5 ms·

The US has shown absolutely no willingness to carry out antitrust cases the past many years - at a significant harm to a lot of people. The implied corruption

The US has shown absolutely no willingness to carry out antitrust cases the past many years - at a significant harm to a lot of people. The implied corruption is likely not from these other countries that start making these cases now, but is a persistent feature of US governance.

ProofHouse 1y ago
Precisely. Trump not smart enough to think about these retaliations. Would in some cases make tarrifs neutral
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
  Big Tech isn't exactly Trump's base. Trump collects wins[1] for his base at the expense of his non-supporters. Not sure how this makes Trump "not smart". 1 - Regardless of what you think of tariffs, his base largely considers them wins.
  - ljlolel 1y ago
    Because he lives in a country. Going to war with half the people around you makes the whole country much poorer.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      Works both ways.
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    They are gonna win so much they'll be completely indigent before it's over.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
      That's their right.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - computerthings 1y ago
        [dead]
  - 1659447091 1y ago
    > Trump collects wins[1] for his base Trump collects wins for himself and his base flip-flops along with him and his every whim. It's not about smart or not, he doesn't care beyond what he can get from it. He doesn't care about any retaliations and he knows he has his base eating outta the palm of his hand. Smart doesn't play into any of it, it's not needed. The Project state takes care of the smarts part of the administration
seydor 1y ago
i thought it was strategic - to ensure global dominance in tech
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  It is. Some members of congress somehow magically end up buying tech stocks right before they go to the moon or selling them right before tariffs hit. It's as if they have some insider knowledge or something, and also a lot of skin in the game to protect these monopolies.
  - pnw 1y ago
    You can buy the Pelosi ETF (NANC) and enjoy the same upside!
    - 1over137 1y ago
      Too bad the MER is so high at 0.74%.
    - dmoy 1y ago
      I just read the prospectus investment strategy, and it looks like it trails the trades by up to 30-45 days? Seems like the majority of that upside might be gone by then, no? They explicitly list that in Reporting Delay Risk. Also I didn't see any info on whether the fund manager can beat hft et al to the punch once disclosure happens.
      - lazyeye 1y ago
        It would interesting to know how it performs relative to other index funds even with the delay risk. A few people have been saying Nancy is getting better returns than Warren Buffet https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1919738880204345581 https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1919738880204345581
        mikestew 1y ago
parasense 1y ago
[flagged]
whyenot 1y ago
> The US has shown absolutely no willingness to carry out antitrust cases the past many years Lina Khan's FTC brought cases again Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, Mastercard, and more. They also prevented mergers (consolidations) in a lot of different industries. Could they have accomplished more? Certainly, but they did certainly did display a willingness to bring antitrust cases.
- m463 1y ago
  > Could they have accomplished more? unfortunately a lot of these things are on an election cycle.
- rtpg 1y ago
  It does feel like Lina Khan's FTC was much more willing to play the part in the adversarial system. Don't necessarily agree with every decision but was surprising to see how willing the FTC was to jump into things and make unpopular (to stakeholders at least) decisions
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  One of the main problems in the US is that the US has an extremely broad antitrust statute: > Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. > Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, ... It was passed in the era of robber barons and meant to be a strong hammer against anti-competitive practices. But because it was so broad, the courts kept chipping away at it over time through reinterpretation because by its terms it would prohibit a lot of things the courts didn't really want to get involved in policing, or they just made bad calls in years when the Court's majority wasn't that smart. Meanwhile monopolists generally have a lot of money to pay expensive lawyers, so they structure their activities to fit within the loopholes the courts have carved out over the years and that makes it hard for an administration to hold them to account even when they have the will to do it. Hyper-partisanship also makes this worse, because if everyone is convinced the other side is pure evil then they're going to try to undo anything the other party was trying to do without even considering what it is, which isn't compatible with long-term prosecutions that would have to span administrations.
Yeul 1y ago
All those Silicon Valley types went to Washington to kiss the ring of the pope.
- bl4kers 1y ago
  And give gold idols
thehappypm 1y ago
This could not be more wrong. Lena Khan is on an absolute antitrust bender.

ProofHouse 1y ago

Precisely. Trump not smart enough to think about these retaliations. Would in some cases make tarrifs neutral

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
Big Tech isn't exactly Trump's base. Trump collects wins[1] for his base at the expense of his non-supporters. Not sure how this makes Trump "not smart". 1 - Regardless of what you think of tariffs, his base largely considers them wins.
- ljlolel 1y ago
  Because he lives in a country. Going to war with half the people around you makes the whole country much poorer.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    Works both ways.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  They are gonna win so much they'll be completely indigent before it's over.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    That's their right.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - computerthings 1y ago
      [dead]
- 1659447091 1y ago
  > Trump collects wins[1] for his base Trump collects wins for himself and his base flip-flops along with him and his every whim. It's not about smart or not, he doesn't care beyond what he can get from it. He doesn't care about any retaliations and he knows he has his base eating outta the palm of his hand. Smart doesn't play into any of it, it's not needed. The Project state takes care of the smarts part of the administration

seydor 1y ago

i thought it was strategic - to ensure global dominance in tech

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
It is. Some members of congress somehow magically end up buying tech stocks right before they go to the moon or selling them right before tariffs hit. It's as if they have some insider knowledge or something, and also a lot of skin in the game to protect these monopolies.
- pnw 1y ago
  You can buy the Pelosi ETF (NANC) and enjoy the same upside!
  - 1over137 1y ago
    Too bad the MER is so high at 0.74%.
  - dmoy 1y ago
    I just read the prospectus investment strategy, and it looks like it trails the trades by up to 30-45 days? Seems like the majority of that upside might be gone by then, no? They explicitly list that in Reporting Delay Risk. Also I didn't see any info on whether the fund manager can beat hft et al to the punch once disclosure happens.
    - lazyeye 1y ago
      It would interesting to know how it performs relative to other index funds even with the delay risk. A few people have been saying Nancy is getting better returns than Warren Buffet https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1919738880204345581 https://x.com/HawleyMO/status/1919738880204345581
      - mikestew 1y ago

parasense 1y ago

[flagged]

whyenot 1y ago

> The US has shown absolutely no willingness to carry out antitrust cases the past many years Lina Khan's FTC brought cases again Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, Mastercard, and more. They also prevented mergers (consolidations) in a lot of different industries. Could they have accomplished more? Certainly, but they did certainly did display a willingness to bring antitrust cases.

m463 1y ago
> Could they have accomplished more? unfortunately a lot of these things are on an election cycle.
rtpg 1y ago
It does feel like Lina Khan's FTC was much more willing to play the part in the adversarial system. Don't necessarily agree with every decision but was surprising to see how willing the FTC was to jump into things and make unpopular (to stakeholders at least) decisions
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
One of the main problems in the US is that the US has an extremely broad antitrust statute: > Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. > Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, ... It was passed in the era of robber barons and meant to be a strong hammer against anti-competitive practices. But because it was so broad, the courts kept chipping away at it over time through reinterpretation because by its terms it would prohibit a lot of things the courts didn't really want to get involved in policing, or they just made bad calls in years when the Court's majority wasn't that smart. Meanwhile monopolists generally have a lot of money to pay expensive lawyers, so they structure their activities to fit within the loopholes the courts have carved out over the years and that makes it hard for an administration to hold them to account even when they have the will to do it. Hyper-partisanship also makes this worse, because if everyone is convinced the other side is pure evil then they're going to try to undo anything the other party was trying to do without even considering what it is, which isn't compatible with long-term prosecutions that would have to span administrations.

Yeul 1y ago

All those Silicon Valley types went to Washington to kiss the ring of the pope.

bl4kers 1y ago
And give gold idols

thehappypm 1y ago

This could not be more wrong. Lena Khan is on an absolute antitrust bender.