31 ms·

Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" – can it be real?

470 points by horseradish 5y ago

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
Perhaps we would look at the donations to see if this is likely or not?
- jedmeyers 5y ago
  Is buying a son’s painting considered a donation or not?
  - mathisonturing 5y ago
    Elaborate? Out of the loop
    - jeffbee 5y ago
      It's a game of "Spot the Fox News viewer". If you're a fan, you believe the largest ethical quandary facing the nation in the last quarter-century is that a person related to the President of the United States is selling a painting in an anonymous auction. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-ethics-chief-hunter-biden-art-deal-secret https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-ethics-chief-hunter-b...
      - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
        While I detest bias in all media (Fox included but in no way do they have a monopoly on)… Are you saying Hunter Biden (the son of, not just “a person related to”) hasn’t recently sold his artwork for $500,000 a pop to anonymous buyers?
        jeffbee 5y ago
        As I understand it from reputable reporting, all such sales are hypothetical. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/deal-of-the-art-white-house-grapples-with-ethics-of-hunter-bidens-pricey-paintings/2021/07/07/97e0528c-da72-11eb-9bbb-37c30dcf9363_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/deal-of-the-art-whit...
      - zepto 5y ago
        > a person related to the President of the United States The sitting president’s son, you mean?
      - specialist 5y ago
        I vividly remember when Billy Beer was a scandal. Simpler times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Beer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Beer
    - cabaalis 5y ago
      Here's an article from the NYT about how they are trying to ethically sell Hunter Biden's artwork. "Ethically sell" was a term I chose specifically because Hunter Biden is not an artist, and the question of why his paintings are being sold for half a million dollars and to whom is substance. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/us/politics/hunter-biden-art-sale.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/us/politics/hunter-biden-... Edit: Anyone can be an artist of course. Selling artwork for such a price would be quite an artist.
      - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
        > Anyone can be an artist of course. Selling artwork for such a price would be quite an artist Quite an artist indeed. Here is a Picasso that sold last month for $150,000. https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/104029896_pablo-picasso-1881-1973 https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/104029896_pablo-picasso...
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    That's anonymous - there's no way for the Biden's to ever know the buyer. Of course, the buyer can just show them a picture of the painting in their house or whatever but that would be unethical.
    - qeternity 5y ago
      > Of course, the buyer can just show them a picture of the painting in their house or whatever but that would be unethical. Unethical, yes…something which a good chunk of society have no qualms with, especially those in the business of bribing politicians.
    - alea_iacta_est 5y ago
      It's unethical for the public to know who's the buyer, that's what they meant.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    No. In what world does buying setting from an adult relative consist of a donation? And if a foreign government overpaying for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of hotel stays in properties owned by the politician is not considered a donation, I can't imagine anyone thinking the painting thing would be.
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  Don't know why your downvoted for asking a basic question. Career politicians do not betray those who fund their campaigns, especially in the highest office.
ratsmack 5y ago
I can understand them going after Ag and Pharma in a big way, but I'm skeptical about the Tech part. There is just too much to lose in political support from that industry for any politician to attack them too aggressively.
- postpawl 5y ago
  Even in 2019, 2/3 of Americans supported breaking up big tech companies: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/18/20870938/break-up-big-tech-google-facebook-amazon-poll https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/18/20870938/b... The political support is definitely there. But if you’re talking about rich Silicon Valley donors, yeah they might have a problem with it.
- ardit33 5y ago
  I think for tech, the forks/knifes are out from both parties, for different reasons. As for the other industries, I am much more skeptical anything significant will be done. This administration as pushed lots of 'agendas' just for political show even though it new it had 0 chance for them to pass and wasting everybody's time. Time will tell if this is just another political show, or they will actually accomplish anything.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Isn't that exactly the reason they should be attacked?
- FractalHQ 5y ago
  I hope it’s real. We need modern anti trust laws, big tech is out of control. You’re right though.. sadly. Most importantly, we need to get money out of politics to free our government from the grips of these corporate conglomerates.
  - dkdk8283 5y ago
    We must free ourselves from censorship.
bilbo0s 5y ago
Finally, they've started attacking big tech on the privacy front. The whole "monopoly" and "anti-trust" thing was going nowhere. But privacy orders like this are a step in the right direction. And to put the nail in big tech's coffin, congress should pass a law forbidding the sharing of any personal information on any resident of the US for any commercial reason whatsoever. With draconian penalties assessed per user infraction. That would stop these tech companies in their tracks.
- bogwog 5y ago
  > With draconian penalties assessed per user infraction. You mean like chopping off a limb/finger for every violation? Unfortunately, that won't work for a certain lizardman CEO who is purported to be able to regrow limbs.
  - bilbo0s 5y ago
    I was thinking more along the lines of heavy fines. I'm not a big supporter of violence against pharma, tech, and Ag CEOs. I'm not a big supporter of violence against anyone where massive fines will serve the same purpose. In fact, the fines would work better.
- ratsmack 5y ago
  And how do you feel about sharing the collected data of your conversations and travel with government agencies?
  - bilbo0s 5y ago
    I feel there is nothing the government is going to do about that. This doesn't mean that I throw up my hands and say, OK, I'll let everyone have all of my communications logs since the government has them.
    - ratsmack 5y ago
      I personally believe being targeted with advertising is much less intrusive than the government having unfettered access to my daily interactions with people and various institutions. I would prefer to not have to worry about either.
ampdepolymerase 5y ago
How about Big Telecom and Big Fintech and Banking? Or is it simply because the rest did not pay enough to the lobbyists?
- Jenk 5y ago
  Some is better than none.
  - annadane 5y ago
    No, this is Hacker News, where we have to gripe about every single little thing until it loses all fucking meaning Edit: you downvote me because you know this is exactly how it goes around here
    - Notanothertoo 5y ago
      Yes and that's a good thing. Politics is mostly a game of pretend and therefore bullshit, as uhh.. engineers we like to be more practical. We simply see the bullshit they are selling regardless of political affiliation. If they wanted to actually solve problems the approach and results would be totally different.
      - jfengel 5y ago
        Politics is mostly a game of pretend and therefore bullshit, as uhh.. engineers we like to be more practical. I've found that when engineers talk about politics, they're no more practical than anybody else. On HN I see a ton of uninformed and simplistic overbroad solutions. They imagine it's pragmatism, but they don't actually know any of the real problems.
    - momento 5y ago
      The irony of griping on HN about griping on HN.
- bilbo0s 5y ago
  The ISPs have been getting hit in this series of orders. That said, yes, fintech and banking are conspicuously absent. Which kind of lets you know that they are just too powerful.
the-dude 5y ago
> hospital price transparency, Wasn't this already put in place by the previous administration?
- ytdytvhxgydvhh 5y ago
  It was, but apparently we’re not there yet in terms of compliance: https://www.axios.com/hospitals-price-transparency-costs-regulations-noncompliance-ebf6bd21-5709-4298-b67a-74c8a90a1ec1.html https://www.axios.com/hospitals-price-transparency-costs-reg...
- ryanSrich 5y ago
  Of course it was, also see “value based care”. It’s all bullshit. Hospitals have zero incentive to be transparent, and all the incentives to be opaque. So long as you’re a non-Medicare/Medicaid patient you’ll continue to suffer. The American healthcare system is completely fucked (there’s no better word).
  - o8r3oFTZPE 5y ago
    Is it fscked for physicians and various healthcare professionals (e.g., paid higher wages than other countries with different systems). Is it also fscked for wealthy patients who do not really care about costs.
    - adventured 5y ago
      > Is it fscked for physicians and various healthcare professionals It's an underappreciated point. The US healthcare system is one of the largest wealth transfer systems ever invented. It's a heavily protected cartel that plunders wealth from the top 2/3 and lines the pockets of a few million employees in the system. There is an excess cost bounty of $1.2 trillion (or more) being plundered and redistributed every year to the healthcare cartel. There are millions of people working artificially high paying jobs in the healthcare cartel in the US courtesy of the hyper inflated costs in the system. From nurses to doctors to pharma sales reps to scientists to management and everything inbetween. Nobody ever talks about the need to slash the pay of nurses & doctors though, it's far too unpopular of a subject, it's downright taboo. Just a notch below slashing the pay of teachers. They'd all go on strike tomorrow morning if a serious attempt were made to bring their pay in-line with other developed nations. The US has to remove a minimum of $1.2 trillion in cost from its healthcare system (which would produce an end cost structure still far above that of eg Britain). Only about 10-15% of that can come from slashing costs out of the pharma drug price side. The bulk of it has to come out of inflated salaries of millions of workers in healthcare across the board. When politicians talk about universal healthcare in the US, they always, without exception, go far out of their way to dodge this epic scale problem of inflated salaries in healthcare and of where to find $1.2 trillion in costs to slash (they primarily focus on high drug prices as a matter of political convenience; that segment by itself won't remotely cut it though). This is why every time a state decides it's going to look at doing universal healthcare, it immediately runs away after the cost study is completed, it's impossible until you remove a dramatic amount of cost from the system. Now someone go tell all the nurses and doctors in California they get to make 25%-35% less money (good luck).
throwawayboise 5y ago
"Hearing aids cost thousands of dollars apiece, for no other reason than there is a cartel established by government that prevents firms from selling hearing aids without a prescription." An example of how many (most?) monopolies are able to exist because of some sort of legal authorization or protection. Regulatory capture. There are dozens of companies who would no doubt start making inexpensive hearing aids tomorrow. Absent government regulation, they already would be.
- ISL 5y ago
  Queue "overpowered OTC aids destroyed my hearing" pushback...
  - oliv__ 5y ago
    Queue private agency testing, evaluating and rating products on the market
    - rtkwe 5y ago
      Cue rating agencies passing anything because hearing aid companies can go to another rating company if they don't, like what happened with mortgage securities in the 00s...
      - watwut 5y ago
        Yeah, it is totally impossible to have competition on regulated market. Monopoly is only possible solution. Or something.
    - antifa 5y ago
      https://github.com/auchenberg/volkswagen https://github.com/auchenberg/volkswagen
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      Credit rating agencies and the subprime crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the...
deregulateMed 5y ago
Big pharma is significantly less of a problem than the physician and hospital cartels. I have no idea why these groups have survived scrutiny for their literal multi-hundred million dollar lobbying/bribery of politicians. My closest guess is that we all know "My" physician or a well paid nurse that benefits from the bribery.
- throwawayswede 5y ago
  They're part of the same mafia, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America spent $8664000 in 2021 only on lobbying. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders
  - deregulateMed 5y ago
    So much evil in 1 list.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    Do you think this is a big number? $8mm across a huge industry is barely enough to get a legal team out of bed. This is really pocket change.
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      What about $8664000.00? I made it slightly longer. I can add some more zeroes.
  - the-dude 5y ago
    That looks like a big number, but it is $8.6M ? Is that a lot?
    - gregsadetsky 5y ago
      I double checked -- another source[0] mentions amounts that are a bit higher: "The Chamber [of Commerce] spent nearly $82 million on lobbying in 2020" But generally in line with the list posted by the GP: "Facebook and Amazon were the only companies in the top 10 spending list and spent nearly $19.7 million and more than $18.7 million on lobbying in 2020, respectively" I too, am surprised as how little this is for these gigantic companies ($20M for FB? 1/1000th of their quarterly revenue?) and more generally, how little money this is... in comparison with the entire US government budget? Sorry, this is probably all obvious? Just a bit.. sad? [0] https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/536082-us-chamber-nudged-out-of-top-lobbying-spender-spot-for-first-time-in-20 https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/536082-us-chamber-nu...
giantg2 5y ago
Sort of good, but we'll see how it plays out without other policies supporting it. Frankly, many consolidations are not malicious but necessary for survival. Economies of scale and verticle integration are required to complete with foreign companies with lower costs. Look at domestic steel production. No way the market can support numerous domestic options that can compete with the low cost of foreign imports. Then there's vertical integration. I don't know if this will effect vertical integration. If it does, I wonder how domestic companies will compete without it. As a beekeeper, it's vastly cheaper foreign imports (some of it fake) that are more damaging than large domestic producers (although there's a healthy variety). The low prices have been forcing consolidation, or for some people to switch from producing domestically to packing imported honey. It's tough to market local honey for even $12/lb when walmart sells honey for less than $5/lb.
- tayo42 5y ago
  What are some uses for honey by the pound? Off topic but curious, I only ever put it in tea rarely or simmiliarly rarely use it as a sugar alternative when cooking.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Price per pound is mostly just a standardized measure used to compare prices regardless of container size. The most common container size is a one pound jar, but 8oz jars are fairly common too. You would buy a jar and use it in tea, other drinks, on waffles, etc. You can buy larger quantities to do things like baking, making candy, making mead, etc.
    - tayo42 5y ago
      I see, yeah I only ever get a the little honey bear ones lol, but the big jars at farmers markets look interesting but they're always huge and I almost never use honey
      - giantg2 5y ago
        As long as they're airtight they stay good for years. Some local producers sell small jars too. I mostly sell pint jars (1.4 lbs). I will probably switch to standard 1 lb jars soon.
Bancakes 5y ago
Cut sugar industry subsidies and promote real food. Covid pandemic is nothing to the obesity one.
throwawayswede 5y ago
No it can't. Top 10 spenders on lobbying in 2021: "Lobbying Client","Total Spent" "US Chamber of Commerce","$17590000" "Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America","$8664000" "National Assn of Realtors","$7985521" "American Medical Assn","$6520000" "American Hospital Assn","$5852623" "Blue Cross/Blue Shield","$5774300" "Raytheon Technologies","$5360000" "Amazon.com","$5060000" "Facebook Inc","$4790000" "Northrop Grumman","$4610000" Look up more stuff: https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders Plus, Biden is the last person to be trusted with this. The overall lockdowns in the US are basically a joke. Your government let big pharma abuse the entire society for more than a year and people are still so discombobulated by what happened that they've started to develop a stockholm syndrome.
- pjc50 5y ago
  > Your government let big pharma abuse the entire society for more than a year Explain.
  - throwawayswede 5y ago
    Lockdowns are useless.
    - pjc50 5y ago
      Evidence? Also, motivation?
      - throwawayswede 5y ago
        One of the principles of public health is that you can't just look at one disease isolated, you have to look at public health as a whole. With lockdowns there's been a lot of collateral public health damages: Cancer treatments and scanning that were not provided, worse cardiovascular disease outcomes, diabetes not being properly taken care of, tragic mental health situation, education of kids going to school, and other unintended side effects. One of the things known from the beginning is that, even though anyone can get infected with covid, there's a 1000 fold difference in the risk of mortality.
specialist 5y ago
Around 2005, I asked Kevin Phillips: Me: According to your book, America's political parties have flipped every ~70 years. It should have happened around the time of Ross Perot, so I guess we're overdue. Do you think another realignment is emminent? Phillips: No. It won't happen while Wall St. and finance remains in control of our political discourse. -- It'll be amazing if Biden Admin is able to uncork the next cycle. But I'm not holding my breath. Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich [2003] https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-American/dp/0767905342 https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-Am... Here's a more recent account: Lobbying America: The Politics of Business from Nixon to NAFTA [2015] https://www.amazon.com/Lobbying-America-Politics-Business-Society/dp/0691168016 https://www.amazon.com/Lobbying-America-Politics-Business-So... Edit: I changed "Last decade" to "Around 2005". Time flies. My bad.
gautamcgoel 5y ago
He misspells Tyler Cowen as Tyler Cowan.
LatteLazy 5y ago
A lot more people support action than support any given outcome. I worry that the majority will be disappointed by the outcome because of this. Take the big tech action: some people support it because they want less censorship (that's me), others because they want more. The same applies in other aspects of peoples' issues with big tech (fake news, hate groups, grooming and CP, privacy, foreign election meddling etc). We can't all be happy with whatever the FTC does to social media sites can we, given we mostly want different things.
wormslayer666 5y ago
Direct link to the executive order (it's in the article, but might as well put here): https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
- ece 5y ago
  Here are the remarks he delivered before signing the order: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wTlzbKpidU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wTlzbKpidU
- sb057 5y ago
  I found this fact sheet more useful than the order itself or articles about it: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/09/fact-sheet-executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... In the Order, the President: * Encourages the FTC to ban or limit non-compete agreements. * Encourages the FTC to ban unnecessary occupational licensing restrictions that impede economic mobility. * Encourages the FTC and DOJ to strengthen antitrust guidance to prevent employers from collaborating to suppress wages or reduce benefits by sharing wage and benefit information with one another. * Directs the Food and Drug Administration to work with states and tribes to safely import prescription drugs from Canada, pursuant to the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. * Directs the Health and Human Services Administration (HHS) to increase support for generic and biosimilar drugs, which provide low-cost options for patients. * Directs HHS to issue a comprehensive plan within 45 days to combat high prescription drug prices and price gouging. * Encourages the FTC to ban “pay for delay” and similar agreements by rule. * Directs HHS to consider issuing proposed rules within 120 days for allowing hearing aids to be sold over the counter. * Underscores that hospital mergers can be harmful to patients and encourages the Justice Department and FTC to review and revise their merger guidelines to ensure patients are not harmed by such mergers. * Directs HHS to support existing hospital price transparency rules and to finish implementing bipartisan federal legislation to address surprise hospital billing. * Directs HHS to standardize plan options in the National Health Insurance Marketplace so people can comparison shop more easily. * Directs the DOT to consider issuing clear rules requiring the refund of fees when baggage is delayed or when service isn’t actually provided—like when the plane’s WiFi or in-flight entertainment system is broken. * Directs the DOT to consider issuing rules that require baggage, change, and cancellation fees to be clearly disclosed to the customer. * Encourages the Surface Transportation Board to require railroad track owners to provide rights of way to passenger rail and to strengthen their obligations to treat other freight companies fairly. * Encourages the Federal Maritime Commission to ensure vigorous enforcement against shippers charging American exporters exorbitant charges. * Directs USDA to consider issuing new rules under the Packers and Stockyards Act making it easier for farmers to bring and win claims, stopping chicken processors from exploiting and underpaying chicken farmers, and adopting anti-retaliation protections for farmers who speak out about bad practices. * Directs USDA to consider issuing new rules defining when meat can bear “Product of USA” labels, so that consumers have accurate, transparent labels that enable them to choose products made here. * Directs USDA to develop a plan to increase opportunities for farmers to access markets and receive a fair return, including supporting alternative food distribution systems like farmers markets and developing standards and labels so that consumers can choose to buy products that treat farmers fairly. * Encourages the FTC to limit powerful equipment manufacturers from restricting people’s ability to use independent repair shops or do DIY repairs—such as when tractor companies block farmers from repairing their own tractors. * Encourages the FTC to prevent ISPs from making deals with landlords that limit tenants’ choices. * Encourages the FTC to revive the “Broadband Nutrition Label” and require providers to report prices and subscription rates to the FCC. * Encourages the FTC to limit excessive early termination fees. * Encourages the FTC to restore Net Neutrality rules undone by the prior administration. * Announces an Administration policy of greater scrutiny of mergers, especially by dominant internet platforms, with particular attention to the acquisition of nascent competitors, serial mergers, the accumulation of data, competition by “free” products, and the effect on user privacy. * Encourages the FTC to establish rules on surveillance and the accumulation of data. * Encourages the FTC to establish rules barring unfair methods of competition on internet marketplaces. * Encourages the FTC to issue rules against anticompetitive restrictions on using independent repair shops or doing DIY repairs of your own devices and equipment. * Encourages DOJ and the agencies responsible for banking (the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) to update guidelines on banking mergers to provide more robust scrutiny of mergers. * Encourages the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to issue rules allowing customers to download their banking data and take it with them.
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
"The most interesting pushback was by Google, Facebook, and Amazon, as well as Chinese giants DJI and Alibaba. All of these firms speak though the trade association Netchoice, which has them as key members. Netchoice didn't bother to try and convince Democrats. Instead, the big tech trade association used the order to lobby Republicans, making the case that Biden's actions against monopoly are opening the door to a larger more powerful government. Here's the key part of Netchoice's statement: "Sen. Lee and Rep. Jordan's warnings were right - when Republicans back progressive antitrust proposals because of concerns about tech, they open the door to progressive antitrust activism... By backing hard-left proposals, like nominating Lina Khan to the FTC and Rep. Cicilline's antitrust legislation, anti-tech Republicans bear responsibility for the damage that will result from importing a European-style antitrust framework to all sections of the American economy." Netchoice represents mostly American giants, but also Chinese dominant players. So it's interesting is to see the Chinese tech giants through their lobbying proxy coming out against Biden's anti-monopoly actions, and praising conservative Republicans Jim Jordan and Mike Lee in the process. It's clear that both big tech, and China's own tech giants, do not want to see anti-monopolists like Lina Khan succeed. But conservative Trump-supportive ranchers, by contrast, do." It is almost as if these "tech" companies are trying to sow divisiveness. Divide and conquer.
- walkedaway 5y ago
  > It is almost as if these "tech" companies are trying to sow divisiveness It's worked in their business model for over a decade. Their actions over the last five years have shown they have built up operations as core competencies in helping divide our country. Although one could argue they are just delivering what their customers want (otherwise customers would leave said platforms).
alessandroetc 5y ago
It's not actually real. The lobbying firm behind most of the fact sheet is made up of people on the boards of different tech firms.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nojs 5y ago
  Betteridge's law of headlines strikes again :)
- chelmzy 5y ago
  Do you have a source for this? I'm extremely curious.
- landryraccoon 5y ago
  What fact sheet are you referring to? I’m curious what names are on it.
- epistasis 5y ago
  This is a very serious accusation, but I can't find any substance to it, and it doesn't make much sense. What tech firm have lobbyists on their board? Presumably you're talking about this fact sheet? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/09/fact-sheet-executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... If a lobbying firm is behind official White House communications, and not WH-employed staff, that alone would be a serious allegation. But to say that tech is behind this is even worse. Where is the evidence?
- seriousquestion 5y ago
  Related? "WestExec represented major corporations throughout the Trump years. Now it’s in the White House." https://theintercept.com/2021/07/06/westexec-biden-administration/ https://theintercept.com/2021/07/06/westexec-biden-administr...
Black101 5y ago
My health insurance is buying hospital company stocks.
- jbluepolarbear 5y ago
  Vile
  - Black101 5y ago
    it is not my fault that they are being let run free
    - jbluepolarbear 5y ago
      Oh I’m not calling you vile. The insurance companies are. Mine is already very intertwined with the hospitals in my area.
      - ambicapter 5y ago
        I think you misunderstood GP. I don't think he was claiming that the insurance company was literally buying stocks, he is saying his manner of insuring his health is buying hospital stocks (in the hope that their value will go up high enough to pay off any medical procedures he needs in the future).
        Black101 5y ago
        that is correct
sakex 5y ago
The sentence "Capitalism without Competition is Exploitation" immediately makes me think about the many monopolies held by the government. Will he do something about those too?
dukeofdoom 5y ago
Is he really in a position to keep doing this? Biden recorder the most votes in history, while winning the fewest counties. That's a head scratcher. The fact remains most of the geographic area of the country voted red. If he keeps this up, states are going to start ignoring his executive orders. That's not how democracy is supposed to work. Laws get passed by legislature, not by dictate of the King.
- jbluepolarbear 5y ago
  Go home QAnon.
- jbluepolarbear 5y ago
  Since my other got flagged, you’re clearly a confused person. You post videos of trumps lies and defend some narrative that does harm to our democracy. The election was won by Biden.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  > Biden recorder the most votes in history, while winning the fewest counties. Say what now? That doesn’t seem right.
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    "Biden won 81 million votes and 509 counties in the Nov. 3 election, while Trump won 74 million votes and 2,547 counties, according to data aggregated by think tank the Brookings Institute. Obama won 69 million votes and 873 counties in 2008. " https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/23/fact-check-biden-won-most-populous-counties-despite-winning-fewer/3992000001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/23/fac...
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > Biden recorder the most votes in history, while winning the fewest counties. That's a head scratcher. Why is that a head scratcher? 40% the us population lives in just 100 counties (of 3000)
chiefalchemist 5y ago
It's about control. These "Big" companies are in a position to collect plenty of data about the market - companies and individuals. They are now able to do what previously was exclusive (read: monopoly) to the government. I'm not defending "Big *", simply noting that historical context is mostly irrelevant. The game is different now. The rules also different. It's not about markets and dominance. It's not about economic monopolies. It's about control. Control of the future. Control of the narrative.
josh_today 5y ago
Executive orders were a constant theme of the previous administration. It was the first time that I’ve really heard about them consistently as a presidential technique and similarly as much in the media. The lower executive order numbers from the previous 2 administrations before made me think that these were tools used for media attention when I kept hearing about them. Now the current administration is using them (for causes that I hope will benefit) and I’m wondering are these going to hold weight or is this another media ploy?
- tyre 5y ago
  Really? They were a huge topic of conversation when W was president and then again for obama.
  - josh_today 5y ago
    Looking at EO’s issued per year to account for 8 vs 4 year terms, Trump’s administration is the highest https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/execu...
- jimbob45 5y ago
  Obama dwarfed Trump’s number of EOs. Bush Jr. and Clinton were extremely high as well. This seems to be a response to congressional stonewalling (with varying outcomes). https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-or...
  - wffurr 5y ago
    From your link: Barack Obama (D) Total 276 Avg/year 35 Donald J. Trump (R) Total 220 Avg/year 55 Hardly "dwarfed". If anything Trump issued 60% more executive orders than Obama on an annual basis over his one term.
  - GeneralMayhem 5y ago
    >Obama dwarfed Trump’s number of EOs. By your own source, this is so misleading as to be blatantly false. Trump issued 220 EOs in 4 years. Obama issued 276 in 8 years. I wouldn't call that "dwarfing" even looking at the raw numbers, and as a rate, Trump was the highest in history, nearly twice Obama. Of course, that's only relevant if you believe a priori that (a) EOs are a bad thing, and (b) that all EOs are created equal. Neither of those is true, obviously.
anonymouswacker 5y ago
Yeah, like the democrats will bite the hands that feed. This is democrat posturing for 2022, that is all.
stuart78 5y ago
Would “Small Pharma” have gotten us our COVID vaccines faster? I get the complaints, but so much of these actions feel like they don’t start with an understanding of the benefits large can bring.
Sophistifunk 5y ago
"Big Pharma" in the eyes of the public is two related but separate issues; 1) the weird employment-insurance-hospital loop that has developed in the US, and the terrible second-order-consequences of all the open-high/settle-low insurer<->carer system it led to, and 2) the medicine advertisements, and all the terrible consequences thereof. The second one seems like a much easier thing to get rid of using hard government power, and should be the low-hanging fruit. The first will require a decade of masterful leadership, co-operation from competing interests, and delicate undoing over time that I don't think any country in the west has right now.
- hyperhopper 5y ago
  There is also a third issue: The high cost of medicines that are low cost to produce, and are sold at low cost elsewhere
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    This one is particularly prickly because the high cost paid in the US funds medical R&D and extremely expensive clinical trials which other countries are free riding on by imposing price controls. We still need to fund the R&D and clinical trials (unless they could be made less expensive somehow), so the most obvious solution would be to have other countries pay their fair share so the US could stop subsidizing everybody else. But that's hard to get.
    - philjohn 5y ago
      Not necessarily - look at Valeant Pharmaceuticals. They bought smaller Pharma co's, gutted R&D, and jacked up prices of the medications they sold.
    - TearsInTheRain 5y ago
      Idk why any politicians arent picking up on foreign price controls as a means of lowering costs in the US. It should be a part of the discussion during any trade talks with Europe.
phendrenad2 5y ago
If the whole country gets a California-style ban on noncompetes, will Silicon Valley start to lose it's hold on tech?
- xenihn 5y ago
  imo: yes, absolutely
DoreenMichele 5y ago
Well, I hope this does some good, but I'm a bit skeptical. I think we need more focus on how to help freelancers, gig workers and microbusiness actually succeed as a counterpart to preventing big business from preying upon small business. It's something I personally try to promote but I feel I have little in the way of success. I still struggle to make it through the month myself and my various projects intended to help others seem to mostly kind of languish, with one exception and I have no hard data on how much good that is doing. I think my efforts aren't pointless or fruitless, but it never seems to be enough to actually resolve my chronic poverty and I don't get enough feedback affirming that the lives of others suck less thanks to me. That kind of thing is maybe part of what helps drive a concentration of money and power. I think we overregulate small business. You need to know a lot of laws and regulations to operate at all and if you are one or a few people, that's a big burden. It's less of a burden for big business to play that game because they make enough money and have enough people that it's a relatively small part of what they do and I think that regulatory burden is one of the things hampering small business, just like it tends to impede the development of affordable housing. I don't know the answers. I just am skeptical that focusing exclusively on breaking up monopolies and putting a break on big business actually breathes life into small business. It's perhaps a necessary but insufficient precondition.
- nr3msd 5y ago
  > I don't get enough feedback affirming that the lives of others suck less thanks to me. I have always liked your posts a lot over the years here. I'm in the same boat, I have created a few things that are used by actual people but I have not yet thought about trying to make a living that way. Ideally I would open source everything and go the Patreon / donation route, but I want to get some of my work in order and nail at least one of my bigger ideas... then it might be feasible, but for now money is absolutely the limiting factor and I don't even need much relative to some :(
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    I did see your comment and I appreciate you leaving it. I didn't reply immediately because I had hoped to do something more meaningful with it than just say "Thank you" but that seems to not be gelling. So this is me saying "Thank you."
MichaelMoser123 5y ago
here [1] they say that Kamala Harris is seen as a friend of big tech and silicon valley, that would imply she is a friend of big tech corporations. Does this step signify a rift between Biden and Harris, or is that not the case? [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20210206212101/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/business/dealbook/kamala-harris-finance-tech.html http://web.archive.org/web/20210206212101/https://www.nytime...
- jjcon 5y ago
  That’s possible but the article is a year old. This past year and a half I think if you polled the HN crowd you would even see a dramatic shift in perspective on proper policy for big tech antitrust legislation. It is not unreasonable to assume those same realizations are happening or being expressed by government officials as well.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - MichaelMoser123 5y ago
    it makes sense that Biden wants to tax big corporations to finance his infrastructure projects. [1] that would make sense if Biden is a big fan of president Franklin D. Roosevelt, i am not sure if Roosevelt is as attractive to someone from the generation of Harris. (however i don't know if the generation aspect is a matter of importance, in this context) [1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/biden-offers-tax-deal-republicans-infrastructure-talks-78066757 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/biden-offers-tax-d...
ohashi 5y ago
I hope they take a look at VeriSign's monopoly power over .com/.net. We saw how dangerously close .ORG got to being turned into a rent seeking tax on non profits. .COM/.NET are a licensed rent seeking monopoly with increasing prices and decreasing costs to serve and no contract competition. Those contracts need to be made competitive, there are plenty of registry providers who can do it cheaper and VeriSign as a company exists because of those no-compete contracts.
cryptica 5y ago
I'm generally skeptical about all such news but a few things make me cautiously optimistic: - Lina Khan: I had heard about her a long time ago before she even got into politics. She is known for her academic work on antitrust and big tech so she definitely understands how monopolies work and how they are unfair. - Biden saying "Capitalism without Competition is Exploitation"; simply the acknowledgment by a sitting president that what we have today doesn't look like capitalism anymore is in itself a huge achievement and lays the groundwork for real improvement. Now, everyone knows that something needs to be done and everyone knows that everyone else knows that! - Biden is getting old and probably doesn't care about a second term in office. It's possible that he decided to make as many powerful enemies as necessary to secure a great legacy for himself. That said, I think that people have such low trust in government and media nowadays that I don't expect anyone from the right to warm to Biden until we see actual results.
Hani1337 5y ago
The reason we can afford universal health care in my country is because there are hard caps to the prices health professionals can legally ask, be it for fees or medication prices. If the prices are kept closer to their real value, and not inflated prices, then it's already much more affordable to consider paying for universal health care.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  Yes there's a good argument that insurance in the US has artificially increased prices. College loans have done similar. This is why the ACA (obamacare) kinda failed to fix most of the issues. Care is much too expensive.
YinglingLight 5y ago
Biden vs. the Deep State, oh my (At)Lanta
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Why don't they allow insurance companies to operate in all states so people can shop around more? Currently they have regional rackets.
- dudul 5y ago
  This would be a good move, but don't most people get insurance through their employer? To me that would really be the thing to break asap. Can people really shop around? It's either getting an expensive insurance on your own or a much cheaper one via employment but extremely limited choice. The main barrier to getting rid of insurance via employment seems to be the very high cost of premiums. Employers are able to get much better deal for their employees than a single individual would be able to negotiate with a carrier. Maybe we would need an electroshock including banning employment based insurance and allowing carriers to operate anywhere. This would immediately kickoff the competition between carriers.
stevespang 5y ago
Big corporations are better organized and better lawyer equipped than the Gov't, and can generally outspend the Gov't in legal proceedings. The best and brightest lawyers don't work for the lower paying Gov't - - they work for the best paying huge corporations.
apercu 5y ago
So why do we a accept that VC's invest in software tech but we don't expect them to do the same in biotech (obviously some do I am generalizing) but instead expect Americans (mostly, I live in Canada though) to subsidize Big Pharma through taxes and, in many many many cases outrageous costs for decades old drugs?
- jfengel 5y ago
  Apparently, because Americans tolerate it. A bunch of factors lead to higher drug prices here and an almost complete inability to agree on a way to fix it. A lot of it comes down to tribalism: "I'd rather pay higher drug prices than lower drug prices your way."
rayiner 5y ago
Worth noting that the Pharma industry, as well as Big Tech and Wall Street, supported Biden. As a Biden supporter I’d like to believe that this is because he’s an old school Democrat and not afraid of biting the hand that feeds him. More cynically, this could be seen as posturing to keep together what is a very weird coalition (Occupy Wall Street and Wall Street under the same tent). Also maybe relevant: https://ksr.hkspublications.org/2021/05/18/can-conservatism-be-more-than-a-grudge/ https://ksr.hkspublications.org/2021/05/18/can-conservatism-... > The best answer, in my view, is that the Republican Party’s remaining connection to the dominant sectors of the American economy occurs through its usefulness as a tool to selectively balance and discipline the members of the Democratic coalition. Big Pharma, for instance, will throw money at the Heritage Foundation to rant against “socialized medicine” whenever talk of the government negotiating drug prices surfaces, but pharma is hardly interested in repealing Obamacare, much less dismantling Medicare. Financial lobbies will rent the Republican Party to ward off troublesome regulations or taxes, but are hardly interested in “sound money” policies or big spending cuts that would derail financial markets, never mind social conservatism. Big Tech will team up with Americans for Prosperity to oppose legislation limiting app store developer fees, all while more aggressively controlling conservative speech online, and so on.

470 points by horseradish 5y ago

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

Perhaps we would look at the donations to see if this is likely or not?

jedmeyers 5y ago
Is buying a son’s painting considered a donation or not?
- mathisonturing 5y ago
  Elaborate? Out of the loop
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    It's a game of "Spot the Fox News viewer". If you're a fan, you believe the largest ethical quandary facing the nation in the last quarter-century is that a person related to the President of the United States is selling a painting in an anonymous auction. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-ethics-chief-hunter-biden-art-deal-secret https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-ethics-chief-hunter-b...
    - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
      While I detest bias in all media (Fox included but in no way do they have a monopoly on)… Are you saying Hunter Biden (the son of, not just “a person related to”) hasn’t recently sold his artwork for $500,000 a pop to anonymous buyers?
      - jeffbee 5y ago
        As I understand it from reputable reporting, all such sales are hypothetical. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/deal-of-the-art-white-house-grapples-with-ethics-of-hunter-bidens-pricey-paintings/2021/07/07/97e0528c-da72-11eb-9bbb-37c30dcf9363_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/deal-of-the-art-whit...
    - zepto 5y ago
      > a person related to the President of the United States The sitting president’s son, you mean?
    - specialist 5y ago
      I vividly remember when Billy Beer was a scandal. Simpler times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Beer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Beer
  - cabaalis 5y ago
    Here's an article from the NYT about how they are trying to ethically sell Hunter Biden's artwork. "Ethically sell" was a term I chose specifically because Hunter Biden is not an artist, and the question of why his paintings are being sold for half a million dollars and to whom is substance. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/us/politics/hunter-biden-art-sale.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/us/politics/hunter-biden-... Edit: Anyone can be an artist of course. Selling artwork for such a price would be quite an artist.
    - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
      > Anyone can be an artist of course. Selling artwork for such a price would be quite an artist Quite an artist indeed. Here is a Picasso that sold last month for $150,000. https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/104029896_pablo-picasso-1881-1973 https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/104029896_pablo-picasso...
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  That's anonymous - there's no way for the Biden's to ever know the buyer. Of course, the buyer can just show them a picture of the painting in their house or whatever but that would be unethical.
  - qeternity 5y ago
    > Of course, the buyer can just show them a picture of the painting in their house or whatever but that would be unethical. Unethical, yes…something which a good chunk of society have no qualms with, especially those in the business of bribing politicians.
  - alea_iacta_est 5y ago
    It's unethical for the public to know who's the buyer, that's what they meant.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  No. In what world does buying setting from an adult relative consist of a donation? And if a foreign government overpaying for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of hotel stays in properties owned by the politician is not considered a donation, I can't imagine anyone thinking the painting thing would be.
ErikVandeWater 5y ago
Don't know why your downvoted for asking a basic question. Career politicians do not betray those who fund their campaigns, especially in the highest office.

ratsmack 5y ago

I can understand them going after Ag and Pharma in a big way, but I'm skeptical about the Tech part. There is just too much to lose in political support from that industry for any politician to attack them too aggressively.

postpawl 5y ago
Even in 2019, 2/3 of Americans supported breaking up big tech companies: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/18/20870938/break-up-big-tech-google-facebook-amazon-poll https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/18/20870938/b... The political support is definitely there. But if you’re talking about rich Silicon Valley donors, yeah they might have a problem with it.
ardit33 5y ago
I think for tech, the forks/knifes are out from both parties, for different reasons. As for the other industries, I am much more skeptical anything significant will be done. This administration as pushed lots of 'agendas' just for political show even though it new it had 0 chance for them to pass and wasting everybody's time. Time will tell if this is just another political show, or they will actually accomplish anything.
throwawayboise 5y ago
Isn't that exactly the reason they should be attacked?
FractalHQ 5y ago
I hope it’s real. We need modern anti trust laws, big tech is out of control. You’re right though.. sadly. Most importantly, we need to get money out of politics to free our government from the grips of these corporate conglomerates.
- dkdk8283 5y ago
  We must free ourselves from censorship.

bilbo0s 5y ago

Finally, they've started attacking big tech on the privacy front. The whole "monopoly" and "anti-trust" thing was going nowhere. But privacy orders like this are a step in the right direction. And to put the nail in big tech's coffin, congress should pass a law forbidding the sharing of any personal information on any resident of the US for any commercial reason whatsoever. With draconian penalties assessed per user infraction. That would stop these tech companies in their tracks.

bogwog 5y ago
> With draconian penalties assessed per user infraction. You mean like chopping off a limb/finger for every violation? Unfortunately, that won't work for a certain lizardman CEO who is purported to be able to regrow limbs.
- bilbo0s 5y ago
  I was thinking more along the lines of heavy fines. I'm not a big supporter of violence against pharma, tech, and Ag CEOs. I'm not a big supporter of violence against anyone where massive fines will serve the same purpose. In fact, the fines would work better.
ratsmack 5y ago
And how do you feel about sharing the collected data of your conversations and travel with government agencies?
- bilbo0s 5y ago
  I feel there is nothing the government is going to do about that. This doesn't mean that I throw up my hands and say, OK, I'll let everyone have all of my communications logs since the government has them.
  - ratsmack 5y ago
    I personally believe being targeted with advertising is much less intrusive than the government having unfettered access to my daily interactions with people and various institutions. I would prefer to not have to worry about either.

ampdepolymerase 5y ago

How about Big Telecom and Big Fintech and Banking? Or is it simply because the rest did not pay enough to the lobbyists?

Jenk 5y ago
Some is better than none.
- annadane 5y ago
  No, this is Hacker News, where we have to gripe about every single little thing until it loses all fucking meaning Edit: you downvote me because you know this is exactly how it goes around here
  - Notanothertoo 5y ago
    Yes and that's a good thing. Politics is mostly a game of pretend and therefore bullshit, as uhh.. engineers we like to be more practical. We simply see the bullshit they are selling regardless of political affiliation. If they wanted to actually solve problems the approach and results would be totally different.
    - jfengel 5y ago
      Politics is mostly a game of pretend and therefore bullshit, as uhh.. engineers we like to be more practical. I've found that when engineers talk about politics, they're no more practical than anybody else. On HN I see a ton of uninformed and simplistic overbroad solutions. They imagine it's pragmatism, but they don't actually know any of the real problems.
  - momento 5y ago
    The irony of griping on HN about griping on HN.
bilbo0s 5y ago
The ISPs have been getting hit in this series of orders. That said, yes, fintech and banking are conspicuously absent. Which kind of lets you know that they are just too powerful.

the-dude 5y ago

> hospital price transparency, Wasn't this already put in place by the previous administration?

ytdytvhxgydvhh 5y ago
It was, but apparently we’re not there yet in terms of compliance: https://www.axios.com/hospitals-price-transparency-costs-regulations-noncompliance-ebf6bd21-5709-4298-b67a-74c8a90a1ec1.html https://www.axios.com/hospitals-price-transparency-costs-reg...
ryanSrich 5y ago
Of course it was, also see “value based care”. It’s all bullshit. Hospitals have zero incentive to be transparent, and all the incentives to be opaque. So long as you’re a non-Medicare/Medicaid patient you’ll continue to suffer. The American healthcare system is completely fucked (there’s no better word).
- o8r3oFTZPE 5y ago
  Is it fscked for physicians and various healthcare professionals (e.g., paid higher wages than other countries with different systems). Is it also fscked for wealthy patients who do not really care about costs.
  - adventured 5y ago
    > Is it fscked for physicians and various healthcare professionals It's an underappreciated point. The US healthcare system is one of the largest wealth transfer systems ever invented. It's a heavily protected cartel that plunders wealth from the top 2/3 and lines the pockets of a few million employees in the system. There is an excess cost bounty of $1.2 trillion (or more) being plundered and redistributed every year to the healthcare cartel. There are millions of people working artificially high paying jobs in the healthcare cartel in the US courtesy of the hyper inflated costs in the system. From nurses to doctors to pharma sales reps to scientists to management and everything inbetween. Nobody ever talks about the need to slash the pay of nurses & doctors though, it's far too unpopular of a subject, it's downright taboo. Just a notch below slashing the pay of teachers. They'd all go on strike tomorrow morning if a serious attempt were made to bring their pay in-line with other developed nations. The US has to remove a minimum of $1.2 trillion in cost from its healthcare system (which would produce an end cost structure still far above that of eg Britain). Only about 10-15% of that can come from slashing costs out of the pharma drug price side. The bulk of it has to come out of inflated salaries of millions of workers in healthcare across the board. When politicians talk about universal healthcare in the US, they always, without exception, go far out of their way to dodge this epic scale problem of inflated salaries in healthcare and of where to find $1.2 trillion in costs to slash (they primarily focus on high drug prices as a matter of political convenience; that segment by itself won't remotely cut it though). This is why every time a state decides it's going to look at doing universal healthcare, it immediately runs away after the cost study is completed, it's impossible until you remove a dramatic amount of cost from the system. Now someone go tell all the nurses and doctors in California they get to make 25%-35% less money (good luck).

throwawayboise 5y ago

"Hearing aids cost thousands of dollars apiece, for no other reason than there is a cartel established by government that prevents firms from selling hearing aids without a prescription." An example of how many (most?) monopolies are able to exist because of some sort of legal authorization or protection. Regulatory capture. There are dozens of companies who would no doubt start making inexpensive hearing aids tomorrow. Absent government regulation, they already would be.

ISL 5y ago
Queue "overpowered OTC aids destroyed my hearing" pushback...
- oliv__ 5y ago
  Queue private agency testing, evaluating and rating products on the market
  - rtkwe 5y ago
    Cue rating agencies passing anything because hearing aid companies can go to another rating company if they don't, like what happened with mortgage securities in the 00s...
    - watwut 5y ago
      Yeah, it is totally impossible to have competition on regulated market. Monopoly is only possible solution. Or something.
  - antifa 5y ago
    https://github.com/auchenberg/volkswagen https://github.com/auchenberg/volkswagen
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Credit rating agencies and the subprime crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the...

deregulateMed 5y ago

Big pharma is significantly less of a problem than the physician and hospital cartels. I have no idea why these groups have survived scrutiny for their literal multi-hundred million dollar lobbying/bribery of politicians. My closest guess is that we all know "My" physician or a well paid nurse that benefits from the bribery.

throwawayswede 5y ago
They're part of the same mafia, Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America spent $8664000 in 2021 only on lobbying. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders
- deregulateMed 5y ago
  So much evil in 1 list.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  Do you think this is a big number? $8mm across a huge industry is barely enough to get a legal team out of bed. This is really pocket change.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    What about $8664000.00? I made it slightly longer. I can add some more zeroes.
- the-dude 5y ago
  That looks like a big number, but it is $8.6M ? Is that a lot?
  - gregsadetsky 5y ago
    I double checked -- another source[0] mentions amounts that are a bit higher: "The Chamber [of Commerce] spent nearly $82 million on lobbying in 2020" But generally in line with the list posted by the GP: "Facebook and Amazon were the only companies in the top 10 spending list and spent nearly $19.7 million and more than $18.7 million on lobbying in 2020, respectively" I too, am surprised as how little this is for these gigantic companies ($20M for FB? 1/1000th of their quarterly revenue?) and more generally, how little money this is... in comparison with the entire US government budget? Sorry, this is probably all obvious? Just a bit.. sad? [0] https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/536082-us-chamber-nudged-out-of-top-lobbying-spender-spot-for-first-time-in-20 https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/536082-us-chamber-nu...

giantg2 5y ago

Sort of good, but we'll see how it plays out without other policies supporting it. Frankly, many consolidations are not malicious but necessary for survival. Economies of scale and verticle integration are required to complete with foreign companies with lower costs. Look at domestic steel production. No way the market can support numerous domestic options that can compete with the low cost of foreign imports. Then there's vertical integration. I don't know if this will effect vertical integration. If it does, I wonder how domestic companies will compete without it. As a beekeeper, it's vastly cheaper foreign imports (some of it fake) that are more damaging than large domestic producers (although there's a healthy variety). The low prices have been forcing consolidation, or for some people to switch from producing domestically to packing imported honey. It's tough to market local honey for even $12/lb when walmart sells honey for less than $5/lb.

tayo42 5y ago
What are some uses for honey by the pound? Off topic but curious, I only ever put it in tea rarely or simmiliarly rarely use it as a sugar alternative when cooking.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Price per pound is mostly just a standardized measure used to compare prices regardless of container size. The most common container size is a one pound jar, but 8oz jars are fairly common too. You would buy a jar and use it in tea, other drinks, on waffles, etc. You can buy larger quantities to do things like baking, making candy, making mead, etc.
  - tayo42 5y ago
    I see, yeah I only ever get a the little honey bear ones lol, but the big jars at farmers markets look interesting but they're always huge and I almost never use honey
    - giantg2 5y ago
      As long as they're airtight they stay good for years. Some local producers sell small jars too. I mostly sell pint jars (1.4 lbs). I will probably switch to standard 1 lb jars soon.

Bancakes 5y ago

Cut sugar industry subsidies and promote real food. Covid pandemic is nothing to the obesity one.

throwawayswede 5y ago

No it can't. Top 10 spenders on lobbying in 2021: "Lobbying Client","Total Spent" "US Chamber of Commerce","$17590000" "Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America","$8664000" "National Assn of Realtors","$7985521" "American Medical Assn","$6520000" "American Hospital Assn","$5852623" "Blue Cross/Blue Shield","$5774300" "Raytheon Technologies","$5360000" "Amazon.com","$5060000" "Facebook Inc","$4790000" "Northrop Grumman","$4610000" Look up more stuff: https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders Plus, Biden is the last person to be trusted with this. The overall lockdowns in the US are basically a joke. Your government let big pharma abuse the entire society for more than a year and people are still so discombobulated by what happened that they've started to develop a stockholm syndrome.

pjc50 5y ago
> Your government let big pharma abuse the entire society for more than a year Explain.
- throwawayswede 5y ago
  Lockdowns are useless.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    Evidence? Also, motivation?
    - throwawayswede 5y ago
      One of the principles of public health is that you can't just look at one disease isolated, you have to look at public health as a whole. With lockdowns there's been a lot of collateral public health damages: Cancer treatments and scanning that were not provided, worse cardiovascular disease outcomes, diabetes not being properly taken care of, tragic mental health situation, education of kids going to school, and other unintended side effects. One of the things known from the beginning is that, even though anyone can get infected with covid, there's a 1000 fold difference in the risk of mortality.

specialist 5y ago

Around 2005, I asked Kevin Phillips: Me: According to your book, America's political parties have flipped every ~70 years. It should have happened around the time of Ross Perot, so I guess we're overdue. Do you think another realignment is emminent? Phillips: No. It won't happen while Wall St. and finance remains in control of our political discourse. -- It'll be amazing if Biden Admin is able to uncork the next cycle. But I'm not holding my breath. Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich [2003] https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-American/dp/0767905342 https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-Am... Here's a more recent account: Lobbying America: The Politics of Business from Nixon to NAFTA [2015] https://www.amazon.com/Lobbying-America-Politics-Business-Society/dp/0691168016 https://www.amazon.com/Lobbying-America-Politics-Business-So... Edit: I changed "Last decade" to "Around 2005". Time flies. My bad.

gautamcgoel 5y ago

He misspells Tyler Cowen as Tyler Cowan.

LatteLazy 5y ago

A lot more people support action than support any given outcome. I worry that the majority will be disappointed by the outcome because of this. Take the big tech action: some people support it because they want less censorship (that's me), others because they want more. The same applies in other aspects of peoples' issues with big tech (fake news, hate groups, grooming and CP, privacy, foreign election meddling etc). We can't all be happy with whatever the FTC does to social media sites can we, given we mostly want different things.

wormslayer666 5y ago

Direct link to the executive order (it's in the article, but might as well put here): https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/07/09/executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...

ece 5y ago
Here are the remarks he delivered before signing the order: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wTlzbKpidU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wTlzbKpidU
sb057 5y ago
I found this fact sheet more useful than the order itself or articles about it: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/09/fact-sheet-executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... In the Order, the President: * Encourages the FTC to ban or limit non-compete agreements. * Encourages the FTC to ban unnecessary occupational licensing restrictions that impede economic mobility. * Encourages the FTC and DOJ to strengthen antitrust guidance to prevent employers from collaborating to suppress wages or reduce benefits by sharing wage and benefit information with one another. * Directs the Food and Drug Administration to work with states and tribes to safely import prescription drugs from Canada, pursuant to the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. * Directs the Health and Human Services Administration (HHS) to increase support for generic and biosimilar drugs, which provide low-cost options for patients. * Directs HHS to issue a comprehensive plan within 45 days to combat high prescription drug prices and price gouging. * Encourages the FTC to ban “pay for delay” and similar agreements by rule. * Directs HHS to consider issuing proposed rules within 120 days for allowing hearing aids to be sold over the counter. * Underscores that hospital mergers can be harmful to patients and encourages the Justice Department and FTC to review and revise their merger guidelines to ensure patients are not harmed by such mergers. * Directs HHS to support existing hospital price transparency rules and to finish implementing bipartisan federal legislation to address surprise hospital billing. * Directs HHS to standardize plan options in the National Health Insurance Marketplace so people can comparison shop more easily. * Directs the DOT to consider issuing clear rules requiring the refund of fees when baggage is delayed or when service isn’t actually provided—like when the plane’s WiFi or in-flight entertainment system is broken. * Directs the DOT to consider issuing rules that require baggage, change, and cancellation fees to be clearly disclosed to the customer. * Encourages the Surface Transportation Board to require railroad track owners to provide rights of way to passenger rail and to strengthen their obligations to treat other freight companies fairly. * Encourages the Federal Maritime Commission to ensure vigorous enforcement against shippers charging American exporters exorbitant charges. * Directs USDA to consider issuing new rules under the Packers and Stockyards Act making it easier for farmers to bring and win claims, stopping chicken processors from exploiting and underpaying chicken farmers, and adopting anti-retaliation protections for farmers who speak out about bad practices. * Directs USDA to consider issuing new rules defining when meat can bear “Product of USA” labels, so that consumers have accurate, transparent labels that enable them to choose products made here. * Directs USDA to develop a plan to increase opportunities for farmers to access markets and receive a fair return, including supporting alternative food distribution systems like farmers markets and developing standards and labels so that consumers can choose to buy products that treat farmers fairly. * Encourages the FTC to limit powerful equipment manufacturers from restricting people’s ability to use independent repair shops or do DIY repairs—such as when tractor companies block farmers from repairing their own tractors. * Encourages the FTC to prevent ISPs from making deals with landlords that limit tenants’ choices. * Encourages the FTC to revive the “Broadband Nutrition Label” and require providers to report prices and subscription rates to the FCC. * Encourages the FTC to limit excessive early termination fees. * Encourages the FTC to restore Net Neutrality rules undone by the prior administration. * Announces an Administration policy of greater scrutiny of mergers, especially by dominant internet platforms, with particular attention to the acquisition of nascent competitors, serial mergers, the accumulation of data, competition by “free” products, and the effect on user privacy. * Encourages the FTC to establish rules on surveillance and the accumulation of data. * Encourages the FTC to establish rules barring unfair methods of competition on internet marketplaces. * Encourages the FTC to issue rules against anticompetitive restrictions on using independent repair shops or doing DIY repairs of your own devices and equipment. * Encourages DOJ and the agencies responsible for banking (the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) to update guidelines on banking mergers to provide more robust scrutiny of mergers. * Encourages the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to issue rules allowing customers to download their banking data and take it with them.

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

"The most interesting pushback was by Google, Facebook, and Amazon, as well as Chinese giants DJI and Alibaba. All of these firms speak though the trade association Netchoice, which has them as key members. Netchoice didn't bother to try and convince Democrats. Instead, the big tech trade association used the order to lobby Republicans, making the case that Biden's actions against monopoly are opening the door to a larger more powerful government. Here's the key part of Netchoice's statement: "Sen. Lee and Rep. Jordan's warnings were right - when Republicans back progressive antitrust proposals because of concerns about tech, they open the door to progressive antitrust activism... By backing hard-left proposals, like nominating Lina Khan to the FTC and Rep. Cicilline's antitrust legislation, anti-tech Republicans bear responsibility for the damage that will result from importing a European-style antitrust framework to all sections of the American economy." Netchoice represents mostly American giants, but also Chinese dominant players. So it's interesting is to see the Chinese tech giants through their lobbying proxy coming out against Biden's anti-monopoly actions, and praising conservative Republicans Jim Jordan and Mike Lee in the process. It's clear that both big tech, and China's own tech giants, do not want to see anti-monopolists like Lina Khan succeed. But conservative Trump-supportive ranchers, by contrast, do." It is almost as if these "tech" companies are trying to sow divisiveness. Divide and conquer.

walkedaway 5y ago
> It is almost as if these "tech" companies are trying to sow divisiveness It's worked in their business model for over a decade. Their actions over the last five years have shown they have built up operations as core competencies in helping divide our country. Although one could argue they are just delivering what their customers want (otherwise customers would leave said platforms).

alessandroetc 5y ago

It's not actually real. The lobbying firm behind most of the fact sheet is made up of people on the boards of different tech firms.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nojs 5y ago
Betteridge's law of headlines strikes again :)
chelmzy 5y ago
Do you have a source for this? I'm extremely curious.
landryraccoon 5y ago
What fact sheet are you referring to? I’m curious what names are on it.
epistasis 5y ago
This is a very serious accusation, but I can't find any substance to it, and it doesn't make much sense. What tech firm have lobbyists on their board? Presumably you're talking about this fact sheet? https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/09/fact-sheet-executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... If a lobbying firm is behind official White House communications, and not WH-employed staff, that alone would be a serious allegation. But to say that tech is behind this is even worse. Where is the evidence?
seriousquestion 5y ago
Related? "WestExec represented major corporations throughout the Trump years. Now it’s in the White House." https://theintercept.com/2021/07/06/westexec-biden-administration/ https://theintercept.com/2021/07/06/westexec-biden-administr...

Black101 5y ago

My health insurance is buying hospital company stocks.

jbluepolarbear 5y ago
Vile
- Black101 5y ago
  it is not my fault that they are being let run free
  - jbluepolarbear 5y ago
    Oh I’m not calling you vile. The insurance companies are. Mine is already very intertwined with the hospitals in my area.
    - ambicapter 5y ago
      I think you misunderstood GP. I don't think he was claiming that the insurance company was literally buying stocks, he is saying his manner of insuring his health is buying hospital stocks (in the hope that their value will go up high enough to pay off any medical procedures he needs in the future).
      - Black101 5y ago
        that is correct

sakex 5y ago

The sentence "Capitalism without Competition is Exploitation" immediately makes me think about the many monopolies held by the government. Will he do something about those too?

dukeofdoom 5y ago

Is he really in a position to keep doing this? Biden recorder the most votes in history, while winning the fewest counties. That's a head scratcher. The fact remains most of the geographic area of the country voted red. If he keeps this up, states are going to start ignoring his executive orders. That's not how democracy is supposed to work. Laws get passed by legislature, not by dictate of the King.

jbluepolarbear 5y ago
Go home QAnon.
jbluepolarbear 5y ago
Since my other got flagged, you’re clearly a confused person. You post videos of trumps lies and defend some narrative that does harm to our democracy. The election was won by Biden.
SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
> Biden recorder the most votes in history, while winning the fewest counties. Say what now? That doesn’t seem right.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  "Biden won 81 million votes and 509 counties in the Nov. 3 election, while Trump won 74 million votes and 2,547 counties, according to data aggregated by think tank the Brookings Institute. Obama won 69 million votes and 873 counties in 2008. " https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/23/fact-check-biden-won-most-populous-counties-despite-winning-fewer/3992000001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/23/fac...
ModernMech 5y ago
> Biden recorder the most votes in history, while winning the fewest counties. That's a head scratcher. Why is that a head scratcher? 40% the us population lives in just 100 counties (of 3000)

chiefalchemist 5y ago

It's about control. These "Big" companies are in a position to collect plenty of data about the market - companies and individuals. They are now able to do what previously was exclusive (read: monopoly) to the government. I'm not defending "Big *", simply noting that historical context is mostly irrelevant. The game is different now. The rules also different. It's not about markets and dominance. It's not about economic monopolies. It's about control. Control of the future. Control of the narrative.

josh_today 5y ago

Executive orders were a constant theme of the previous administration. It was the first time that I’ve really heard about them consistently as a presidential technique and similarly as much in the media. The lower executive order numbers from the previous 2 administrations before made me think that these were tools used for media attention when I kept hearing about them. Now the current administration is using them (for causes that I hope will benefit) and I’m wondering are these going to hold weight or is this another media ploy?

tyre 5y ago
Really? They were a huge topic of conversation when W was president and then again for obama.
- josh_today 5y ago
  Looking at EO’s issued per year to account for 8 vs 4 year terms, Trump’s administration is the highest https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/execu...
jimbob45 5y ago
Obama dwarfed Trump’s number of EOs. Bush Jr. and Clinton were extremely high as well. This seems to be a response to congressional stonewalling (with varying outcomes). https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-or...
- wffurr 5y ago
  From your link: Barack Obama (D) Total 276 Avg/year 35 Donald J. Trump (R) Total 220 Avg/year 55 Hardly "dwarfed". If anything Trump issued 60% more executive orders than Obama on an annual basis over his one term.
- GeneralMayhem 5y ago
  >Obama dwarfed Trump’s number of EOs. By your own source, this is so misleading as to be blatantly false. Trump issued 220 EOs in 4 years. Obama issued 276 in 8 years. I wouldn't call that "dwarfing" even looking at the raw numbers, and as a rate, Trump was the highest in history, nearly twice Obama. Of course, that's only relevant if you believe a priori that (a) EOs are a bad thing, and (b) that all EOs are created equal. Neither of those is true, obviously.

anonymouswacker 5y ago

Yeah, like the democrats will bite the hands that feed. This is democrat posturing for 2022, that is all.

stuart78 5y ago

Would “Small Pharma” have gotten us our COVID vaccines faster? I get the complaints, but so much of these actions feel like they don’t start with an understanding of the benefits large can bring.

Sophistifunk 5y ago

"Big Pharma" in the eyes of the public is two related but separate issues; 1) the weird employment-insurance-hospital loop that has developed in the US, and the terrible second-order-consequences of all the open-high/settle-low insurer<->carer system it led to, and 2) the medicine advertisements, and all the terrible consequences thereof. The second one seems like a much easier thing to get rid of using hard government power, and should be the low-hanging fruit. The first will require a decade of masterful leadership, co-operation from competing interests, and delicate undoing over time that I don't think any country in the west has right now.

hyperhopper 5y ago
There is also a third issue: The high cost of medicines that are low cost to produce, and are sold at low cost elsewhere
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  This one is particularly prickly because the high cost paid in the US funds medical R&D and extremely expensive clinical trials which other countries are free riding on by imposing price controls. We still need to fund the R&D and clinical trials (unless they could be made less expensive somehow), so the most obvious solution would be to have other countries pay their fair share so the US could stop subsidizing everybody else. But that's hard to get.
  - philjohn 5y ago
    Not necessarily - look at Valeant Pharmaceuticals. They bought smaller Pharma co's, gutted R&D, and jacked up prices of the medications they sold.
  - TearsInTheRain 5y ago
    Idk why any politicians arent picking up on foreign price controls as a means of lowering costs in the US. It should be a part of the discussion during any trade talks with Europe.

phendrenad2 5y ago

If the whole country gets a California-style ban on noncompetes, will Silicon Valley start to lose it's hold on tech?

xenihn 5y ago
imo: yes, absolutely

DoreenMichele 5y ago

Well, I hope this does some good, but I'm a bit skeptical. I think we need more focus on how to help freelancers, gig workers and microbusiness actually succeed as a counterpart to preventing big business from preying upon small business. It's something I personally try to promote but I feel I have little in the way of success. I still struggle to make it through the month myself and my various projects intended to help others seem to mostly kind of languish, with one exception and I have no hard data on how much good that is doing. I think my efforts aren't pointless or fruitless, but it never seems to be enough to actually resolve my chronic poverty and I don't get enough feedback affirming that the lives of others suck less thanks to me. That kind of thing is maybe part of what helps drive a concentration of money and power. I think we overregulate small business. You need to know a lot of laws and regulations to operate at all and if you are one or a few people, that's a big burden. It's less of a burden for big business to play that game because they make enough money and have enough people that it's a relatively small part of what they do and I think that regulatory burden is one of the things hampering small business, just like it tends to impede the development of affordable housing. I don't know the answers. I just am skeptical that focusing exclusively on breaking up monopolies and putting a break on big business actually breathes life into small business. It's perhaps a necessary but insufficient precondition.

nr3msd 5y ago
> I don't get enough feedback affirming that the lives of others suck less thanks to me. I have always liked your posts a lot over the years here. I'm in the same boat, I have created a few things that are used by actual people but I have not yet thought about trying to make a living that way. Ideally I would open source everything and go the Patreon / donation route, but I want to get some of my work in order and nail at least one of my bigger ideas... then it might be feasible, but for now money is absolutely the limiting factor and I don't even need much relative to some :(
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  I did see your comment and I appreciate you leaving it. I didn't reply immediately because I had hoped to do something more meaningful with it than just say "Thank you" but that seems to not be gelling. So this is me saying "Thank you."

MichaelMoser123 5y ago

here [1] they say that Kamala Harris is seen as a friend of big tech and silicon valley, that would imply she is a friend of big tech corporations. Does this step signify a rift between Biden and Harris, or is that not the case? [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20210206212101/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/business/dealbook/kamala-harris-finance-tech.html http://web.archive.org/web/20210206212101/https://www.nytime...

jjcon 5y ago
That’s possible but the article is a year old. This past year and a half I think if you polled the HN crowd you would even see a dramatic shift in perspective on proper policy for big tech antitrust legislation. It is not unreasonable to assume those same realizations are happening or being expressed by government officials as well.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- MichaelMoser123 5y ago
  it makes sense that Biden wants to tax big corporations to finance his infrastructure projects. [1] that would make sense if Biden is a big fan of president Franklin D. Roosevelt, i am not sure if Roosevelt is as attractive to someone from the generation of Harris. (however i don't know if the generation aspect is a matter of importance, in this context) [1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/biden-offers-tax-deal-republicans-infrastructure-talks-78066757 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/biden-offers-tax-d...

ohashi 5y ago

I hope they take a look at VeriSign's monopoly power over .com/.net. We saw how dangerously close .ORG got to being turned into a rent seeking tax on non profits. .COM/.NET are a licensed rent seeking monopoly with increasing prices and decreasing costs to serve and no contract competition. Those contracts need to be made competitive, there are plenty of registry providers who can do it cheaper and VeriSign as a company exists because of those no-compete contracts.

cryptica 5y ago

I'm generally skeptical about all such news but a few things make me cautiously optimistic: - Lina Khan: I had heard about her a long time ago before she even got into politics. She is known for her academic work on antitrust and big tech so she definitely understands how monopolies work and how they are unfair. - Biden saying "Capitalism without Competition is Exploitation"; simply the acknowledgment by a sitting president that what we have today doesn't look like capitalism anymore is in itself a huge achievement and lays the groundwork for real improvement. Now, everyone knows that something needs to be done and everyone knows that everyone else knows that! - Biden is getting old and probably doesn't care about a second term in office. It's possible that he decided to make as many powerful enemies as necessary to secure a great legacy for himself. That said, I think that people have such low trust in government and media nowadays that I don't expect anyone from the right to warm to Biden until we see actual results.

Hani1337 5y ago

The reason we can afford universal health care in my country is because there are hard caps to the prices health professionals can legally ask, be it for fees or medication prices. If the prices are kept closer to their real value, and not inflated prices, then it's already much more affordable to consider paying for universal health care.

CountDrewku 5y ago
Yes there's a good argument that insurance in the US has artificially increased prices. College loans have done similar. This is why the ACA (obamacare) kinda failed to fix most of the issues. Care is much too expensive.

YinglingLight 5y ago

Biden vs. the Deep State, oh my (At)Lanta

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Why don't they allow insurance companies to operate in all states so people can shop around more? Currently they have regional rackets.

dudul 5y ago
This would be a good move, but don't most people get insurance through their employer? To me that would really be the thing to break asap. Can people really shop around? It's either getting an expensive insurance on your own or a much cheaper one via employment but extremely limited choice. The main barrier to getting rid of insurance via employment seems to be the very high cost of premiums. Employers are able to get much better deal for their employees than a single individual would be able to negotiate with a carrier. Maybe we would need an electroshock including banning employment based insurance and allowing carriers to operate anywhere. This would immediately kickoff the competition between carriers.

stevespang 5y ago

Big corporations are better organized and better lawyer equipped than the Gov't, and can generally outspend the Gov't in legal proceedings. The best and brightest lawyers don't work for the lower paying Gov't - - they work for the best paying huge corporations.

apercu 5y ago

So why do we a accept that VC's invest in software tech but we don't expect them to do the same in biotech (obviously some do I am generalizing) but instead expect Americans (mostly, I live in Canada though) to subsidize Big Pharma through taxes and, in many many many cases outrageous costs for decades old drugs?

jfengel 5y ago
Apparently, because Americans tolerate it. A bunch of factors lead to higher drug prices here and an almost complete inability to agree on a way to fix it. A lot of it comes down to tribalism: "I'd rather pay higher drug prices than lower drug prices your way."

rayiner 5y ago

Worth noting that the Pharma industry, as well as Big Tech and Wall Street, supported Biden. As a Biden supporter I’d like to believe that this is because he’s an old school Democrat and not afraid of biting the hand that feeds him. More cynically, this could be seen as posturing to keep together what is a very weird coalition (Occupy Wall Street and Wall Street under the same tent). Also maybe relevant: https://ksr.hkspublications.org/2021/05/18/can-conservatism-be-more-than-a-grudge/ https://ksr.hkspublications.org/2021/05/18/can-conservatism-... > The best answer, in my view, is that the Republican Party’s remaining connection to the dominant sectors of the American economy occurs through its usefulness as a tool to selectively balance and discipline the members of the Democratic coalition. Big Pharma, for instance, will throw money at the Heritage Foundation to rant against “socialized medicine” whenever talk of the government negotiating drug prices surfaces, but pharma is hardly interested in repealing Obamacare, much less dismantling Medicare. Financial lobbies will rent the Republican Party to ward off troublesome regulations or taxes, but are hardly interested in “sound money” policies or big spending cuts that would derail financial markets, never mind social conservatism. Big Tech will team up with Americans for Prosperity to oppose legislation limiting app store developer fees, all while more aggressively controlling conservative speech online, and so on.