61–70 of 70 posts
Will we finally end up splitting them into MICROS~1 AND MICROS~2? Also, splitting off Internet Explorer turned out to be entirely unnecessary, it died of stagnation all on its own.
Without it would have taken much longer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is simply wrong. Regulatory agencies are constrained by the laws that Congress passes. Where there is ambiguity (of which there is an infinite supply) the precedent was to leave up to agencies to interpret it. As opposed to requiring endless new bills to be passed.
Nope, it's right, every single part. Right now there are over 100,000 rules in the code of federal regulations across 50 volumes: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/CFR Here is another link for you: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43056/9?utm_s... Search for "major rules". Think about those. They are constrained only by what is nowadays extremely broadly written legislation. Just read anything like…
>Nothing in the constitution talks about congress passing [stuff]
Yeah, because the constitution was intended to allow Congress to pass laws that define the rest of "the government". The constitution is not supposed to be the _only_ law.
>It hasn't always been like this. It wasn't envisaged.
The founders knew they couldn't predict the future which is why they set it up so Congress could make laws. Again, the whole thing is working as designed.
Now, you could say that these laws have had unintended consequences, or no longer serve their purpose, or need modification for current times, etc etc. Those would be policy positions, not the sign of some constitutional crisis.
And critically, it would be the role of Congress to correct, not the president. Now, yes, absolutely, voting for president is a way to enforce checks and balances on Congress when they are not responding effectively. However, completely eroding all checks and balances on _Executive_ power in the process, which seems to be happening now, doesn't look like a great move to me.
The article is paywalled, but don't you have to be a monopoly to get in trouble with antitrust? This isn't the 2000s, microsoft is not really a monopoly anymore.
A company doesn't have to have a pure, simple monopoly to have adverse effects on the market and consumers, or to reap monopoly rents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope, it's right, every single part. Right now there are over 100,000 rules in the code of federal regulations across 50 volumes: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/CFR Here is another link for you: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43056/9?utm_s... Search for "major rules". Think about those. They are constrained only by what is nowadays extremely broadly written legislation. Just read anything like…
I agree with some of your point but don't find your rationale convincing. >Nothing in the constitution talks about congress passing [stuff] Yeah, because the constitution was intended to allow Congress to pass laws that define the rest of "the government". The constitution is not supposed to be the _only_ law. >It hasn't always been like this. It wasn't envisaged. The founders knew they couldn't predict the future wh…
If congress is doing the wrong thing creating these entities (and many believe they are), the idea of checks and balances is for someone else to stop them, not themselves. The checks on congress are the president and the courts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It used to be the status quo, before the civil service reforms ~1875.
Thanks for your comment, it led me to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_service_reform_in_the_... , which I think gives a very good overview of the history of civil service reforms in the US.
It was surprising to see just how corrupt/archaic the then system was, by modern standards.
But yet the country still functioned.
My takeaway was that the existence of the civil service at all, rather than its particular virtue, dominated value. There's benefit from even a pretty corrupt one!
The article is paywalled, but don't you have to be a monopoly to get in trouble with antitrust? This isn't the 2000s, microsoft is not really a monopoly anymore.
Microsoft wasn't very technically a monopoly even then. Macintosh had some tiny share of desktop computing, and about 1% of desktops ran weird things like SunOS, or Linux. A company doesn't have to have a pure, simple monopoly to have adverse effects on the market and consumers, or to reap monopoly rents.
There is a big difference between having 99% of the market, and having 20% of the market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would be really remarkable to call yourself a populist and then kill the case against landlords colluding to raise rent, but seems like that’s what’s likely to happen.
> remarkable to call yourself a populist Trump never used this language. (He was also aggressive against Big Tech in his first term.)
I'd argue it is disingenuous to say his rhetoric is not primarily taping into popularist sentiments.
It'll be interesting to see how the new administration deals with all of the big tech antitrust investigations and lawsuits it inherits. On one hand Trump and the Republicans hate these corporations, and would love the opportunity to take them down a notch. On the other their entire governing agenda is about deregulation, dismantling of federal agencies and being pro-business. Interesting situation to be in.
What happens when you eliminate the independence of agencies like the DOJ and FTC, replace experienced leaders with party loyalists, and tee up opportunities for selective prosecution? Equal justice under law collapses into a race to see which competitor can pay the largest ransom.
But instead of paying ransoms, result would be concentration camp. We were calling them "Labor camps" because communism is not Nazism. However sign "Work to Freedom" was used on the entrance of such camps.