4 ms·
In 2017, Lina M. Khan, at the age of 27, published Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox. It said everyone was getting antitrust wrong, and there were other ways giant co
by basch 4y ago
In 2017, Lina M. Khan, at the age of 27, published Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox. It said everyone was getting antitrust wrong, and there were other ways giant conglomerates were harming competition. Traditionally, unless the consumer was harmed through short term price fixing, just about anything was allowed to fly. The paper took the legal world by storm, and two years ago, she was nominated, confirmed, and appointed as chair of the Federal Trade Commission.
So largely, someone new, with new ideas, took over a regulatory body that has been coasting along on its lorals. The FTC will now behave non-traditionally, disregarding what has been a very consistent school of thought (defined by Yale Law School professor Robert Bork and University of Chicago Law School professors Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook) since the 1977 Continental Television v. GTE Sylvania Supreme Court Case redefined the Judicial Systems perspective on anti-trust, neutering the Sherman Act.
In 1978 Robert Bork wrote the book The Antitrust Paradox and Richard Posner wrote Antitrust Law, summarizing the previous decades shift in attitude towards government intervention in the marketplace. Khan believes the those three people influenced the government to become too lenient and hands-off, when it should have been doing more to protect the marketplace from harmful entities that threaten competitiveness.
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-parado...
- rockinghigh 4y agoInteresting story. By the way, the phrase is "resting on its laurels".
- basch 4y agoSaid phrase was coined intentionally. It was a purposeful allusion of sorts to the idiom. Resting to me meant inaction. Conversely, the FTC appears to still analyze things for antitrust, but was doing so through an outdated framework. Lorals means "pertaining to lore." I meant it to mean that Bork and Co had created an unquestionable mythology around what anti-trust was. Blasphemists were ignored and discarded. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/loral#:~:text=%C3%97-,loral%20in%20American%20English,lore%2C%20knowledge%2C%20learning%2C%20etc https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/lora... So, new idiom minted. Maybe someday it can make it into the dictionary, and cite this post. Coasting on your lorals = on auto-pilot, not questioning what put you on your trajectory, complacent enough to keep the flight path and speed. Tangently related to: appeal to tradition, argumentum ad antiquitatem, argumentum ad antiquitam, appeal to antiquity, and appeal to common practice.
- nus07 4y agohttps://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/lina-khans-battle-to-rein-in-big-tech https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/lina-khans-bat... For more context. A long but good read on the current FTC chairman.
- xvector 4y agoLina Khan may have written great papers but she isn't fit for the job. She harbors a hate for big tech and cannot be impartial in her dealings. See her recent attempt to prevent Meta from acquiring Within. There is no sane, level-headed case that could possibly paint this acquisition as an antitrust violation. Even most legal experts will agree that Lina Khan's case is a stretch at best. It's clear that this case is simply motivated by a hatred for Meta more than anything rational, and such decision making can harm the emergence of nascent technology such as AR/VR.
- stonogo 4y agoHow does this hatred work? Does she keep a leaderboard? Does big tech include foreign companies? I don't know much about this person other than the usual media bio sketches. Where can I read more?
- xvector 4y agoIt works through frivolous lawsuits attempting to block everything Big Tech does regardless of reason, eg the acquisition of Within, which has no justifiable antitrust case whatsoever.
- jessaustin 4y agoWithin is an app developer whose apps compete with apps owned by Meta, run on hardware owned by Meta, and are sold in an app store owned by Meta. Why does this confuse you?
- xvector 4y ago
- __derek__ 4y agoSmall nit: the suit in TFA is from the DOJ, not the FTC.
- basch 4y agoThey work in tandem. The FTC shares jurisdiction over federal civil antitrust enforcement with the Department of Justice Antitrust Division. In some consumer protection matters, the FTC appears with, or supports, the U.S. Department of Justice. Biden's FTC appointments are redefining FTC perspective on anti-trust, and DOJ is following suit.
- nr2x 4y agoNot on this case, this is from Trump Era. Lina was still a professor.
- basch 4y agoHow so? Youre saying they started writing the case under Trump? It was still this administrations decision to file it. The lead plaintiff attorney is Jonathan Kanter, his bio has his collaboration and alignment with Khan mentioned twice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Kanter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Kanter
- from 4y ago> Lina M. Khan, at the age of 27, published Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox Is this a puff piece? She's just some government employee - she doesn't produce anything. It remains to be seen whether her aggressive interpretation of antitrust law will actually benefit consumers. We can split up Google into 100 companies and then we'll find out that the bales of cash advertising produces are no longer subsidizing the less profitable services. Maybe you'll have to pay to upload to YouTube or you won't get 15 GB of free gmail space or Hangouts will require an enterprise plan. But it'll all be worth it because some other adtech company who cares even less about your privacy than Google will now be able to sell search ads?
- basch 4y agoI was casually pointing out someone comparatively green was in charge now, as opposed to an experienced tenured dogmatic bureaucrat. I left it ambiguous whether inexperience would be a boon to free thinking and a new era or a hinderance and burden to the economy. Maybe things have been being done the way they were "always" done, for a reason. Take it as a rorschach test.
- dabedee 4y agoI think your comment was valuable in that it suggested the work being done on antitrust by Lina Khan. For those who are interested, I would also recommend reading the excellent Matt Stoller on Substack [1] who does a weekly analysis on antitrust regulation, monopolies, and more. [1] https://mattstoller.substack.com/ https://mattstoller.substack.com/
- nr2x 4y agoExcept she isn’t. You’re totally incorrect on all your comments.
- from 4y agoHe is talking about how the prevailing attitude towards antitrust in the executive branch has changed. Lina Khan is a symbol and motivator of that change. Not sure what you're talking about.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoStandard Oil kept the price of oil nice and low.
- shadowgovt 4y agoAnd the quality high. The name "standard" was a reference to standards of measure and control; the implication in the name was "We're the brand that won't blow up your house when you use it."
- robotnikman 4y agoI never knew about this, sounds like a breath of fresh air and some hope for the future.
- nr2x 4y agoThis is DOJ.