12 ms·

As always, it's interesting to read any dissent to what sounds like "obviously a good thing": https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P221202Section5Policy

As always, it's interesting to read any dissent to what sounds like "obviously a good thing": https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P221202Section5PolicyWilsonDissentStmt.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P221202Section5... There is also an interesting bit of back-and-forth between the dissent and one of the supporting statements: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Section5PolicyStmtKhanSlaughterBedoyaStmt.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Section5PolicyS... I'm still inclined to think it's a good thing. I'm not educated enough on this topic to agree or disagree with any of the commissioners' opinions, but the FTC is clearly interested in sending a signal to the public. I'm moderately optimistic, although it will be interesting to see what happens after the next presidential election. It's possible that the commissioners are concerned about it, and are trying to make some kind of mark and set precedent before they're all fired and replaced if a Republican (Trump?) takes office in 2024.

themagician 4y ago
If they were really interested in sending a signal they would do something like shut down Amway. A company that is nothing more than a multi-billion dollar "legal" pyramid scheme which preys on the most vulnerable people in society operates with impunity and has for decades now. Literally brainwashes and robs MILLIONS of people on a daily basis. The FTC, FCC, and SEC are toothless against billionaires. Just like the IRS, they mainly focus on harassing small-time crooks these days because that's the easiest thing to do. The large scale fraudsters operate with absolute impunity. If anything these organizations actually act as a barrier to entry for people looking to get into fraud, because if you don't get big enough fast enough they will come after you. But once you hit a billion in revenue, you are golden.
- gruez 4y ago
  [deleted]
  - themagician 4y ago
    Amway. Amway and all the clones. In the US you can run a pyramid scheme as long as you have enough money and political influence to do it “legally”.
    - parineum 4y ago
      That's not true. A pyramid scheme, legally, has no product but itself. Those are illegal. For example, pay me $20 to join my company and you get the right to recruit people for $20! Amway is essentially exactly the same except they add a product to the mix to get around the law. They still primarily profit from the "employees" rather than customers. Changing the definition of a pyramid scheme, for the proposes of law enforcement, to something more akin to "profits primarily off employees" is what needs to be done.
      - pessimizer 4y ago
        > A pyramid scheme, legally, has no product but itself. There are 0.0% of pyramid schemes with no product.
        parineum 4y ago
        Because they are illegal. That's what the originals were though. You pay some amount of money that gets you basically nothing (maybe a few pages of "how to recruit") and that's it. MLM schemes are distinct in that they actually have a product and that's what makes them legal.
      - specialist 4y ago
        If you have model legislation handy, particularly the specific legal definition of scams like MLM, I'd be very grateful. Otherwise I'll poke around a bit, to see how UK phrased it.
  - ok_dad 4y ago
    > Amway Literally the last word of the sentence before the sentence you quoted stated the very specific company name.
- neonnoodle 4y ago
- notacoward 4y ago
  > they would do something like shut down Amway While I agree that Amway and other pyramid schemes (including most crypto) should be shut down, it's not because they're anti-competitive. They're fraudulent, which is arguably worse but certainly different.
  - sharemywin 4y ago
    It's not really fraudulent. Most of the companies com plans are right there. I don's see it as any more fraudulent then tech companies offering products for free or significantly discounted using investor cash to buy massive market share then once they have a monopoly jacking up prices or loading up search results with ads to the point you need to scroll down to even see search results. Imagine if when google was first released it was nothing but ads and/or websites with more ads from its ad network
    - themagician 4y ago
      It is fraudulent. Fraud, racketeering, price-fixing, false income claims and operation as an illegal pyramid scheme. Sued many times in many countries. Banned from the UK and most of the EU. Several founders were indicted in Canada on criminal charges. But somehow it's just not enough for the FTC to really do anything other than settle and let them continue operate.
      - sharemywin 4y ago
        like lotteries and gambling.
- Retric 4y ago
  Multi level marketing is closely related but distinct from a pyramid scheme. The critical difference is the actual generation of profits and the health of the organization through time. Franchise agreements can similarly look really sketchy on the surface especially with a large buy-in, but it’s hard to argue a Mcdonald's franchise agreement is a scam due to the real profits and costs involved. Which isn’t to say every franchise agreement is a good investment. Where things break down for MLM is really the specific business model and percentages involved. If say 4% of a sales guy’s check gets sent to the chain of people who recruited him then no big deal. However, large percentages or large buy can quickly become very problematic.
  - mjevans 4y ago
    Franchise agreements should have a very narrow path to the top of the chain. Maybe a state / locality, country, and global entity at most and that entirely for tax zoning / similar reasons.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Non-MLM franchises don't make their money from sublicensing at all. It isn't like one McDonald's franchise is being paid by other McDonald's stores. It's single-level marketing. So I don't know that the distinction is so fuzzy.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Some franchises are basically scams against the franchisee- subway and Quiznos were famous for not caring much at all and being willing to sell a franchise to anyone with some money (normally franchises are protected from similar franchises within a given area).
      - specialist 4y ago
        This is also SOP for the value-added reseller (VAR) scam. One notable exception are car dealers. They somehow secured themselves durable lucrative carve-outs before the VAR thing matured.
- geoelectric 4y ago
  So, I know a little about this, unfortunately. My "shameful past job" at one point in the 90s was working for a company that basically made small-business CRM+accounting software you could customize to drive any MLM scheme you could think up. Amway's not the best example, since they actually sell real goods and because Amway's sellers' best customers have almost always been the sellers themselves. In other words, many sellers used it as a way to buy goods at "wholesale" and never really had any intention of reselling them. At one point, I think that was even part of the Amway pitch, particularly at the time they were inexplicably popular for their (expensive and therefore in theory a better deal discounted) water treatment products. I don't think there's a price advantage there compared to Costco or online, though--much of what made Amway fade into the background starting in the mid 90s. So too Stella Dot, Mary Kay, Cutco/Vector, probably Herbalife and even Transamerica, etc. They sell real stuff, whether or not the pricing makes sense, and you can technically turn a profit on it, whether or not the market is really there, so they're not technically considered a pyramid scheme in the scam/illegal sense. Now, I'm not saying they're good ideas--at all--and they absolutely operate on hype and pipe dream every bit as much as those awful timeshare presentations. They have the same exponential market saturation issue as any pyramid scheme and the same diminishing returns--but they are generally not considered fraudulent, just obnoxious. The really awful pyramid schemes mostly just sell "new seller kits" to prospective targets that teach them how to sell "new seller kits" to their targets, have no real product or way to make a profit, and the entire rollup is those kits and other overhead fees. They're the financial equivalent of a chain letter. I'm pretty sure those do get action taken against them if they're identified. The biggest problem there is most are pretty small, take a bunch of people's money, then burn out once it's all rolled to the top ranks who founded the scheme and new marks aren't easy to find.
  - girvo 4y ago
    While I understand your point, I think society should treat all of this as a distinction without a difference. Herbalife et al. should not be allowed to prey on the vulnerable, regardless of if they happen to sell a “real” product or not. It’s not a real business selling a real product. Other countries rightfully have seen it this way for some for the companies under discussion.
- sequoia 4y ago
  What does “literally brainwashes” mean? I don’t think “brainwashing” is actually a well defined concept. Can you link to an explanation that would clearly exclude persuasion?
  - xapata 4y ago
    "Literally" means figuratively, now. In much popular usage, at least. "Figurative brain washing," is quite clear.
    - waltbosz 4y ago
      I taught my children the correct usage of the word "literally", after we watched an irksome YouTube video in which the host made significant abuse of the word. Now whenever they hear someone say "literally", they double check with me: "Daddy, is (xyz) a figure of speech?" I find the behavior both cute and precocious.
      - antiterra 4y ago
        The battle has been lost and ‘literally’ lies with its siblings ‘very,’ ‘really,’ and ‘truly.’ I suspect ‘actually’ is in danger.
        teddyh 4y ago
        Verily.
    - croon 4y ago
      It's literally (figuratively) meant figuratively for literally (literally) hundreds of years, depending on context. I was always a language stickler growing up but am becoming more measured in most areas of life as I age and discover the subtle nuances of literally (figuratively) everything, and as long as I'm understanding someone figuratively (figuratively), I won't question their language.
  - sequoia 4y ago
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > If they were really interested in sending a signal they would do something like shut down Amway. Sure, if the signal was “we just want to get beaten up by the courts for trying to turn a regulatory agency into a lawless dictatorship”. > The FTC, FCC, and SEC are toothless against billionaires None of them are in primarily aimed, legally, at indivduals, regardless of wealth. > Just like the IRS, they mainly focus on harassing small-time crooks these days because that's the easiest thing to do. I don’t think a review of the actual enforcement record of any of those agencies supports that claim. Vonage, Harley-Davidson, Weber grills, Westinghouse outdoor power equipment, OpenDoor Labs—just to cite FTC enforcement actions in the last couple weeks—aren’t small actors.
megaman821 4y ago
It sounds good as long as the White House doesn't try to use the FTC as a political weapon to disadvantage their opponents. Like going after Amazon for their union stance or Facebook for their censorship stance.
- uoaei 4y ago
  Amazon and Meta are both obviously engaging in "unfair methods of competition". To blame moves from the FTC on anything else seems like a pointless, truth-agnostic move.
  - megaman821 4y ago
    The FTC is free to investigate whoever they want, but if it only ends up being companies the White House opposes then that doesn't seem to be furthering the goal of increasing competition. There is the obvious bad behavior of cable companies in uncompetitive markets or the recent consolidation of movie studios or even car dealerships. I will reserve judgment until the FTC announces their targets.
    - sharemywin 4y ago
      don't forget news and oil and food.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - iudqnolq 4y ago
      It's much more complicated than that. For one, you're conflating targeting industries vs targeting individual corporations. One of the core jobs of the president is deciding which lawbreakers to go after. This is needed because (among other reasons) the government is far too small to enforce every law. In general the President is supposed to set general parameters but not pick specific individuals or companies. Deciding a specific sector's violations are more pressing is squarely within the traditional discretion of the executive branch.
danielmarkbruce 4y ago
fwiw, I believe if you ask anyone who has interacted with any of the relevant (to competition) agencies globally, any law/rule which gives them more power is obviously bad. The humans who work there tend to be clueless about the specifics of an industry and imagine all kinds of nefarious intent everywhere. They are often intelligent people, but just don't understand the industry.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > The humans who work there tend to be clueless about the specifics of an industry and imagine all kinds of nefarious intent everywhere. They are often intelligent people, but just don't understand the industry. Sometimes that's a good thing. "Understand[ing] the industry" often means buying into its bullshit and looking at the world from its self-interested perspective.
  - danielmarkbruce 4y ago
    Fair point.
- Karunamon 4y ago
  I mean this with complete sincerity but perhaps given current market, business, and global conditions, perhaps we should assume nefarious intent anytime a company breaks a rule in a way that causes them to profit? It's not like evil or shady behavior is in short supply.
  - danielmarkbruce 4y ago
    The question is mostly what should the rules be, and how much leeway do you give an administrative agency to decide what they are and if they are being broken. At least in the US, there is a very reasonable argument that the administrative agencies have overstepped. As an example, from the FTC: "Unfair methods of competition, the policy statement explains, are tactics that seek to gain an advantage while avoiding competing on the merits, and that tend to reduce competition in the market". Who decides what "the merits" are, and who decides what the "market" is? They play a lot of games with these definitions. What are the merits in the smartphone business? Did apple abuse their position to unfairly take over the camera business? Is "cameras" even a market anymore? Is a camera so clearly part of a smartphone that it does indeed meet the definition of "merits"? Is Amazon abusing their position in e-commerce to take out the delivery business (fedex etc) by offering "free shipping" ? Is AWS abusing their position in IaaS to unfairly compete in the "server cpu" market? Is that even a market? Or is it not because x86 chips and ARM chips are thought of as different? Read the current case brought against Meta. The definition of "market" is... really pretty awful. Someone is just trying to make their career.
1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago
"It's possible that the commissioners are concerned about it, and are trying to make some kind of mark and set precedent before they are all fired and replaced if a Republican (Trump?) takes office in 2024." It is also possible that this is an incorrect interpretation despite its position as the top HN comment. Note I am not saying it is incorrect, I am saying it is possible it is incorrect. Anything is possible, right. Well, almost. FTC Commissioners are appointed for terms of seven years,^1 and no more than three can be from the the same political party. The Senate must confirm nominations. The President chooses the Chairperson. See 15 USC 41. Commissioners frequently resign before their terms expire, but I am not aware of any instances where a Commissioner, or all five of them, as suggested by the parent comment, have been been "fired" for political reasons. Perhaps an astute HN commenter can cite one. 1. The exception is if they are filling a vacancy left by someone who leaves before their term expires.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  There's an aphorism about how the best way to get the right answer to a question is to post the wrong answer.
  - waltbosz 4y ago
    It's called Parkinson's Law.
    - CPLX 4y ago
      Clever
      - waltbosz 4y ago
        You win.
    - salawat 4y ago
      Cunningham's Law. Q.E.D.
    - 4y ago
int_19h 4y ago
One of the complaints: "... the Policy Statement repudiates the consumer welfare standard" This is a reference to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox, and in my mind, doing away with that is an indication that FTC is doing the right (and long overdue) thing.
- randombits0 4y ago
  But otherwise responded with no guidance as to what is and is not offending conduct. That doesn’t sound like the right thing to me.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ece 4y ago
    The Sherman act and newer FTC act have been finding offending conduct just fine, the question is why these laws aren't being followed as written.
- sounds 4y ago
  "It is under the word government, that the subtle danger lurks. Understood as a central consolidated power, managing and directing the various general interests of the society, all government is evil, and the parent of evil." "A strong and active democratic government, in the common sense of the term, is an evil, differing only in degree and mode of operation, and not in nature, from a strong despotism." This past century, common thought may have shifted to a more "dangerous evil" definition versus the original sense of "unenlightened, capricious will," nevertheless it is indeed a pleasant surprise that the FTC would act in a more "enlightened" (my opinion) or "long overdue" response to corporate misbehavior.
oconnor663 4y ago
> obviously a good thing I mean, a law against being a jerk would be great too, but the problem is that everyone thinks the other guy is the jerk. And when we actually try to write rules down for this stuff it gets problematic quickly.
jameshart 4y ago
I think one of the interesting signals they are sending is that, in an era where increasingly law seems to feel like ‘whatever you can construct a Supreme Court majority to uphold’, there are other elements within the constitutional checks and balances, and executive agencies enforcing legislative intent is one such important component.
- theknocker 4y ago
- tekknik 4y ago
  > whatever you can construct a Supreme Court majority to uphold I find the same thing with liberal courts. For instance with the second amendment. We clearly have a problem here with the court system reflecting their own personal views instead of what’s written in law. But the problem is not coming from the right. Unless your point is that when a court doesn’t agree with you then they’re wrong.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jameshart 4y ago
    It was not a partisan point. Constructing a court majority goes both ways. But so does constructing an FTC commissioner board majority! Note that commissioners are seven year senate-confirmed presidential appointees. Similar oversight bodies exist for other federal agencies. This is a useful reminder that such positions are intended (endowed by powers by legislation, in fact) to set rules and govern executive behavior without stuff having to go to the Supreme Court.

themagician 4y ago

If they were really interested in sending a signal they would do something like shut down Amway. A company that is nothing more than a multi-billion dollar "legal" pyramid scheme which preys on the most vulnerable people in society operates with impunity and has for decades now. Literally brainwashes and robs MILLIONS of people on a daily basis. The FTC, FCC, and SEC are toothless against billionaires. Just like the IRS, they mainly focus on harassing small-time crooks these days because that's the easiest thing to do. The large scale fraudsters operate with absolute impunity. If anything these organizations actually act as a barrier to entry for people looking to get into fraud, because if you don't get big enough fast enough they will come after you. But once you hit a billion in revenue, you are golden.

gruez 4y ago
[deleted]
- themagician 4y ago
  Amway. Amway and all the clones. In the US you can run a pyramid scheme as long as you have enough money and political influence to do it “legally”.
  - parineum 4y ago
    That's not true. A pyramid scheme, legally, has no product but itself. Those are illegal. For example, pay me $20 to join my company and you get the right to recruit people for $20! Amway is essentially exactly the same except they add a product to the mix to get around the law. They still primarily profit from the "employees" rather than customers. Changing the definition of a pyramid scheme, for the proposes of law enforcement, to something more akin to "profits primarily off employees" is what needs to be done.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > A pyramid scheme, legally, has no product but itself. There are 0.0% of pyramid schemes with no product.
      - parineum 4y ago
        Because they are illegal. That's what the originals were though. You pay some amount of money that gets you basically nothing (maybe a few pages of "how to recruit") and that's it. MLM schemes are distinct in that they actually have a product and that's what makes them legal.
    - specialist 4y ago
      If you have model legislation handy, particularly the specific legal definition of scams like MLM, I'd be very grateful. Otherwise I'll poke around a bit, to see how UK phrased it.
- ok_dad 4y ago
  > Amway Literally the last word of the sentence before the sentence you quoted stated the very specific company name.
neonnoodle 4y ago
notacoward 4y ago
> they would do something like shut down Amway While I agree that Amway and other pyramid schemes (including most crypto) should be shut down, it's not because they're anti-competitive. They're fraudulent, which is arguably worse but certainly different.
- sharemywin 4y ago
  It's not really fraudulent. Most of the companies com plans are right there. I don's see it as any more fraudulent then tech companies offering products for free or significantly discounted using investor cash to buy massive market share then once they have a monopoly jacking up prices or loading up search results with ads to the point you need to scroll down to even see search results. Imagine if when google was first released it was nothing but ads and/or websites with more ads from its ad network
  - themagician 4y ago
    It is fraudulent. Fraud, racketeering, price-fixing, false income claims and operation as an illegal pyramid scheme. Sued many times in many countries. Banned from the UK and most of the EU. Several founders were indicted in Canada on criminal charges. But somehow it's just not enough for the FTC to really do anything other than settle and let them continue operate.
    - sharemywin 4y ago
      like lotteries and gambling.
Retric 4y ago
Multi level marketing is closely related but distinct from a pyramid scheme. The critical difference is the actual generation of profits and the health of the organization through time. Franchise agreements can similarly look really sketchy on the surface especially with a large buy-in, but it’s hard to argue a Mcdonald's franchise agreement is a scam due to the real profits and costs involved. Which isn’t to say every franchise agreement is a good investment. Where things break down for MLM is really the specific business model and percentages involved. If say 4% of a sales guy’s check gets sent to the chain of people who recruited him then no big deal. However, large percentages or large buy can quickly become very problematic.
- mjevans 4y ago
  Franchise agreements should have a very narrow path to the top of the chain. Maybe a state / locality, country, and global entity at most and that entirely for tax zoning / similar reasons.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Non-MLM franchises don't make their money from sublicensing at all. It isn't like one McDonald's franchise is being paid by other McDonald's stores. It's single-level marketing. So I don't know that the distinction is so fuzzy.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Some franchises are basically scams against the franchisee- subway and Quiznos were famous for not caring much at all and being willing to sell a franchise to anyone with some money (normally franchises are protected from similar franchises within a given area).
    - specialist 4y ago
      This is also SOP for the value-added reseller (VAR) scam. One notable exception are car dealers. They somehow secured themselves durable lucrative carve-outs before the VAR thing matured.
geoelectric 4y ago
So, I know a little about this, unfortunately. My "shameful past job" at one point in the 90s was working for a company that basically made small-business CRM+accounting software you could customize to drive any MLM scheme you could think up. Amway's not the best example, since they actually sell real goods and because Amway's sellers' best customers have almost always been the sellers themselves. In other words, many sellers used it as a way to buy goods at "wholesale" and never really had any intention of reselling them. At one point, I think that was even part of the Amway pitch, particularly at the time they were inexplicably popular for their (expensive and therefore in theory a better deal discounted) water treatment products. I don't think there's a price advantage there compared to Costco or online, though--much of what made Amway fade into the background starting in the mid 90s. So too Stella Dot, Mary Kay, Cutco/Vector, probably Herbalife and even Transamerica, etc. They sell real stuff, whether or not the pricing makes sense, and you can technically turn a profit on it, whether or not the market is really there, so they're not technically considered a pyramid scheme in the scam/illegal sense. Now, I'm not saying they're good ideas--at all--and they absolutely operate on hype and pipe dream every bit as much as those awful timeshare presentations. They have the same exponential market saturation issue as any pyramid scheme and the same diminishing returns--but they are generally not considered fraudulent, just obnoxious. The really awful pyramid schemes mostly just sell "new seller kits" to prospective targets that teach them how to sell "new seller kits" to their targets, have no real product or way to make a profit, and the entire rollup is those kits and other overhead fees. They're the financial equivalent of a chain letter. I'm pretty sure those do get action taken against them if they're identified. The biggest problem there is most are pretty small, take a bunch of people's money, then burn out once it's all rolled to the top ranks who founded the scheme and new marks aren't easy to find.
- girvo 4y ago
  While I understand your point, I think society should treat all of this as a distinction without a difference. Herbalife et al. should not be allowed to prey on the vulnerable, regardless of if they happen to sell a “real” product or not. It’s not a real business selling a real product. Other countries rightfully have seen it this way for some for the companies under discussion.
sequoia 4y ago
What does “literally brainwashes” mean? I don’t think “brainwashing” is actually a well defined concept. Can you link to an explanation that would clearly exclude persuasion?
- xapata 4y ago
  "Literally" means figuratively, now. In much popular usage, at least. "Figurative brain washing," is quite clear.
  - waltbosz 4y ago
    I taught my children the correct usage of the word "literally", after we watched an irksome YouTube video in which the host made significant abuse of the word. Now whenever they hear someone say "literally", they double check with me: "Daddy, is (xyz) a figure of speech?" I find the behavior both cute and precocious.
    - antiterra 4y ago
      The battle has been lost and ‘literally’ lies with its siblings ‘very,’ ‘really,’ and ‘truly.’ I suspect ‘actually’ is in danger.
      - teddyh 4y ago
        Verily.
  - croon 4y ago
    It's literally (figuratively) meant figuratively for literally (literally) hundreds of years, depending on context. I was always a language stickler growing up but am becoming more measured in most areas of life as I age and discover the subtle nuances of literally (figuratively) everything, and as long as I'm understanding someone figuratively (figuratively), I won't question their language.
- sequoia 4y ago
dragonwriter 4y ago
> If they were really interested in sending a signal they would do something like shut down Amway. Sure, if the signal was “we just want to get beaten up by the courts for trying to turn a regulatory agency into a lawless dictatorship”. > The FTC, FCC, and SEC are toothless against billionaires None of them are in primarily aimed, legally, at indivduals, regardless of wealth. > Just like the IRS, they mainly focus on harassing small-time crooks these days because that's the easiest thing to do. I don’t think a review of the actual enforcement record of any of those agencies supports that claim. Vonage, Harley-Davidson, Weber grills, Westinghouse outdoor power equipment, OpenDoor Labs—just to cite FTC enforcement actions in the last couple weeks—aren’t small actors.

megaman821 4y ago

It sounds good as long as the White House doesn't try to use the FTC as a political weapon to disadvantage their opponents. Like going after Amazon for their union stance or Facebook for their censorship stance.

uoaei 4y ago
Amazon and Meta are both obviously engaging in "unfair methods of competition". To blame moves from the FTC on anything else seems like a pointless, truth-agnostic move.
- megaman821 4y ago
  The FTC is free to investigate whoever they want, but if it only ends up being companies the White House opposes then that doesn't seem to be furthering the goal of increasing competition. There is the obvious bad behavior of cable companies in uncompetitive markets or the recent consolidation of movie studios or even car dealerships. I will reserve judgment until the FTC announces their targets.
  - sharemywin 4y ago
    don't forget news and oil and food.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - iudqnolq 4y ago
    It's much more complicated than that. For one, you're conflating targeting industries vs targeting individual corporations. One of the core jobs of the president is deciding which lawbreakers to go after. This is needed because (among other reasons) the government is far too small to enforce every law. In general the President is supposed to set general parameters but not pick specific individuals or companies. Deciding a specific sector's violations are more pressing is squarely within the traditional discretion of the executive branch.

danielmarkbruce 4y ago

fwiw, I believe if you ask anyone who has interacted with any of the relevant (to competition) agencies globally, any law/rule which gives them more power is obviously bad. The humans who work there tend to be clueless about the specifics of an industry and imagine all kinds of nefarious intent everywhere. They are often intelligent people, but just don't understand the industry.

tablespoon 4y ago
> The humans who work there tend to be clueless about the specifics of an industry and imagine all kinds of nefarious intent everywhere. They are often intelligent people, but just don't understand the industry. Sometimes that's a good thing. "Understand[ing] the industry" often means buying into its bullshit and looking at the world from its self-interested perspective.
- danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  Fair point.
Karunamon 4y ago
I mean this with complete sincerity but perhaps given current market, business, and global conditions, perhaps we should assume nefarious intent anytime a company breaks a rule in a way that causes them to profit? It's not like evil or shady behavior is in short supply.
- danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  The question is mostly what should the rules be, and how much leeway do you give an administrative agency to decide what they are and if they are being broken. At least in the US, there is a very reasonable argument that the administrative agencies have overstepped. As an example, from the FTC: "Unfair methods of competition, the policy statement explains, are tactics that seek to gain an advantage while avoiding competing on the merits, and that tend to reduce competition in the market". Who decides what "the merits" are, and who decides what the "market" is? They play a lot of games with these definitions. What are the merits in the smartphone business? Did apple abuse their position to unfairly take over the camera business? Is "cameras" even a market anymore? Is a camera so clearly part of a smartphone that it does indeed meet the definition of "merits"? Is Amazon abusing their position in e-commerce to take out the delivery business (fedex etc) by offering "free shipping" ? Is AWS abusing their position in IaaS to unfairly compete in the "server cpu" market? Is that even a market? Or is it not because x86 chips and ARM chips are thought of as different? Read the current case brought against Meta. The definition of "market" is... really pretty awful. Someone is just trying to make their career.

1vuio0pswjnm7 4y ago

"It's possible that the commissioners are concerned about it, and are trying to make some kind of mark and set precedent before they are all fired and replaced if a Republican (Trump?) takes office in 2024." It is also possible that this is an incorrect interpretation despite its position as the top HN comment. Note I am not saying it is incorrect, I am saying it is possible it is incorrect. Anything is possible, right. Well, almost. FTC Commissioners are appointed for terms of seven years,^1 and no more than three can be from the the same political party. The Senate must confirm nominations. The President chooses the Chairperson. See 15 USC 41. Commissioners frequently resign before their terms expire, but I am not aware of any instances where a Commissioner, or all five of them, as suggested by the parent comment, have been been "fired" for political reasons. Perhaps an astute HN commenter can cite one. 1. The exception is if they are filling a vacancy left by someone who leaves before their term expires.

nerdponx 4y ago
There's an aphorism about how the best way to get the right answer to a question is to post the wrong answer.
- waltbosz 4y ago
  It's called Parkinson's Law.
  - CPLX 4y ago
    Clever
    - waltbosz 4y ago
      You win.
  - salawat 4y ago
    Cunningham's Law. Q.E.D.
  - 4y ago

int_19h 4y ago

One of the complaints: "... the Policy Statement repudiates the consumer welfare standard" This is a reference to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antitrust_Paradox, and in my mind, doing away with that is an indication that FTC is doing the right (and long overdue) thing.

randombits0 4y ago
But otherwise responded with no guidance as to what is and is not offending conduct. That doesn’t sound like the right thing to me.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ece 4y ago
  The Sherman act and newer FTC act have been finding offending conduct just fine, the question is why these laws aren't being followed as written.
sounds 4y ago
"It is under the word government, that the subtle danger lurks. Understood as a central consolidated power, managing and directing the various general interests of the society, all government is evil, and the parent of evil." "A strong and active democratic government, in the common sense of the term, is an evil, differing only in degree and mode of operation, and not in nature, from a strong despotism." This past century, common thought may have shifted to a more "dangerous evil" definition versus the original sense of "unenlightened, capricious will," nevertheless it is indeed a pleasant surprise that the FTC would act in a more "enlightened" (my opinion) or "long overdue" response to corporate misbehavior.

oconnor663 4y ago

> obviously a good thing I mean, a law against being a jerk would be great too, but the problem is that everyone thinks the other guy is the jerk. And when we actually try to write rules down for this stuff it gets problematic quickly.

jameshart 4y ago

I think one of the interesting signals they are sending is that, in an era where increasingly law seems to feel like ‘whatever you can construct a Supreme Court majority to uphold’, there are other elements within the constitutional checks and balances, and executive agencies enforcing legislative intent is one such important component.

theknocker 4y ago
tekknik 4y ago
> whatever you can construct a Supreme Court majority to uphold I find the same thing with liberal courts. For instance with the second amendment. We clearly have a problem here with the court system reflecting their own personal views instead of what’s written in law. But the problem is not coming from the right. Unless your point is that when a court doesn’t agree with you then they’re wrong.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jameshart 4y ago
  It was not a partisan point. Constructing a court majority goes both ways. But so does constructing an FTC commissioner board majority! Note that commissioners are seven year senate-confirmed presidential appointees. Similar oversight bodies exist for other federal agencies. This is a useful reminder that such positions are intended (endowed by powers by legislation, in fact) to set rules and govern executive behavior without stuff having to go to the Supreme Court.