1. @amyklobuchar just introduced a major antitrust bill, so here are my thoughts. This bill reads to me reads more an announcement she's taking over the antitrust subcommittee than a finished product. Klobuchar is really smart and was an antitrust lawyer, she knows this area.
2. Most antitrust law is 'rule of reason,' meaning the judge gets to do what he wants. Under 'rule of reason,' a judge approved the obviously illegal Sprint-T-Mobile merger, and a circuit court egregiously overturned a decision against Qualcomm monopoly's. Just bad all around.
3. Klobuchar's bill both hits and misses this problem. The bill has, as @ZephyrTeachout notes, a bright line rule on mergers of companies worth more than $100B. Such a rule makes it hard for judges to protect monopolies (as they tend to do right now).
4. The antitrust establishment is upset by the idea that Congress would straight up legislate and say 'you can do X but you can't do Y.' They want to have a fight over which vague term is better, all so judges and economists get to do what they want. It's dumb. We need rules.
5. That's why @amyklobuchar's presumption of companies worth more than $100B not being allowed to merge is so good. It's a bright line rule. That's good. That alone will have a big impact on venture funding and the economy.
6. What is also useful is having Klobuchar running the subcommittee instead of the pro-monopoly Republican Mike Lee. Hopefully she'll do a bunch of useful hearings and investigations, like the House Antitrust Subcommittee did last Congress.
7. The economy is way more concentrated today than it was even last year, and there are a lot more Trump judges, who lean corporatist. So our antitrust update needs to reflect that. I think Klobuchar knows this.
8. There are two problems. First, giving the agencies more money without real oversight is a problem. The FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division are terrible and need revamping. Second, much of the bill retains the vague 'rule of reason' framework. That won't solve our monopoly crisis.
9. But that's ok. This is a process, and I doubt this is the endpoint. There aren't many members of the Senate like @amyklobuchar on antitrust. She actually understands this area of law and has practiced it. I'm interested to see where she takes the subcommittee.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Matt Stoller

Matt Stoller Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @matthewstoller

5 Feb
I'm a Wall Street reformer Democrat who likes Elizabeth Warren and I'm not loving that narrative, but I get it. The reason Wall Street reformers aren't trusted is because few of us will admit that Barack Obama's WH was corrupt on financial market problems.
I think Janet Yellen will do probably do ok, but she's a bad choice and her speaking fee corruption problem is real. Wall Street reformers aren't trusted because they (we?) have proven to be untrustworthy.
We have to *earn* the trust of the people, because last time we were in power we *lied* to them about Wall Street. We have no right to expect anyone to trust us.
Read 4 tweets
27 Jan
The SEC really should look into the GameStop market-rigging, because this is shockingly blatant from Citadel, which is likely both market-making and doing side bets. The Reddit story is true and fun, but also a convenient cover.
Apparently at 1:32pm, a 587k shares of GameStop traded at $327 a share, which is $187 million. That's not coming from Robinhood. Wall Street is on both sides of this battle.

Ugly stuff.
Here's what's likely happening. Robinhood takes market orders where Redditers say they want to buy stock at 'the market price.' RH sells orders to Citadel. Citadel sees the orders, makes side bets on options. Citadel then sets an arbitrary 'market price' to cash in on options.
Read 5 tweets
25 Jan
Good thread, though I would note that the other problem with the Obama WH on financial regulation was the lie that they sought to stop foreclosures instead of encourage them. Barr was knee deep in that horrific dishonesty, but it's not like any progressives were honest either.
Fundamentally the trade during the Obama era was to steal all middle class savings and create a new class of untouchable billionaires and lie about it, in return for an irrelevant consumer protection agency.

That was a bad trade and it's one few will acknowledge, even today.
Well, not all, but a lot of it. Obama had the chance to reorient the American political order towards a democracy. Instead of doing that, he orchestrated a plutocracy, and lied about it. Barr was a point person here. But progressives still haven't reckoned with it.
Read 4 tweets
25 Jan
There's no better way to destroy the idea of free speech than to pretend that the borderless sociopathic communication systems we have now are some beautiful paragon of an open society free from censorship.
This is not an argument for free speech or against censorship, it's an argument that all media and communication systems should be controlled by uncaring distant pools of capital. It's sociopathy dressed up with footnotes.
Community standards are public abridgments on speech, so arguing that we should have no public abridgments on speech is an argument against all community standards. That is not free speech, it's just sociopathy.
Read 4 tweets
21 Jan
1. As @ZephyrTeachout notes, there is now a big opportunity to take on monopolies. Biden has picked an acting Antitrust chief, Gene Kimmelman, and an acting FTC Chair, @RKSlaughterFTC.
2. Everyone in these positions always say they will be tough on monopolies and big tech. That's not meaningful. There are two questions. One, what is their view of the point of antitrust? To enhance economic efficiency (aka 'consumer welfare')? Or protect us from big business?
3. Kimmelman is generally a consumer welfare advocate, and he supported the DOJ under Obama suing book publishers on behalf of Amazon because supporting Amazon's monopoly would lower consumer prices. It's possible he has rethought his approach.
Read 9 tweets
20 Jan
The Chinese government just sent a very aggressive message to Biden-world, saying officials who pursue a policy framework averse to the PRC will have trouble earning money from most American corporations after they leave the administration.
The Chinese government totally recognizes the weakness of American politics. The PRC is saying no revolving door corruption unless you do our bidding. It's the single best argument for anti-corruption measures I've ever seen. China just passed H.R. 1.
I've been pushing for a complete disentangling of the Chinese and American economies, which sounds hardline or incredibly difficult, at first. But the Chinese gov't keeps making my case.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!