Well done Matt, you seem to have irritated all the right people. They are on the backfoot imo, know that the argument is lost and now the game is just to play for time through bipartisan gridlock. Let's hope it does not work out that way.
Anti-trust could be enforced after the law has been broken, but only if it was treated punitively and resulted in the dismantling of offender's company more often than not. This is not the case, if you're going to argue that anti-trust should only be enforced after an offense, you should in the same breath mention bringing back criminal penalties and increasing the effective penalties for doing so. If you're not, you don't really believe in anti-trust and you're arguing from a fictional viewpoint.
He mentions Marxism's "World View" to try and paint anti-trust as communist. One beautiful thing about anti-trust is that it provides justice and breaks economic abuses without taking property. Investors and owners may experience fluctuations in value, but do not loose property due to anti-trust, unlike many if not most other forms of government interference in business. I believe I've seen estimates that put the height of Rockerfeller's wealth to be after the big breakup. Anti-trust breaks the power of money managers and CEO's, not the wealth of investors. It is a form of business regulation that conservatives and even a certain brand of libertarians can back.
I have an economics degree and have worked in doing economic analysis my whole career in specific markets, but anyone who is paying attention understands that academic macroeconomic analysis is complete nonsense and as made up as astrology.
The reason economists are losing authority is that they're constantly wrong about everything, and don't do the work of understanding markets. If they did, they might not be wrong all the time (or at least admit they don't understand and can't predict markets).
The walls are closing in on the consumer welfare standard grift, because you can't win a public debate on a standard that doesn't work for anyone in the public.
Moreover, it's not even going to win the debate in the long run from financiers, when they see the profits they can make from breakups.
Well done Matt, you seem to have irritated all the right people. They are on the backfoot imo, know that the argument is lost and now the game is just to play for time through bipartisan gridlock. Let's hope it does not work out that way.
Anti-trust could be enforced after the law has been broken, but only if it was treated punitively and resulted in the dismantling of offender's company more often than not. This is not the case, if you're going to argue that anti-trust should only be enforced after an offense, you should in the same breath mention bringing back criminal penalties and increasing the effective penalties for doing so. If you're not, you don't really believe in anti-trust and you're arguing from a fictional viewpoint.
He mentions Marxism's "World View" to try and paint anti-trust as communist. One beautiful thing about anti-trust is that it provides justice and breaks economic abuses without taking property. Investors and owners may experience fluctuations in value, but do not loose property due to anti-trust, unlike many if not most other forms of government interference in business. I believe I've seen estimates that put the height of Rockerfeller's wealth to be after the big breakup. Anti-trust breaks the power of money managers and CEO's, not the wealth of investors. It is a form of business regulation that conservatives and even a certain brand of libertarians can back.
I have an economics degree and have worked in doing economic analysis my whole career in specific markets, but anyone who is paying attention understands that academic macroeconomic analysis is complete nonsense and as made up as astrology.
The reason economists are losing authority is that they're constantly wrong about everything, and don't do the work of understanding markets. If they did, they might not be wrong all the time (or at least admit they don't understand and can't predict markets).
The walls are closing in on the consumer welfare standard grift, because you can't win a public debate on a standard that doesn't work for anyone in the public.
Moreover, it's not even going to win the debate in the long run from financiers, when they see the profits they can make from breakups.