,
15 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
On Friday I called Warren's proposal a plan for "government-controlled internet". New details show it's closer to government-controlled economy. Warren talks @reckless from the @verge; my thoughts, 1/X theverge.com/2019/3/9/18257…
My Friday thread argues that her plan isn't based on helping average Americans, seeks to turn the most highly innovative companies in the world into utilities like your gas company, and naively argues that IF YOU LIKE YOUR INTERNET YOU CAN KEEP IT.
Over at Truth on the Market, @geoffmanne and @alecstapp have a fierce take down of the plan. truthonthemarket.com/2019/03/09/war…
But back to the Verge article. First, this isn't just about tech. Warren's target is any company that operates a marketplace, platform, or distribution channel and also sells or moves its own products in that market, platform, or distribution channel. 
But >$25 billion covers only a few companies, right? Well, over that cap are: @walmart, @Costco, @HomeDepot, @Walgreens, @Publix, @cvspharmacy, @Lowes @bestbuy etc. I count at least 15 big retail brand names in US above $25 billion, 2017 data: statista.com/statistics/266…
And that's just the retailers. Many big movie studios have ownership interests in theater chains, for examples.
And it's not just the $25 billion + companies affected by Warren's proposal. As she notes, companies that fall below $25 billion in revenue aren't off the hook. If they're bigger than $90 million, they have to be "neutral."
"Neutral" sounds nice, so what's the problem? Remember that her plan gives a private right of action. I think her plan would let Walmart sue Target for refusing to carry - and display "neutrally" - Walmart-brand products. And vice versa! How does this benefit consumers?
Furthermore, according to her own words, the "neutral" regulation Warren envisions is so difficult and invasive that a company might rather just be broken up.
Remember, all this government action is premised not on harm to consumers - her blog post doesn't allege that anywhere. Nor is it based on economic analysis, because she "doesn't care" about the economic argument.
Let me unpack that last one a little bit. A key justification for regulation of the railroads was that economic principles showed it was *most efficient* to regulate a single track network than to have multiple overlapping networks. Hence, "natural monopoly."
As Warren acknowledges, not everyone agrees that there are such things as natural monopolies, or that railroads were such thing. But the revealing thing here is that, on the fundamental economic question, she doesn't care about the answer.
Also interesting is that she doesn't realize that her proposal functionally *would* replace the consumer welfare standard. It would let one big company sue another for non-neutral practices - even if the practices greatly benefited consumers.
Ok, TL;DR - Warren's plan covers far more industries than tech. It includes not just breaking up big cos but also "regulators crawling all over" other companies. And it's not premised on making consumers better off. TOO LONG, THREAD OVER.
