s of millions.
my guess is the State Court change is the change that drove the "bipartisan" vote. Whenever you see "bipartisan" vote that is a clue that something hidden is going on. In this case, youtube and facebook have control over voter turnout with their algorithms, so if FB and YT don't make both sides happy, we get bipartisan legislation to regulate them.
Great podcast.
Nice to hear some good news!
Matt, can you pass along when the Act moves to the Senate so your readers, like me can put pressure on our lawmakers to make the Act law? Thanks for all you do.
‘’In a fascinating illustration of the bureaucratic reservoirs of corporate power, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts came out against the legislation, arguing that it will burden the court system with too many suits. Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf, who runs that office, wrote Congress that it would foster a “problem” of too much antitrust enforcement. Senators Klobuchar and Mike Lee responded by calling the letter from the courts “inappropriate,” as it “closely mirror[s] the arguments made by Google in its response to the antitrust complaints of Texas and other states.’’
Seems that enforcing laws causes problems for bureaucrats. Here’s a solution: get rid of ALL the laws so bureaucrats can take more coffee breaks. /s