Congress will now write into law the first major enhancement of antitrust law since 1976. And anti-monopolists accomplished this feat against the wishes of both Senate leaders.
I watched the zoom of the hearing in WA State Superior Court with Judge Ken Schubert. I was astonished by the circular reasoning he used to justify his denial of a temporary injunction to prevent the payment of an enormous windfall to Albertson’s “stakeholders.” He maintained with a fairly straight face that since the windfall had not yet been paid and the predicted dire consequences had thus not occurred, there was nothing for him to rule on. He said several times that Albertson’s financial acrobatics were not subject to litigation because the court cannot tell private corporations how to spend their money. I am relieved to learn that the Supreme Court granted an extension - and AG Ferguson has until Dec.19th to appeal Schubert’s damaging decision. I live in a community that was strip-mined by Albertson’s acquisition of Haggen’s. If this merger is allowed to proceed our community will be very negatively affected. We are pulling for Ferguson and so glad he is our AG - a hero in my mind.
"Five years ago, if someone would have told me that two powerful Senators - Republican Mitch McConnell and Democrat Chuck Schumer - cut a backroom deal to strengthen antitrust law, I would have rolled my eyes and laughed."
The two-party system is why the USA continues to shit the bed, politically speaking. It is toxic and results in constant devolution. Back room deals are easy to make when there are only two sides. Evil and mediocrity always end with evil winning.
Congrats, Matt, your patient, persistent and tenacious work, and the work of your colleagues in the field, is paying off. (I can see Louis Brandeis and Wright Patman smiling somewhere.) Not enough, of course, but, as your piece suggests, it's the momentum that counts. Perhaps, in 2-3 years, most of the Federal bench and state AGs will also be on board, so that we begin to see the results of your work. I read BIG a couple of years ago, and its message seemed liked a fantasy back then. Not now! Stay healthy and happy holidays.
This is honestly good news! Without the Schumer-Pelosi-McConnell trifecta it would definitely be better, but this is a few steps in the right direction. I like to think the public pressure is more helpful than the egregiousness of these mergers and underhanded deals but it's probably a combination...
Matt, I complained on your open thread this week that you seem like a spokesperson for the Biden administration ~ but now I see where you’re coming from. We may not agree on geopolitical issues, but you have done so much to rally people against antitrust— and yes, this pressure seems to be getting somewhere. It could be going faster, and antitrust won’t change all the issues that plague our society; but you stay focused, and that helps. Thank you!
“it’s also personal; one of his daughters works at Meta, and another works at Amazon.”
I don’t understand why this is not a direct conflict of interest, which would preclude Schumer from voting on these bills let alone having any power in shaping them.
Judges and attorneys have to regularly recuse themselves if there is a discoverable COI. Doctors do the same when treating patients.
I assume there are regulations in place for Congressmen? If not, then it’s a huge problem and an area of possible policy improvement.
Members of Congress should disclose any and all COI.
Nature of COI ought to determine whether a member of Congress is possibly compromised and/or conflicted enough to be in direct conflict of their duties to the public.
Listened to Ed D’Agostino interview Andrew Yang. Interesting thoughts, including those on ranked choice voting and the need for more parties. How to make it happen? A little at a time, I suppose. Clearly, what we have isn’t working!
I feel the wall on challenging BIG mergers is coming down & even those who benefit from the monopolies are unable to look away without realizing they are harming their constituents. Those with a conscience (admittedly only a few) are forced to do something to prevent the capriciousness of big business.
Congratulations to you on all your efforts to educate the public about the danger of monopolies & the needs for our government to review them for fairness. Thank you!
look, I get it, you *want* to believe democracy still has a voice, but that bias ignored mountains of history and evidence to the contrary.
only money has a voice today. so if the piggies of control acted even in the slightest way that appears to be positive, then, more importantly, is following the money that must have paid for it.
On You saying about line,, lets say Odd Couple, Mitch and Chuck,,lol.. Yes I agree, but
Thought, and I wonder if Mitch come to a point, to realized What the Hell He and His party has become. Regrets, sole searching moment in his life. just maybe? a little bit.
LoL, Add, not sure which issue it was, BUT, a statement was made, From a GOP member " We got to get this pass, So, McCathery do not have to deal with it, For he`ll be having enough problems with in the party in the House". It was from a GOP Senator statement tho. maybe it was this one-bill, not sure
Good news. Would the next in line to replace Schumer be any more inclined to support anti-trust?
You have this one section that says: "There is a provision that will force the disclosure of Chinese subsidies to the FTC and Antitrust Division when firms receiving them are trying to move." Please explain what it means--with an example, perhaps. Mostly, I wonder how Chinese (companies?) "subsidize" the FTC.
I have been quiet in the comments but I want to say a couple of things about this.
I should declare that I am a libertarian but I fit more along the lines of a Constitutionalist. So any entity that can shrink the power of any institution towards a more decentralized future is acceptable to me. One of the few things I believe the government should do is act on monopolies because they are a significant threat to our personal and financial freedom. So any increase of money towards anti-trust/anti-monopoly is a positive sign.
But, taking the exception for Big Tech out of the picture, the federal and state governments have always been the largest enablers for the creation of monopolies. In California, not counting city or county run utilities, three companies have monopolistic control of specific territories for control of the utilities in a region. Government rules created this. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 destroyed my industry, television, with massive consolidation. Low interest rates and stock buybacks allow artifical inflation of corporate value which leads to more consolidation. Without acknowledging the role that our Federal government plays in enabling this behavior, all this increase in funding will ultimately accomplish is putting a band aid on a stab wound. At some point, you need to seal the wound that is causing your blood loss (The government). Ask yourself this question? How many billionaires were there fifty years ago? Than ask yourself why we have so many today when government and its regulations that are supposed to help seem to be having the opposite effect? The only people hurt by these regulations are small family run businesses. So how do we solve this? Maybe only enforce regulations for companies worth more than 100 million? In conclusion, none of this is going to matter unless we fix our economic system or regulations that seem to harm the businesses we would prefer to support than help them. This has always been my one major gripe with left wing economics. We are just running on a treadmill right now
Too Much Winning: Antitrust Reform to Become Law
I watched the zoom of the hearing in WA State Superior Court with Judge Ken Schubert. I was astonished by the circular reasoning he used to justify his denial of a temporary injunction to prevent the payment of an enormous windfall to Albertson’s “stakeholders.” He maintained with a fairly straight face that since the windfall had not yet been paid and the predicted dire consequences had thus not occurred, there was nothing for him to rule on. He said several times that Albertson’s financial acrobatics were not subject to litigation because the court cannot tell private corporations how to spend their money. I am relieved to learn that the Supreme Court granted an extension - and AG Ferguson has until Dec.19th to appeal Schubert’s damaging decision. I live in a community that was strip-mined by Albertson’s acquisition of Haggen’s. If this merger is allowed to proceed our community will be very negatively affected. We are pulling for Ferguson and so glad he is our AG - a hero in my mind.
"Five years ago, if someone would have told me that two powerful Senators - Republican Mitch McConnell and Democrat Chuck Schumer - cut a backroom deal to strengthen antitrust law, I would have rolled my eyes and laughed."
The two-party system is why the USA continues to shit the bed, politically speaking. It is toxic and results in constant devolution. Back room deals are easy to make when there are only two sides. Evil and mediocrity always end with evil winning.
Congrats, Matt, your patient, persistent and tenacious work, and the work of your colleagues in the field, is paying off. (I can see Louis Brandeis and Wright Patman smiling somewhere.) Not enough, of course, but, as your piece suggests, it's the momentum that counts. Perhaps, in 2-3 years, most of the Federal bench and state AGs will also be on board, so that we begin to see the results of your work. I read BIG a couple of years ago, and its message seemed liked a fantasy back then. Not now! Stay healthy and happy holidays.
This is honestly good news! Without the Schumer-Pelosi-McConnell trifecta it would definitely be better, but this is a few steps in the right direction. I like to think the public pressure is more helpful than the egregiousness of these mergers and underhanded deals but it's probably a combination...
Matt, I complained on your open thread this week that you seem like a spokesperson for the Biden administration ~ but now I see where you’re coming from. We may not agree on geopolitical issues, but you have done so much to rally people against antitrust— and yes, this pressure seems to be getting somewhere. It could be going faster, and antitrust won’t change all the issues that plague our society; but you stay focused, and that helps. Thank you!
“it’s also personal; one of his daughters works at Meta, and another works at Amazon.”
I don’t understand why this is not a direct conflict of interest, which would preclude Schumer from voting on these bills let alone having any power in shaping them.
Judges and attorneys have to regularly recuse themselves if there is a discoverable COI. Doctors do the same when treating patients.
I assume there are regulations in place for Congressmen? If not, then it’s a huge problem and an area of possible policy improvement.
Members of Congress should disclose any and all COI.
Nature of COI ought to determine whether a member of Congress is possibly compromised and/or conflicted enough to be in direct conflict of their duties to the public.
Listened to Ed D’Agostino interview Andrew Yang. Interesting thoughts, including those on ranked choice voting and the need for more parties. How to make it happen? A little at a time, I suppose. Clearly, what we have isn’t working!
I feel the wall on challenging BIG mergers is coming down & even those who benefit from the monopolies are unable to look away without realizing they are harming their constituents. Those with a conscience (admittedly only a few) are forced to do something to prevent the capriciousness of big business.
Congratulations to you on all your efforts to educate the public about the danger of monopolies & the needs for our government to review them for fairness. Thank you!
cui bono?
look, I get it, you *want* to believe democracy still has a voice, but that bias ignored mountains of history and evidence to the contrary.
only money has a voice today. so if the piggies of control acted even in the slightest way that appears to be positive, then, more importantly, is following the money that must have paid for it.
On You saying about line,, lets say Odd Couple, Mitch and Chuck,,lol.. Yes I agree, but
Thought, and I wonder if Mitch come to a point, to realized What the Hell He and His party has become. Regrets, sole searching moment in his life. just maybe? a little bit.
LoL, Add, not sure which issue it was, BUT, a statement was made, From a GOP member " We got to get this pass, So, McCathery do not have to deal with it, For he`ll be having enough problems with in the party in the House". It was from a GOP Senator statement tho. maybe it was this one-bill, not sure
Good news. Would the next in line to replace Schumer be any more inclined to support anti-trust?
You have this one section that says: "There is a provision that will force the disclosure of Chinese subsidies to the FTC and Antitrust Division when firms receiving them are trying to move." Please explain what it means--with an example, perhaps. Mostly, I wonder how Chinese (companies?) "subsidize" the FTC.
I have been quiet in the comments but I want to say a couple of things about this.
I should declare that I am a libertarian but I fit more along the lines of a Constitutionalist. So any entity that can shrink the power of any institution towards a more decentralized future is acceptable to me. One of the few things I believe the government should do is act on monopolies because they are a significant threat to our personal and financial freedom. So any increase of money towards anti-trust/anti-monopoly is a positive sign.
But, taking the exception for Big Tech out of the picture, the federal and state governments have always been the largest enablers for the creation of monopolies. In California, not counting city or county run utilities, three companies have monopolistic control of specific territories for control of the utilities in a region. Government rules created this. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 destroyed my industry, television, with massive consolidation. Low interest rates and stock buybacks allow artifical inflation of corporate value which leads to more consolidation. Without acknowledging the role that our Federal government plays in enabling this behavior, all this increase in funding will ultimately accomplish is putting a band aid on a stab wound. At some point, you need to seal the wound that is causing your blood loss (The government). Ask yourself this question? How many billionaires were there fifty years ago? Than ask yourself why we have so many today when government and its regulations that are supposed to help seem to be having the opposite effect? The only people hurt by these regulations are small family run businesses. So how do we solve this? Maybe only enforce regulations for companies worth more than 100 million? In conclusion, none of this is going to matter unless we fix our economic system or regulations that seem to harm the businesses we would prefer to support than help them. This has always been my one major gripe with left wing economics. We are just running on a treadmill right now
I`ll get off here, unleast called, Which, I think NOT. I know,,,, dont let the door hit me in the Azz
BUT, Thank Matt, for the info and letting us know. Hope Your have a bigger audience in future.
Maybe you do got it,, ,,??? I know your not making a living here.
Marry Christmas to All and You `res