7 ms·

As a free market fan, Khan seems to have been pretty terrible. But this looks genuinely good! It's basically banning fraud. ---[EDIT], since everyone is askin

• RajT88 2y ago
  Ah, Reason. The paragon of good and sensible arguments like, "Legalize Insider Trading". This author has not written one of those pieces, but she is in good company with the ones who did.
• m_ke 2y ago
  Please name some of the terrible parts EDIT: to make it easier here's a list of actions from perplexity: Here are more explicit actions taken by the FTC under Lina Khan's leadership: Lawsuit against Amazon (2023): The FTC filed a landmark antitrust case accusing Amazon of monopolistic practices in its online marketplace and Prime subscription service. Meta (Facebook) lawsuit (2023): The FTC sued Meta to block its acquisition of virtual reality app maker Within Unlimited, citing concerns about monopolization in the VR market. Microsoft-Activision merger challenge (2023): The FTC attempted to block Microsoft's $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard, though it ultimately failed. Kroger-Albertsons merger: A U.S. district court judge ruled in favor of the FTC to block the proposed $25 billion merger between these two major supermarket chains Nvidia's acquisition of Arm: The FTC sued to block this merger, though it's not explicitly mentioned in the search results Amazon's acquisition of iRobot: While not explicitly mentioned in the search results, this is another high-profile merger that the FTC has challenged under Khan's leadership. Enforcement against data brokers (2022-2023): The FTC took action against several data brokers for selling precise geolocation data that could be used to track people's movements. Zoom settlement (2021): The FTC finalized a settlement with Zoom over allegations of deceptive security practices. Right to Repair initiative (2021): Khan's FTC unanimously voted to ramp up law enforcement against repair restrictions that prevent small businesses, workers, and consumers from fixing their own products. Made in USA labeling rule (2021): The FTC finalized a new rule cracking down on marketers who make false, unqualified claims that their products are Made in the USA. Penalties for fake reviews (2022): The FTC imposed multi-million dollar penalties on companies for using fake reviews and suppressing negative reviews. Action against "dark patterns" (2021-2023): The FTC has taken action against companies using deceptive design practices known as "dark patterns" to trick consumers. Increased use of Penalty Offense Authority: The FTC has revived its Penalty Offense Authority to seek civil penalties for violations of FTC administrative orders. Ban on hidden junk fees: The FTC announced a rule requiring companies to show full prices for items like hotel rooms, concert tickets, and sporting events upfront, rather than hiding fees until the end of the checkout process Changes to merger review process: The FTC has altered principles, practices, and policies of merger review that had been in place for decades Expanded scope of enforcement: The FTC has taken a more holistic approach to identifying harms affecting workers, independent businesses, and consumers, with a focus on addressing power asymmetries and unlawful practices Rulemaking changes: Chair Khan has orchestrated wholesale changes in FTC rulemaking practices and policies Proposed ban on noncompete clauses: The FTC has proposed banning noncompete clauses in employer agreements Increased focus on data privacy: The FTC has sued multiple companies for allegedly sharing customer data and warned about the "hidden impacts" of advertising tools like third-party tracking pixels
  • chrisweekly 2y ago
    That's a pretty good list of things the FTC deserves credit for, in my book.
    • m_ke 2y ago
      Literally the best government person we have had for competitive markets in decades
• EdwardDiego 2y ago
  What do you mean? Minimising monopolies is how you keep the free market competitive.
  • diob 2y ago
    I hope they reply. This is the first FTC in a while to try and get the free market "free" again, rather than captured.
  • carlosjobim 2y ago
    Free competition should mean that you don't get punished for winning. There is no sport that punishes a competitor who is constantly winning, as long as they are competing fairly. Imagine Schwarzenegger being banned from Mr Olympia or Gretzky being banned for life from minor league ice hockey. So that the other competitors are given a fair chance of winning. But every sport punishes competitors who are cheating or being unsportsmanlike. As it should be in the marketplace. But hackers and the EU and US bureaucrats think that being a leader in a market has to be punished for being a "monopoly". While always turning a blind eye to rampant fraud and scams that are in the marketplace everywhere online and offline.
    • lazyasciiart 2y ago
      That’s because business isn’t an abstract activity that doesn’t affect anyone’s real life.
      • carlosjobim 2y ago
        Okay, what about art? Should we punish and limit the most successful artists to give other people a chance?
        • lazyasciiart 2y ago
          No, because see above.
          • 2y ago
• nabla9 2y ago
  As a pro-market fan, Khan is great. Pro-market: pro-market advocates for policies that enhance competition and market efficiency. Understands that god markets are made. Pro-market advocates believe in creating conditions where businesses can compete fairly without undue advantages from government favoritism. Government regulation can be essential to correct market failures and promote a level playing field. Free market: and ideological stance where markets are without government intervention. Belief in ideal world where market failures don't exist and if they exists that's a good thing.
  • nickff 2y ago
    Why do you describe “free market” as being ideological, and “pro-market” without those terms? Both seem equally ideological (or not).
    • qeternity 2y ago
      Because they are against one and for the other. Pro markets means whatever policies they agree with, which is of course how all broken highly regulated markets begin their run.
    • sdwr 2y ago
      Idealist: "the free market is perfect!" Realist: "the free market has flaws, which can be addressed by..." Replace "free market" with anything you like
      • meiraleal 2y ago
        The realist might be an idealist that is seeing inexistent flaws tho
        • hiatus 2y ago
          Then that's not a realist, by definition. > accepting a situation as it is and being prepared to deal with it accordingly. or > representing a person or thing in a way that is accurate and true to life.
• kylecazar 2y ago
  Personally, I think she's for the free market. She is progressive, which is controversial, but I don't really see why non-billionaires run to the defense of big tech when their monopolistic status is scrutinized. I totally understand why billionaires do, on the other hand. Worth watching Reid Hoffman embarrass himself on Jake Tapper on the subject of Khan recently for those interested
  • Gigachad 2y ago
    HN is full of people who think they will one day be the billionaires scamming people.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • websap 2y ago
    Because people have been conditioned through the media to believe that once the Billionares get taxed, you're next. We're at an unprecedented levels of wealth inequality in America. Billion dollar businesses built on tax payer money, should contribute to the system. Instead we've designed a system where these companies would rather pay millions of dollars in campaign contributions and to lobbyists.
• r00fus 2y ago
  Free markets - you know freedom isn't free right? You have to enforce it - and you do this by regulation.
• websap 2y ago
  Khan has been absolutely spectacular for the free markets. Transparency in pricing (with this law), transparency in cancellation of subscriptions, blocking acquisitions where businesses should fail. The free market shouldn't allow monopolies, or duopolies to form. Bad businesses should fail, not absorb more capital and continue scaling.
  • nxm 2y ago
    Her policy changes have been countlessly shut down/overturned by courts since she's overstepped her authority.
    • bdangubic 2y ago
      that should tell you she is doing the absolute right things :)
    • dctoedt 2y ago
      > Her policy changes have been countlessly shut down/overturned by courts since she's overstepped her authority. We have a dysfunctional Congress that can't/won't legislate to fill gaps that emerge over time with new circumstances. Someone will step in to fill those gaps. Sounds like you'd prefer to have corporate execs do so, focused largely on their stock prices, bonuses, and promotion prospects — cf. paperclip-maximizing AGIs [0] — than to have a citizen-advocate do so. [0] https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/squiggle-maximizer-formerly-paperclip-maximizer https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/squiggle-maximizer-formerly-pa... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence
• insane_dreamer 2y ago
  > Khan seems to have been pretty terrible to the contrary, she's great for free, competitive markets she's just not good for winner-take-all M&A investors, and _that_ is a good thing the average American - and even the average investor - will not benefit from her departure
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• TheGamerUncle 2y ago
  I well mm used to like reason a while ago but this is laughable. The article does not show how or explain why or in which manner she affects consumers. It says that she has been bad for them but there is no proof of this. Instead it makes quite a comical attempt at trying to vaguely point at the sky and say she is evil or overreaching, but she is not and anyone whoa actually wants a free market can tell you that. I honestly just cannot understand what happened to Reason I checked some more or their side articles and wow the quality has dropped to a level that would make the NYT blush.
  • BurningFrog 2y ago
    The article is pretty clear to me. The main complaint is that the Khan FTC by default is against all mergers and acquisitions. This is different from the previous standard that only mergers that harm consumers are bad. So now even mergers that benefit consumers are blocked.
    • michael1999 2y ago
      That is an a-historical claim. That standard was THE standard from 1890-1980. The consumer-harm standard was the innovation of Bork under Regan in 1980.
• michael1999 2y ago
  Those are pretty weak sauce. The Reason piece is lazy drive-by snark. Calling the anti-trust standards of the 20c "hipster anti-trust" is just a-historical. Blocking consolidation of national chains is hardly some crazy innovation. In fact, it was Bork who was the rebel introducing the stricter "consumer harm" standard. People might argue which is the appropriate standard -- the one invented during the 1890s to break the most powerful trusts in history, or the one invented by a Regan appointee in 1980 to replace it. But the Reason snark does nothing except claim it. At least the WSJ makes an actual argument about consumer harm. Unfortunately, their argument is: there has been so much consolidation in distribution, we need to consolidate retail to increase their bargaining power to balance. Given the geographical nature of grocery shopping, consolidation is likely to reduce consumer bargaining power further. That the WSJ fails to acknowledge the obvious fact that the greater power of a merged entity would act on both sides of the market is bad-faith.