Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The worst possible antitrust outcome

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 219 posts

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#141

Post by fsflover »

guyzero wrote: post #35

I generally like Doctorow's writing and agree with a lot of what he says here, but: "Google has stolen every fact about our lives, in service to propping up a monopoly that lets it steal our money, too." I still have all the facts about my life and I don't think any money has been stolen. I get that this is rhetorical, but he's gone over the edge here.

> I still have all the facts about my life

No, you don't. Google knows more about you than yourself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26639261, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2840916, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1584589

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#142

Post by palata »

BrenBarn wrote: post #111
palata wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your reward is losing control if it? That's not what I understand from the GP. What they say is taht if your business is extremely successful, it can keep being extremely successful and you can keep control over it. You just cannot accumulate more money for yourself. Like if the highest amount of money in a video game was 1 billion. Once you reach it, you don't go back to 0, you just can't go higher. Makes sense to…

>What they say is taht if your business is extremely successful, it can keep being extremely successful and you can keep control over it. > You just cannot accumulate more money for yourself. If that's what it means, I don't think it makes sense, because the point of taking away the money was to reduce the ability of the rich to unduly control and influence others. If they can still do that via their company that the…

> If they can still do that via their company that they still control, it doesn't much matter whether they have money or not.

Of course it does. It's very different to be the head of a company and to privately have more money than an entire country.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#143

Post by palata »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #71
palata wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> your reward is losing control if it? That's not what I understand from the GP. What they say is taht if your business is extremely successful, it can keep being extremely successful and you can keep control over it. You just cannot accumulate more money for yourself. Like if the highest amount of money in a video game was 1 billion. Once you reach it, you don't go back to 0, you just can't go higher. Makes sense to…

I face palm through the back of my skull when people think billionaires have billions of dollars. Virtually none of them do.

I talk about the ultra-rich as "they have waaaaay too much money". I do understand that this is not exactly big purse with a lot of cash that they carry everywhere with them. Still, it's way too much.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#144

Post by mcherm »

actionfromafar wrote: post #134
ameister14 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically it should be illegal per se but since the 70's the Court has really limited how they apply that and so courts generally prefer to do a competitive analysis/quick look first. In this case, the argument might be that since the cost to consumer doesn't increase, it isn't a naked price fix so it's not per se illegal. As I learned it, since BMI & ASCAP v. CBS, in 1979, it's essentially been that the per se rule…

Is that why call things getting "borked"?

It is not.

Judge Bork was proposed as a candidate for the US Supreme Court. While the Senate was reviewing his nomination they began discussing his actual views on various topics which were so abhorrent that the Senate voted not to confirm him. The conservative community complained he had been treated unfairly and coined the term.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#145

Post by theshrike79 »

rayiner wrote: post #97
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #54

> One of the facts established in the verdict was that Google had been slipping Apple more than $20b/year in exchange for which, Apple forbore from making a competing search engine. Didn't Apple say that 1) they weren't interested in being in the Search Engine business 2) (in testimony) Google was by far the best search engine that they were going to use anyway ? Certainly, $20B/Y weighs on the scale, but knowing App…

I can’t think of a single legitimate reason why Google should be allowed to pay Apple to use its search engine. Google is using the proceeds of its monopoly to exclude competition to maintain its monopoly. How is that norm per se antitrust violation? (That said, I’m not an antitrust lawyer and find it quite unintuitive, lol.)

This is like Ford making a deal with Goodyear to only ship their cars with Goodyear tires and Goodyear pays them for it.

Anyone can swap the tires to anything they want, but the default is Goodyear.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#146

Post by fireflash38 »

bpt3 wrote: post #91
nielsbot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say "see ya!" and wave goodbye. You think people living in NYC, for example, the financial (and one of the major cultural capitals) of the entire world (not to mention all the other benefits of US residency) are going to bother with packing up their lives and moving overseas because the taxes are too high? Not to mention these people will still have obscene wealth in all likelihood. Some might, but I don't think we…

Yes, they've been moving to Florida in droves for the last decade plus. Eventually you'll run out of other people's money to spend, and will be forced to face the reality of your own self-sufficiency.

Ah yes we're held hostage by the rich. Do what we say, or we take our ball and go home.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#147

Post by p_j_w »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #98
p_j_w wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does a 5 year old use their 401k to increase the quality of their education?

Probably should allow parents to open college investment accounts for kids at birth. Even $5k invested at birth would be $50k at 25, enough to mostly pay off a state school degree. So yeah, generally I think that would be a good idea.

Suppose I’m a 5 year old born to poor parents. Should I have just made better life choices?

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#148

Post by bpt3 »

nielsbot wrote: post #128
bpt3 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying that the marginal rates you're salivating over produced effective rates on the highest earners that weren't much different from today.

But does that mean we shouldn't raise taxes? "Effective Income Tax Rates Have Fallen for The Top One Percent Since World War II" https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/effective-income-tax-rate...

It just means to me that you haven't put much thought into this.

What about the federal government gives you the impression that they'd be responsible stewards of the money you want to confiscate and redistribute?

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#149

Post by account42 »

TFYS wrote: post #136
pdonis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Money is a unit of exchange that exists to compel action Not in a free market. In a free market, people have the option to refuse to accept your money if they don't want to give you what you want to buy from them with it.

There are probably very few things people wouldn't do if the price is high enough. How many people would refuse to lick a boot for ten million dollars? The bigger the wealth differences become, the harder it is to resist the people with wealth. Wealth is the same thing as power, denying that is silly.

Plus even if you resits the cash incentive yourself, with enough money other people can be bought to impose other kinds of pressures on you.

Re: The worst possible antitrust outcome

#150

Post by account42 »

culopatin wrote: post #33
JKCalhoun wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need strong laws that reduce the voice of money and increase the voice of individuals. Seeing the how flaccid "strong" laws have become, I prefer we go back to reducing the voice of money by taxing it away. Maybe our country could then finally have nice things.

What do you do when all the money goes away to countries that don’t tax them that hard?

You tax them on the way out. Plus any transactions to/from tax havens.
Post reply on HN