231–240 of 319 posts
The FTC and DoJ have been hitting it out of the park recently, unfortunately, there are a lot of judges out there that think corps should be able to do anything they want.
The FTC and DoJ have been hitting it out of the park recently, unfortunately, there are a lot of judges out there that think corps should be able to do anything they want.
Unfortunately, anti-trust is all case law. The Sherman Antitrust Act is one paragraph long. 9 constitutional amendments are only one sentence long, not even a paragraph! It's all case law. But judges care way more about constitutional amendments than Sherman Antitrust Act. Most have limited intellectual interest in the problems it tackles. And really, who cares about the price of concert tickets, online ads and in-ap…
The original Sherman Act has 7 sections (one additional was later added) one of which has two subsections, none of which have multiple paragraphs, for a total of 8 paragraphs.
More to the point, US antitrust law isn't just the Sherman Act and case law, because:
1. There are two other main antitrust-related statutes, the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and
2. The FTC Act as well as its direct mandates also creates regulatory authority for the FTC,
3. In addition to federal antitrust law in the US, there is also state antitrust law.
> But judges care way more about constitutional amendments than Sherman Antitrust Act.
I'm not sure what the bases for your intuition about how much judges care about those things are; there is certainly a sense in which Constitutional provisions definitionally have priority over statute and administrative law, but its hardly as if antitrust law isn't an area that has gotten extremely detailed judicial attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, anti-trust is all case law. The Sherman Antitrust Act is one paragraph long. 9 constitutional amendments are only one sentence long, not even a paragraph! It's all case law. But judges care way more about constitutional amendments than Sherman Antitrust Act. Most have limited intellectual interest in the problems it tackles. And really, who cares about the price of concert tickets, online ads and in-ap…
That is by design, no? Sherman act does not address a lot of modern anti-trust, as you mentioned. We need new legislation. Judges can just as easily find pet causes that don’t align with your interests, I don’t think that’s the mechanism you or I want our country to rely on.
The FTC and DoJ have been hitting it out of the park recently, unfortunately, there are a lot of judges out there that think corps should be able to do anything they want.
any examples for the uninitiated?
Here’s an article (gift link, so no paywall) that describes the whole situation:
Good interview with Jon Stewart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaDTiWaYfcM
Simple examples are:
- Kroger and Albertson’s (grocery stores)
- Illumina and Grail (cancer detection)
- Amazon for dark patterns regarding signing up for prime, and for privacy violations with Alexa and Ring
- Lost challenge to Microsoft and Activision-Blizzard (good to look into, not sure about the specific case)
- FTC released a framework for anti-trust that should be a regulatory win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m confused about why you’re so opposed to the biggest climate legislation package ever signed into law.
Inflation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case, because I don't expect Biden to win another term and I expect the prosecution of this case to take longer than a year. The last several administrations have opened their term by tearing down everything that the prior administration had done. To be specific: I'm not confident the prosecutor behind this will have a job at the end of the year.
I genuinely think that if Biden does not win another term there are far larger problems for the American project than Ticketmaster, including democracy existing as we know it today.
Weren't there similar predictions back in 2016? How is it different this time? Or to back up a bit, what exactly does "democracy existing as we know it today" mean? It could mean anything between "US becomes North Korea" and "the whitehouse revoked the press credentials of someone who said something mean about trump".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Election year is 25% of a single administration's term, why should events be ignored 25% of the time?
In this case, because I don't expect Biden to win another term and I expect the prosecution of this case to take longer than a year. The last several administrations have opened their term by tearing down everything that the prior administration had done. To be specific: I'm not confident the prosecutor behind this will have a job at the end of the year.
(Just for context here, lest the postmodern fence-sitters write me off as some rabid partisan - I'm an unaligned libertarian who had never voted for a major candidate in a national election before 2020)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an election year, don't hold your breath.
How dare politicians implement popular policies to appeal to voters!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be pretty interesting if certain departments in the government could get direct payments. For example if the last $100 on your taxes you could choose any department to allocate to.
I've always wondered what government funding would look like if taxpayers could allocate their tax dollars at their own discretion. I don't think it would be all that functional in practice, but the idea of it seems interesting.