4 ms·

Agree antitrust regulation is screwed up, and agree self regulation against pollution is good for the environment. but, the particular case here isn't entirely

by cat199 7y ago

Agree antitrust regulation is screwed up, and agree self regulation against pollution is good for the environment. but, the particular case here isn't entirely about industry cartels and antitrust - it is also about a single state's political influence over national policy, with antitrust being (mis)used as a proxy for the fight. This same publication has no qualms complaining about undue influence of a single state nationally when it comes to terrible texas history books (and so, extrapolating, when it aligns with editorial policy): https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/the-history-class-dilemma/411601/ https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/the-hi... https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/09/mexican-american-studies-texas/498947/ https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/09/mexican-ame... and, unsurprisingly, it conveniently ignores this dimension in this article, and similarly doesn't speak to the also current topic of antitrust investigations into the undue influence of (editorially-aligned) tech giants.

simplecomplex 7y ago
HN desperately needs a ban on NYT, Atlantic, and Guardian articles. They are mostly political opinion pieces that provide no insight and the discussion around them is always the same: one political camp bitching about the government and corporations.
horsawlarway 7y ago
I don't understand your point. If the issue is state influence, anti-trust is the wrong tool. It's the wrong tool AND the wrong target if the investigation into anti-trust is aimed at auto-makers. If the issue is misuse of anti-trust laws to achieve clear political pursuits (and I'd argue it is) then both of your links are irrelevant. At no point did either of those articles imply that we should use anti-trust laws against book publishers in response to the undue influence Texas has on the market. I'd follow that by saying your comment is incredibly disingenuous on this point. -- Now - I actually agree with you in regards to article quality. I'd have loved to see some attempt at putting together the costs associated with moving to cleaner vehicles to the average consumer. I'm not actually sure there is any long term impact on cost, although sticker price may be higher and maintenance cost is almost certainly going to be lower - That said, data is key and this article provides none. I'd also have loved to see attempts to quantify cost with regards to saved medical expenses over time as air quality improves. Saved costs due to electrical spending on cooling increasing less rapidly if we're better able to meet emissions targets -- Basically, I want to know what the externalities of my policy choices are. I thought this article actually did a fair point categorizing current anti-trust law as broken in regards to handling externalities.
- cat199 7y ago
  > I don't understand your point. That the article's premise "the US forgot what antitrust is for" is skewed, because it ignores 'healthy' investigations into problems in the internet space, and uses an editorially inconsistent presentation of a mechanism of state vs federal influence to support its claims. you are correct this is at an editorial level and not problematic in the article as (selectively) presented. I'm thinking you're coming at this 'economically', and I'm coming at this 'politically'. > At no point did either of those articles imply that we should use anti-trust laws against book publishers in response to the undue influence Texas has on the market. No, but it certainly complains about the mechanism of one state's purchasing power / legislation having influence over national policy, while making this mechanism a 'noble cause' in the case of california cars by comparing it to civil rights activism. As a mechanism, either states and businesses should have national influence, or they shouldn't - if we are speaking of government 'function', this mechanism is not selectively good depending on ones own political agenda. It is either a good tool for balancing local/federal powers, or it isn't. If Texas is misbehaving by issuing crappy schoolbooks, then California is misbehaving by organizing automakers in such a way that they build cars nationally according to its own requirements, and vice versa. One or the other, depending on our view of the desirability of the overall 'mechanism'. If we pick one case and not the other we are being partisan. If we are highlighting one case to make this claim and not others (internet), we are being partisan. Which is exactly the complaint being levied against regulators here. So, at base, this is really saying "running cartels and using antitrust to break them is fine for me but not for you", which is the real 'argument', and not nearly as compelling a supporting argument to make when ones article title is "The U.S. Forgot What Antitrust Is For", since we might just be doing it ourselves if we make that case. Omitting ongoing tech investigations very conveniently avoids making this even more overt, and so, in my view, is suspect. Again, this was (carefully, via sidestepping?) not done within the article, but on publication level; and, Getting into the actual economic issues / externalities / etc. for this issue itself, I did not attempt do.

by cat199 7y ago

simplecomplex 7y ago

HN desperately needs a ban on NYT, Atlantic, and Guardian articles. They are mostly political opinion pieces that provide no insight and the discussion around them is always the same: one political camp bitching about the government and corporations.

horsawlarway 7y ago

I don't understand your point. If the issue is state influence, anti-trust is the wrong tool. It's the wrong tool AND the wrong target if the investigation into anti-trust is aimed at auto-makers. If the issue is misuse of anti-trust laws to achieve clear political pursuits (and I'd argue it is) then both of your links are irrelevant. At no point did either of those articles imply that we should use anti-trust laws against book publishers in response to the undue influence Texas has on the market. I'd follow that by saying your comment is incredibly disingenuous on this point. -- Now - I actually agree with you in regards to article quality. I'd have loved to see some attempt at putting together the costs associated with moving to cleaner vehicles to the average consumer. I'm not actually sure there is any long term impact on cost, although sticker price may be higher and maintenance cost is almost certainly going to be lower - That said, data is key and this article provides none. I'd also have loved to see attempts to quantify cost with regards to saved medical expenses over time as air quality improves. Saved costs due to electrical spending on cooling increasing less rapidly if we're better able to meet emissions targets -- Basically, I want to know what the externalities of my policy choices are. I thought this article actually did a fair point categorizing current anti-trust law as broken in regards to handling externalities.

cat199 7y ago
> I don't understand your point. That the article's premise "the US forgot what antitrust is for" is skewed, because it ignores 'healthy' investigations into problems in the internet space, and uses an editorially inconsistent presentation of a mechanism of state vs federal influence to support its claims. you are correct this is at an editorial level and not problematic in the article as (selectively) presented. I'm thinking you're coming at this 'economically', and I'm coming at this 'politically'. > At no point did either of those articles imply that we should use anti-trust laws against book publishers in response to the undue influence Texas has on the market. No, but it certainly complains about the mechanism of one state's purchasing power / legislation having influence over national policy, while making this mechanism a 'noble cause' in the case of california cars by comparing it to civil rights activism. As a mechanism, either states and businesses should have national influence, or they shouldn't - if we are speaking of government 'function', this mechanism is not selectively good depending on ones own political agenda. It is either a good tool for balancing local/federal powers, or it isn't. If Texas is misbehaving by issuing crappy schoolbooks, then California is misbehaving by organizing automakers in such a way that they build cars nationally according to its own requirements, and vice versa. One or the other, depending on our view of the desirability of the overall 'mechanism'. If we pick one case and not the other we are being partisan. If we are highlighting one case to make this claim and not others (internet), we are being partisan. Which is exactly the complaint being levied against regulators here. So, at base, this is really saying "running cartels and using antitrust to break them is fine for me but not for you", which is the real 'argument', and not nearly as compelling a supporting argument to make when ones article title is "The U.S. Forgot What Antitrust Is For", since we might just be doing it ourselves if we make that case. Omitting ongoing tech investigations very conveniently avoids making this even more overt, and so, in my view, is suspect. Again, this was (carefully, via sidestepping?) not done within the article, but on publication level; and, Getting into the actual economic issues / externalities / etc. for this issue itself, I did not attempt do.