34 ms·

The US actually had it right when the antitrust laws were written. The Libertarian Party and Austrian Economists fucked it up for the rest of us by convincing e

The US actually had it right when the antitrust laws were written. The Libertarian Party and Austrian Economists fucked it up for the rest of us by convincing everyone that "no, actually, antitrust is just about prices and consumer welfare, not control". This interpretation was ahistorical and illiberal, but it became history regardless, like to the point where Originalism as applied to antitrust law is derided as "hipster antitrust". America's failings in economic development and infrastructure are not strictly caused by monopolization of the economy. South Korea's economy is run by like three chaebols[0] but they have working infrastructure. The problem with America is that we have a government that doesn't like to spend money, plus a group of illiberal, antidemocratic NIMBYs who make budgeting impossible by jacking up the cost of projects after they've already been estimated and committed to. Since I already shat on the Libertarian Party, let me shit on the Democratic Party next. California and New York have legal climates that are unusually hospitable to NIMBYism. They figured out how to weaponize environmental review laws, to the point where actual reports about environmental infrastructure necessary for mitigating or surviving climate change say that we can't build the infrastructure because it'll get tied down in NIMBY red tape. In California this manifests as delays, cancellations, and massive wind farms in Wyoming; in New York it's cost overruns as bribes are paid to whoever can look the other way to get things passed through. Either way we can't build shit in our most populated states. If there's a root cause for all of this, it's "vetocracy". In a democracy, when a decision is made, the people on the losing end of this decision agree to lose. However, since at least the 1970s, there has been several parallel movements to roll back decisions already made and form new mechanisms to prevent new decisions from being implemented. Antitrust was a rollback, NIMBYism was a new mechanism, but in either case, we're being dragged out of our brief experiment with liberal democracy by people who stand to gain from it. [0] The Korean for Zaibatsu[1] [1] The Japanese for Chaebol[0]

rpmisms 3y ago
Just to defend the libertarians briefly, no legal bullying tactics means trusts have a significantly harder time forming and maintaining their monopolies.
- baq 3y ago
  Not sure how you reconcile (il)legality of something with libertarianism - by definition bullying is legal there?
  - rpmisms 3y ago
    I mean that without IP laws, a whole lot of things become a lot harder to bully smaller companies with.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  Mafia foes not need legal tactics
jgilias 3y ago
Thanks for the footnotes, made my day! :lol:
justinclift 3y ago
> South Korea's economy is run by like three chaebols[0] but they have working infrastructure. Some parts of that infrastructure seem to be having serious problems now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38539167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38539167
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> The Libertarian Party and Austrian Economists fucked it up for the rest of us by convincing everyone that "no, actually, antitrust is just about prices and consumer welfare, not control". This is not really what the courts said (and to my knowledge the people who said it weren't members of the Libertarian Party or Austrian Economists). The actual quote from the Supreme Court is, "It is competition, not competitors, which the Act protects." The idea here is that, for example, if Walmart can undercut you on price and you go out of business, that's harm to competitors but not competition, because Walmart is only able to do that by offering the same product for a lower price. They can only do it by competing, and only for as long as they continue to outcompete the alternatives. As soon as they tried to raise prices or reduce quality, competitors could spring up to take the market from them. That isn't what Apple is doing. If you want to offer an app store for iOS that only takes a 5% cut, Apple will actively interfere with you -- and then they take a larger cut despite the existence of prospective competitors willing to take less. That's not consumers choosing the incumbent because they're the most competitive, it's the incumbent preventing consumers from having a choice. It's harm to competition.
- zaphar 3y ago
  If you define a market small enough literally everyone is a monopoly and preventing competition. Apple has competition from other Android manufacturers. This is like complaining that Walmart has a monopoly on who can put shelves up in their stores. If Apple and/or Google were preventing other Smartphone OSs from getting developed or used, by abusing a monopoly position, then this could be considered a monopoly. But that is not what these cases are about. It's almost literally the shelves in walmart example
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    The way you define the market is by considering whether there are viable substitutes. For example, two parking garages across the street from each other are strong substitutes. You can easily pick either one based on e.g. which has the best price. But a parking garage in New York and a parking garage in Boston aren't in the same market, because you can't reasonably park your car in New York and get out and walk to your destination in Boston. You can easily have viable substitutes for app distribution on any given platform. Windows has a first party store but you can also install apps with Steam or download them from the developer's website. The Windows store and Steam are in the same market, so neither of them has a monopoly on distributing Windows apps. The same as two parking garages across the street from each other, or a Walmart and Target in the same mall. If the operating system prevents competing app distribution methods, there is no longer any viable substitute for the official one. This is what the OEM wanted, right? No competition for their app store -- no substitutes, a monopoly. But then that's just what it is. You don't have to monopolize markets ancillary to your primary one, but if you do, you have.
davedx 3y ago
> we have a government that doesn't like to spend money Lol, what? I'm from Northern Europe, where running a 3% deficit is seen as edgy and daring. "In FY 2023, the federal government spent $6.13 trillion and collected $4.44 trillion in revenue"
thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
>> we're being dragged out of our brief experiment with liberal democracy by people who stand to gain from it. There's a name for that condition: corruption It is a societal disease that is vicious and hard to get rid of. It makes bad situations worse even when everyone says that they agree on a solution and want to make it happen. Antitrust laws are one way to prevent and maybe even remove corruption, but they only work if the people writing the laws and enforcing the laws are not corrupt.

rpmisms 3y ago

Just to defend the libertarians briefly, no legal bullying tactics means trusts have a significantly harder time forming and maintaining their monopolies.

baq 3y ago
Not sure how you reconcile (il)legality of something with libertarianism - by definition bullying is legal there?
- rpmisms 3y ago
  I mean that without IP laws, a whole lot of things become a lot harder to bully smaller companies with.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
Mafia foes not need legal tactics

jgilias 3y ago

Thanks for the footnotes, made my day! :lol:

justinclift 3y ago

> South Korea's economy is run by like three chaebols[0] but they have working infrastructure. Some parts of that infrastructure seem to be having serious problems now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38539167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38539167

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> The Libertarian Party and Austrian Economists fucked it up for the rest of us by convincing everyone that "no, actually, antitrust is just about prices and consumer welfare, not control". This is not really what the courts said (and to my knowledge the people who said it weren't members of the Libertarian Party or Austrian Economists). The actual quote from the Supreme Court is, "It is competition, not competitors, which the Act protects." The idea here is that, for example, if Walmart can undercut you on price and you go out of business, that's harm to competitors but not competition, because Walmart is only able to do that by offering the same product for a lower price. They can only do it by competing, and only for as long as they continue to outcompete the alternatives. As soon as they tried to raise prices or reduce quality, competitors could spring up to take the market from them. That isn't what Apple is doing. If you want to offer an app store for iOS that only takes a 5% cut, Apple will actively interfere with you -- and then they take a larger cut despite the existence of prospective competitors willing to take less. That's not consumers choosing the incumbent because they're the most competitive, it's the incumbent preventing consumers from having a choice. It's harm to competition.

zaphar 3y ago
If you define a market small enough literally everyone is a monopoly and preventing competition. Apple has competition from other Android manufacturers. This is like complaining that Walmart has a monopoly on who can put shelves up in their stores. If Apple and/or Google were preventing other Smartphone OSs from getting developed or used, by abusing a monopoly position, then this could be considered a monopoly. But that is not what these cases are about. It's almost literally the shelves in walmart example
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The way you define the market is by considering whether there are viable substitutes. For example, two parking garages across the street from each other are strong substitutes. You can easily pick either one based on e.g. which has the best price. But a parking garage in New York and a parking garage in Boston aren't in the same market, because you can't reasonably park your car in New York and get out and walk to your destination in Boston. You can easily have viable substitutes for app distribution on any given platform. Windows has a first party store but you can also install apps with Steam or download them from the developer's website. The Windows store and Steam are in the same market, so neither of them has a monopoly on distributing Windows apps. The same as two parking garages across the street from each other, or a Walmart and Target in the same mall. If the operating system prevents competing app distribution methods, there is no longer any viable substitute for the official one. This is what the OEM wanted, right? No competition for their app store -- no substitutes, a monopoly. But then that's just what it is. You don't have to monopolize markets ancillary to your primary one, but if you do, you have.

davedx 3y ago

> we have a government that doesn't like to spend money Lol, what? I'm from Northern Europe, where running a 3% deficit is seen as edgy and daring. "In FY 2023, the federal government spent $6.13 trillion and collected $4.44 trillion in revenue"

thesuperbigfrog 3y ago

>> we're being dragged out of our brief experiment with liberal democracy by people who stand to gain from it. There's a name for that condition: corruption It is a societal disease that is vicious and hard to get rid of. It makes bad situations worse even when everyone says that they agree on a solution and want to make it happen. Antitrust laws are one way to prevent and maybe even remove corruption, but they only work if the people writing the laws and enforcing the laws are not corrupt.