What would it take for congress to roll back all this anti-competitive consolidation? Do we have precedent? Or do we just use the tools we have to break up monopolies and anti-competitive marketplaces?
We've gone through this period of extremely overt picking of winners and motivated regulatory capture for those willing to pay to play with the executive branch.
This is far more immoral than stealing a loaf of bread, far more people die and far more americans experience reduction in quality of life by the system working as currently designed to consolidate wealth and power for the jet set leisure class.
The anti-trust laws are still on the books even though they aren't currently being enforced effectively. It's not congress that needs to act right now, it's the executive branch that needs to execute the laws (by making judicial cases out of it, proving that laws were broken in the right courts). Which means getting a President and staff (FCC, FTC, SEC, and especially Attorneys General staff) that cares about these things, and having healthy competition in the market.
It's a reminder that Congress is intentionally only one piece in the three part puzzle and you can't just put all your hopes in the basket of a single Congressional midterms sweep, you also still need the other two branches functioning well. It's also a reminder that the DOGE cuts destabilized a ton of executive branch staff that may take decades to repair. The new historically weak FTC and FCC lost a lot of power to preempt anti-trust behaviors, putting more strain on after-the-fact/after-the-damage enforcement that requires the Executive and Judicial branches working together versus simpler Executive branch only "preventative defense" outcomes.
Enforcement is part of the problem, but the other problem is judges. The 'consumer welfare' doctrine of anti-trust has in large part served to justify not breaking up companies that really should be broken up.
Judges are part of enforcement, not an orthogonal concern. (And judges are appointed by the executive branch based on its priorities, so a long term trend of executive hostility to effective antitrust is likely to be reflected in the judiciary as well.)
People say things like that all the time and I think in many cases it’s just vibes that they hope no one calls them on. If you disagree, give a specific example in antitrust of an action you don’t like and how that action violates a law that you can cite the actual text of. And then tell me how the action and the law are at odds.
My position is that US antitrust law is antiquated and impossibly vague, and needs wholesale renovation so that it can’t just be used as a tool of either political side to help their favored interests.
But also, if you don’t trust in laws to solve a problem, what exactly are you proposing as an alternative? Vigilante justice?
> But also, if you don’t trust in laws to solve a problem, what exactly are you proposing as an alternative? Vigilante justice?
We don't need laws against using cell-phones while driving, because we already have due-care-and-attention laws that aren't being enforced. The alternative is to enforce the existing laws.
I’m still waiting for you to list an example of one specific instance of antitrust laws not being enforced where you explain what the law explicitly says that our govt didn’t enforce. I claim you’re talking out your ass, prove me wrong.
What would it take for congress to roll back all this anti-competitive consolidation? Do we have precedent? Or do we just use the tools we have to break up monopolies and anti-competitive marketplaces?
We've gone through this period of extremely overt picking of winners and motivated regulatory capture for those willing to pay to play with the executive branch.
This is far more immoral than stealing a loaf of bread, far more people die and far more americans experience reduction in quality of life by the system working as currently designed to consolidate wealth and power for the jet set leisure class.
The anti-trust laws are still on the books even though they aren't currently being enforced effectively. It's not congress that needs to act right now, it's the executive branch that needs to execute the laws (by making judicial cases out of it, proving that laws were broken in the right courts). Which means getting a President and staff (FCC, FTC, SEC, and especially Attorneys General staff) that cares about these things, and having healthy competition in the market.
It's a reminder that Congress is intentionally only one piece in the three part puzzle and you can't just put all your hopes in the basket of a single Congressional midterms sweep, you also still need the other two branches functioning well. It's also a reminder that the DOGE cuts destabilized a ton of executive branch staff that may take decades to repair. The new historically weak FTC and FCC lost a lot of power to preempt anti-trust behaviors, putting more strain on after-the-fact/after-the-damage enforcement that requires the Executive and Judicial branches working together versus simpler Executive branch only "preventative defense" outcomes.
Enforcement is part of the problem, but the other problem is judges. The 'consumer welfare' doctrine of anti-trust has in large part served to justify not breaking up companies that really should be broken up.
Judges are part of enforcement, not an orthogonal concern. (And judges are appointed by the executive branch based on its priorities, so a long term trend of executive hostility to effective antitrust is likely to be reflected in the judiciary as well.)
How is Fox and Roku anti-competitive? What would be the competitive surface where they overlap?
[dead]
It would take passing new laws. Why are you asking, do you not have Google? What on earth is the point of asking such an uninformed question?
If the existing laws aren't being enforced, why would new laws be enforced either?
My position is that US antitrust law is antiquated and impossibly vague, and needs wholesale renovation so that it can’t just be used as a tool of either political side to help their favored interests.
But also, if you don’t trust in laws to solve a problem, what exactly are you proposing as an alternative? Vigilante justice?
> But also, if you don’t trust in laws to solve a problem, what exactly are you proposing as an alternative? Vigilante justice?
We don't need laws against using cell-phones while driving, because we already have due-care-and-attention laws that aren't being enforced. The alternative is to enforce the existing laws.
I’m still waiting for you to list an example of one specific instance of antitrust laws not being enforced where you explain what the law explicitly says that our govt didn’t enforce. I claim you’re talking out your ass, prove me wrong.
Well, there's the nail in the coffin for my past habit of recommending Roku TVs as the least evil "smart" option.
When I asked how could Roku possibly get worse it was rhetorical.