9 ms·

Sometimes I wonder if 'monopoly' in the US has become a no true Scotsman fallacy. The threshold of direct consumer harm is either so high or evidence requiremen

Sometimes I wonder if 'monopoly' in the US has become a no true Scotsman fallacy. The threshold of direct consumer harm is either so high or evidence requirements so onerous it's as if there is no more Sherman Antitrust Act. The monopolizing doesn't even have to be in a computer or layers of shell companies anymore.

maerF0x0 4y ago
I think that's why it's good that antitrust is more than just monopoly but also and other anticompetitive practices. I would like to see law begin to start with an implicit bias for the underdog, but unfortunately Citizens united and the general principle of money in politics means that larger entities will have disproportionate sway (due to Pareto principle of accrual).
- nickff 4y ago
  The volume of law and regulation is a huge implicit subsidy to large corporations. The cost of compliance is challenging, and can be devastating to small-medium companies (which actually try to comply with the law). I think that getting rid of rules like the reporting on conflict minerals, (which don't seem to affect the ferocity or devastation in conflict regions,) which are numerous and surprisingly burdensome, would be very helpful.
- anamax 4y ago
  Citizens United said that you and I have the same right to band together to engage in political speech as the New York Times.
  - maerF0x0 4y ago
    Sure, and it should have said New York Times is not a person and therefore gets no say in any matter. The Pareto bit I mentioned means even if we band together they ultimately have disproportionate resources. It's employees / shareholders et al can vote how they like, but that's different than the New York Times (or Russia for that matter), swaying an election.
    - anamax 4y ago
      Zuckerberg has more resources than me. Not letting me get together with other people helps Zuckerberg. As far as the NYT goes, feel free to argue against the 1st Amendment. CU just says that the NYT isn't special, that the 1st applies to using tools, not organizations who have named themselves after said tools. Govt regulation always favors the well-heeled.
      - maerF0x0 4y ago
        > Zuckerberg has more resources than me. Yes but there is are rules & caps for political contributions: https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate... I'm not arguing against 1st, I'm arguing that a business (not a person) has speech or a 1st right (which people absolutely do), and that the net result of acting like they do is really hurting the citizens of America.
        anamax 4y ago
        The NYT is not subject to said "rules or caps" when it advocates for candidates. Neither is Zuckerberg. Why should people who get together to do political speech be treated any differently?
        maerF0x0 4y ago
        I think we agree in principle, but are disagreeing in the resultant law. It sounds to me like you're advocating saying NYT, and rich people can give large sums of money, therefore why cant groups of people also do it? I'm advocating for NYT and rich people should not be allowed to give large sums of money, and neither should individuals beyond their individual contribution cap. The principle I am all for is that wealthy people and corporations should not be able to bring disproportionate resources to politics than their underlying democratic unit (a single unit vote in the case of a wealthy person, no votes in the case of a corporation). And therefore the caps for wealthy people should be the same as for middle/poor people, and caps for corporations should be 0 because they are not democratic political units. I'm listening to https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-political-participation/us-gov-campaign-finance/v/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civ... to try and discern if maybe I have a completely broken idea of what citizens united is
sylvain_kerkour 4y ago
The passivity against monopolies has more to do with international competition and the fear of losing world domination.
- danaris 4y ago
  Does it? Or does it have more to do with the massive industry capture of politics? Not to mention the right-wing ideology of, effectively, if you can make money doing it, and hide the negative effects from the public at least a little, you're a Real American Hero.
  - zeruch 4y ago
    "Massive industry" is the applicable term. The scale of both the capture, and the middle man loss to a more parochial/regional model is terrifying to 'captains of industry' and their political minions.
  - jmeister 4y ago
    There are many progressives who've come around to favouring mega businesses over "mom-and-pop" for: higher wages, stabler jobs, easier enforcement of regulations.. For example: Matt Yglesias
    - danaris 4y ago
      There are many people who have been steeped in our hypercapitalist society for decades and have simply accepted its premises as valid, regardless of their stated politics as a whole. It doesn't mean that the source of this ultimately deeply destructive ideology isn't the political right.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        > our hypercapitalist society for decades The US has been turning away from free markets for at least a century now.
wrnr 4y ago
It is the opinion of the EU Comission that monopolies are ok as long as they do not abuse their power and if they do they get slapped with a fine.
arrosenberg 4y ago
That was the entire point of the Borkist/Chicago school movement. The capitalists knew they'd never be able to repeal those laws legislatively, so instead they changed its enforcement by winning the minds and wallets of the judiciary. Now they can consolidate as much as they want to, no judge will stop them and most lawyers won't even try.
robertlagrant 4y ago
Are most monopolies not of government creation? Anything that has increasingly onerous regulations or other government requirements are the sorts of monopolies that need breaking. Any natural monopolies formed by just being really good at something and offering it at a low price are a waste of taxpayer money to try and disrupt.
- a-user-you-like 4y ago
  Precisely. The regulatory environment in the US is astounding. People yell at Apple for being a monopoly but android exists and the consumers just don’t care. Amazon tried to launch a line of phones and no one cared. If things were really so oppressive the consumers would demand something else but they just don’t care.
  - porknubbins 4y ago
    How is Apple a monopoly (except for the app store, by definition)? Last time I checked there are many phone and personal computer choices.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Not all monopolies are natural. Those powerful enough to capture regulators are now a defacto government. The answer is not less regulation, it's a different kind to stop and reverse the consolidation of power. And benevolent monopolies can and do change over time.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    > Not all monopolies are natural Did you read my first paragraph?
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      Yes I did read it. Why do you suspect I had not? To be more explicit, I wouldn't agree it's most often the government making monopolies. There are plenty of cases where government regulators are captured by 'natural' monopolists (or otherwise large players) who then entrench themselves with regulatory moats, serving only their interests. And even government made monopolies aren't _well_ regulated IMO, for example telcos. A freer market would need controls to prevent consolidation from locking in customers by simply buying up all the spectrum and lobbyists.
fleddr 4y ago
Same for when you read about two large companies merging, pending regulatory approval. My immediate thought: it's going be allowed. Regulator after 6 months: it's allowed.

maerF0x0 4y ago

I think that's why it's good that antitrust is more than just monopoly but also and other anticompetitive practices. I would like to see law begin to start with an implicit bias for the underdog, but unfortunately Citizens united and the general principle of money in politics means that larger entities will have disproportionate sway (due to Pareto principle of accrual).

nickff 4y ago
The volume of law and regulation is a huge implicit subsidy to large corporations. The cost of compliance is challenging, and can be devastating to small-medium companies (which actually try to comply with the law). I think that getting rid of rules like the reporting on conflict minerals, (which don't seem to affect the ferocity or devastation in conflict regions,) which are numerous and surprisingly burdensome, would be very helpful.
anamax 4y ago
Citizens United said that you and I have the same right to band together to engage in political speech as the New York Times.
- maerF0x0 4y ago
  Sure, and it should have said New York Times is not a person and therefore gets no say in any matter. The Pareto bit I mentioned means even if we band together they ultimately have disproportionate resources. It's employees / shareholders et al can vote how they like, but that's different than the New York Times (or Russia for that matter), swaying an election.
  - anamax 4y ago
    Zuckerberg has more resources than me. Not letting me get together with other people helps Zuckerberg. As far as the NYT goes, feel free to argue against the 1st Amendment. CU just says that the NYT isn't special, that the 1st applies to using tools, not organizations who have named themselves after said tools. Govt regulation always favors the well-heeled.
    - maerF0x0 4y ago
      > Zuckerberg has more resources than me. Yes but there is are rules & caps for political contributions: https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate... I'm not arguing against 1st, I'm arguing that a business (not a person) has speech or a 1st right (which people absolutely do), and that the net result of acting like they do is really hurting the citizens of America.
      - anamax 4y ago
        The NYT is not subject to said "rules or caps" when it advocates for candidates. Neither is Zuckerberg. Why should people who get together to do political speech be treated any differently?
        maerF0x0 4y ago
        I think we agree in principle, but are disagreeing in the resultant law. It sounds to me like you're advocating saying NYT, and rich people can give large sums of money, therefore why cant groups of people also do it? I'm advocating for NYT and rich people should not be allowed to give large sums of money, and neither should individuals beyond their individual contribution cap. The principle I am all for is that wealthy people and corporations should not be able to bring disproportionate resources to politics than their underlying democratic unit (a single unit vote in the case of a wealthy person, no votes in the case of a corporation). And therefore the caps for wealthy people should be the same as for middle/poor people, and caps for corporations should be 0 because they are not democratic political units. I'm listening to https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-political-participation/us-gov-campaign-finance/v/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civ... to try and discern if maybe I have a completely broken idea of what citizens united is

sylvain_kerkour 4y ago

The passivity against monopolies has more to do with international competition and the fear of losing world domination.

danaris 4y ago
Does it? Or does it have more to do with the massive industry capture of politics? Not to mention the right-wing ideology of, effectively, if you can make money doing it, and hide the negative effects from the public at least a little, you're a Real American Hero.
- zeruch 4y ago
  "Massive industry" is the applicable term. The scale of both the capture, and the middle man loss to a more parochial/regional model is terrifying to 'captains of industry' and their political minions.
- jmeister 4y ago
  There are many progressives who've come around to favouring mega businesses over "mom-and-pop" for: higher wages, stabler jobs, easier enforcement of regulations.. For example: Matt Yglesias
  - danaris 4y ago
    There are many people who have been steeped in our hypercapitalist society for decades and have simply accepted its premises as valid, regardless of their stated politics as a whole. It doesn't mean that the source of this ultimately deeply destructive ideology isn't the political right.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > our hypercapitalist society for decades The US has been turning away from free markets for at least a century now.

wrnr 4y ago

It is the opinion of the EU Comission that monopolies are ok as long as they do not abuse their power and if they do they get slapped with a fine.

arrosenberg 4y ago

That was the entire point of the Borkist/Chicago school movement. The capitalists knew they'd never be able to repeal those laws legislatively, so instead they changed its enforcement by winning the minds and wallets of the judiciary. Now they can consolidate as much as they want to, no judge will stop them and most lawyers won't even try.

robertlagrant 4y ago

Are most monopolies not of government creation? Anything that has increasingly onerous regulations or other government requirements are the sorts of monopolies that need breaking. Any natural monopolies formed by just being really good at something and offering it at a low price are a waste of taxpayer money to try and disrupt.

a-user-you-like 4y ago
Precisely. The regulatory environment in the US is astounding. People yell at Apple for being a monopoly but android exists and the consumers just don’t care. Amazon tried to launch a line of phones and no one cared. If things were really so oppressive the consumers would demand something else but they just don’t care.
- porknubbins 4y ago
  How is Apple a monopoly (except for the app store, by definition)? Last time I checked there are many phone and personal computer choices.
paulryanrogers 4y ago
Not all monopolies are natural. Those powerful enough to capture regulators are now a defacto government. The answer is not less regulation, it's a different kind to stop and reverse the consolidation of power. And benevolent monopolies can and do change over time.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  > Not all monopolies are natural Did you read my first paragraph?
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    Yes I did read it. Why do you suspect I had not? To be more explicit, I wouldn't agree it's most often the government making monopolies. There are plenty of cases where government regulators are captured by 'natural' monopolists (or otherwise large players) who then entrench themselves with regulatory moats, serving only their interests. And even government made monopolies aren't _well_ regulated IMO, for example telcos. A freer market would need controls to prevent consolidation from locking in customers by simply buying up all the spectrum and lobbyists.

fleddr 4y ago

Same for when you read about two large companies merging, pending regulatory approval. My immediate thought: it's going be allowed. Regulator after 6 months: it's allowed.