3 ms·

The FTC chair is appointed by the president. While the other commissioners are more independent, Kahn serves at the pleasure of the executive.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Kahn serves at the pleasure of the executive Sure, but it's still an independent agency. If she's being pressured, that's between incompetent and corrupt.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Not really? Let's recap the events: * The president made promises on the campaign trail to take on "big tech". * The president appoints an FTC chair with the stated goal of opening cases against "big tech", and said FTC chair affirms these promises when she takes office (you can look it up this is true). * The FTC chair feels she's executing the mandate of the voters by taking on more ambitious (read: worse) cases against "big tech". This looks a lot more like democracy working as intended, even if I disagree with it. I think Kahn is right to feel pressure to bring cases against "big tech" given that the president who appointed her promised this course of action, and also because she herself affirmed these promises when she took office. The issue is that it would require legislation to deliver on these promises. Like it or not "tech company has too much influence" is not grounds for breaking up a company or blocking mergers. What Biden and Kahn promised to do is just fundamentally not what the law allows the FTC to do. Even a highly competent FTC chair would have failed to block Activision merging with Microsoft. This isn't corruption or incompetence. It's a story of being given an impossible task.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > looks a lot more like democracy working as intended It’s absolutely democracy. Khan is a populist appointment. She is also a handout to corporate interests. A competent FTC would have extracted concessions instead of bombing, time and again, in court. That or pursued antitrust in the rest of the economy. Khan didn’t. I’m personally fine with that—I’ve made a lot of money on the ensuing M&A. But it’s surprising to see people still not seeing the wool pulled over their eyes on this one.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Kahn serves at the pleasure of the executive Sure, but it's still an independent agency. If she's being pressured, that's between incompetent and corrupt.

Manuel_D 3y ago
Not really? Let's recap the events: * The president made promises on the campaign trail to take on "big tech". * The president appoints an FTC chair with the stated goal of opening cases against "big tech", and said FTC chair affirms these promises when she takes office (you can look it up this is true). * The FTC chair feels she's executing the mandate of the voters by taking on more ambitious (read: worse) cases against "big tech". This looks a lot more like democracy working as intended, even if I disagree with it. I think Kahn is right to feel pressure to bring cases against "big tech" given that the president who appointed her promised this course of action, and also because she herself affirmed these promises when she took office. The issue is that it would require legislation to deliver on these promises. Like it or not "tech company has too much influence" is not grounds for breaking up a company or blocking mergers. What Biden and Kahn promised to do is just fundamentally not what the law allows the FTC to do. Even a highly competent FTC chair would have failed to block Activision merging with Microsoft. This isn't corruption or incompetence. It's a story of being given an impossible task.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > looks a lot more like democracy working as intended It’s absolutely democracy. Khan is a populist appointment. She is also a handout to corporate interests. A competent FTC would have extracted concessions instead of bombing, time and again, in court. That or pursued antitrust in the rest of the economy. Khan didn’t. I’m personally fine with that—I’ve made a lot of money on the ensuing M&A. But it’s surprising to see people still not seeing the wool pulled over their eyes on this one.