5 ms·

consumer benefit is not the end all of antitrust.

by rtpg 2y ago

cratermoon 2y ago
It has been since the Reagan era, but before that antitrust law had teeth
graeme 2y ago
This is from the DOJ's page on the Clayton Act, where they give two statements of purpose for the antitrust law. >This law aims to promote fair competition and prevent unfair business practices that could harm consumers. It prohibits certain actions that might restrict competition, like tying agreements, predatory pricing, and mergers that could lessen competition. >The Antitrust Division enforces federal antitrust and competition laws. These laws prohibit anticompetitive conduct and mergers that deprive American consumers, taxpayers, and workers of the benefits of competition. Both are aimed squarely at consumer benefit. Restrictions on anticompetitive behaviour and mergers *where those things impact consumer benefit.*. Mergers and actions against competitors are obviously allowed in the normal course of business. Lots of people have other ideas about what kind of antitrust law they'd like to see, but such a law has not passed the US Congress. https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you#:~:text=This%20law%20aims%20to%20promote,mergers%20that%20could%20lessen%20competition https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you#:~:text=T....
- rtpg 2y ago
  The second one points to taxpayers and workers as well. This is especially important when it comes to antitrust action regarding workers rights. Actions which could lead to worse consumer experiences (at least if you consider price to be the end all) “Taxpayers” is an extremely broad category as well, though you need an appetite for it to argue through that clause. Though I think you can easily make a consumer argument for Chrome being unbundled (competition for Chromes default search engine pick)
  - sdenton4 2y ago
    ...and competition is going so well in the browser market. The dedicated browser businesses (mozilla, opera, etc) are all tiny and/or struggling mightily. All of the biggest browsers are side-projects of larger tech firms. Monetizing browsers requires either subscriptions or (further) enshittification of the web experience. Forcing /market/ competition into the space will not be great for consumers, IMO.
    - rtpg 2y ago
      Perhaps the fact that large companies can subsidize their browser operations through their huge war chest and large presence on the web or in the operating system space is indicative of them using market power to crowd out competition and make paid offerings less sustainable! Perhaps some antitrust action would help with this.
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  > prevent unfair business practices that could harm consumers. It prohibits certain actions that might restrict competition, like tying agreements So, it's plainly written - ations don't have to actually harm consumers, the fact they could do so is enough - and the key criteria is that they might restrict competition.
- blackqueeriroh 2y ago
  > Restrictions on anticompetitive behaviour and mergers where those things impact consumer benefit.. You paraphrased incorrectly. The correct paraphrasing would be, “Restrictions on anticompetitive behaviour and mergers where those things deprive consumers of the benefits of competition.” Competition is the heart, NOT consumer benefit.
pianom4n 2y ago
It literally is
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
What would you say is the end all of antitrust if not consumer benefit?
- diffeomorphism 2y ago
  About seven different things. The whole oversimplification that it has to be one single thing has been a drift in policy (over a few decades) in combination with trying to rewrite history books. The fact that you are even asking the question that way shows how successful that rewriting was.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    I am just trying to record what you think "antitrust" means. What do you think should be recorded? What history do you think is being rewritten?
    - diffeomorphism 2y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law Start with the Sherman act and then see that "what antitrust means" has had a long, changing history. By the way, the European understanding of antitrust still includes harm to competition as well, which often pops up on HN (e.g. how does Facebook's action harm consumers? That was not the question!). Yet, you have lots of people in this thread claim that we have always been at war with Eastasia.

consumer benefit is not the end all of antitrust.

by rtpg 2y ago

consumer benefit is not the end all of antitrust.

cratermoon 2y ago

It has been since the Reagan era, but before that antitrust law had teeth

graeme 2y ago

This is from the DOJ's page on the Clayton Act, where they give two statements of purpose for the antitrust law. >This law aims to promote fair competition and prevent unfair business practices that could harm consumers. It prohibits certain actions that might restrict competition, like tying agreements, predatory pricing, and mergers that could lessen competition. >The Antitrust Division enforces federal antitrust and competition laws. These laws prohibit anticompetitive conduct and mergers that deprive American consumers, taxpayers, and workers of the benefits of competition. Both are aimed squarely at consumer benefit. Restrictions on anticompetitive behaviour and mergers *where those things impact consumer benefit.*. Mergers and actions against competitors are obviously allowed in the normal course of business. Lots of people have other ideas about what kind of antitrust law they'd like to see, but such a law has not passed the US Congress. https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you#:~:text=This%20law%20aims%20to%20promote,mergers%20that%20could%20lessen%20competition https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-laws-and-you#:~:text=T....

rtpg 2y ago
The second one points to taxpayers and workers as well. This is especially important when it comes to antitrust action regarding workers rights. Actions which could lead to worse consumer experiences (at least if you consider price to be the end all) “Taxpayers” is an extremely broad category as well, though you need an appetite for it to argue through that clause. Though I think you can easily make a consumer argument for Chrome being unbundled (competition for Chromes default search engine pick)
- sdenton4 2y ago
  ...and competition is going so well in the browser market. The dedicated browser businesses (mozilla, opera, etc) are all tiny and/or struggling mightily. All of the biggest browsers are side-projects of larger tech firms. Monetizing browsers requires either subscriptions or (further) enshittification of the web experience. Forcing /market/ competition into the space will not be great for consumers, IMO.
  - rtpg 2y ago
    Perhaps the fact that large companies can subsidize their browser operations through their huge war chest and large presence on the web or in the operating system space is indicative of them using market power to crowd out competition and make paid offerings less sustainable! Perhaps some antitrust action would help with this.
RandomThoughts3 2y ago
> prevent unfair business practices that could harm consumers. It prohibits certain actions that might restrict competition, like tying agreements So, it's plainly written - ations don't have to actually harm consumers, the fact they could do so is enough - and the key criteria is that they might restrict competition.
blackqueeriroh 2y ago
> Restrictions on anticompetitive behaviour and mergers where those things impact consumer benefit.. You paraphrased incorrectly. The correct paraphrasing would be, “Restrictions on anticompetitive behaviour and mergers where those things deprive consumers of the benefits of competition.” Competition is the heart, NOT consumer benefit.

pianom4n 2y ago

It literally is

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

What would you say is the end all of antitrust if not consumer benefit?

diffeomorphism 2y ago
About seven different things. The whole oversimplification that it has to be one single thing has been a drift in policy (over a few decades) in combination with trying to rewrite history books. The fact that you are even asking the question that way shows how successful that rewriting was.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  I am just trying to record what you think "antitrust" means. What do you think should be recorded? What history do you think is being rewritten?
  - diffeomorphism 2y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law Start with the Sherman act and then see that "what antitrust means" has had a long, changing history. By the way, the European understanding of antitrust still includes harm to competition as well, which often pops up on HN (e.g. how does Facebook's action harm consumers? That was not the question!). Yet, you have lots of people in this thread claim that we have always been at war with Eastasia.