When @amyklobuchar introduced her Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act (CALERA), I called it a "big fucking deal," because it would do away with Ronald Reagan and Robert Bork's "consumer welfare" standard for antitrust action.
Prior to the Reagan years, US courts and prosecutors went after monopolies because monopolies were considered harmful on their own - they gathered too much power into too few hands, to the detriment of workers, suppliers, the environment, policy, and consumer pricing.
2/
But Robert Bork - a Nixonite criminal whose actions were so odious the Senate refused to confirm him for the Supreme Court - promoted a bizarre Qanon-like theory that if you looked hard enough at the laws, that's not what they said at all.
3/
Rather, the US's four antitrust statutes were ONLY concerned with harms to "consumer welfare" (higher prices), and these harms could only be predicted or proven through the use of mathematical models that only Bork and his friends at the University of Chicago could interpret.
4/
They established themselves as a kind of priesthood: whenever a merger was contemplated or a post-merger company raised prices, the priests would slaughter an ox (make a model) and read the truth in its guts.
5/
Only they were qualified to perform this ritual and they never found a monopoly they didn't like.
This was OBVIOUSLY a scam - and equally obvious was the fact that US antitrust law unambiguously is not limited to "consumer welfare."
6/
But replacing muscular antitrust with "consumer welfare" meant that rich people could get much, much richer by creating monopolies. Huge sums were spent to propagate this all over the world, including in places where the law was even clearer, like the UK.
7/
This is laid out beautifully in @MichMeagher's COMPETITION IS KILLING US, which traces the spread of this ideology in the UK and EU.
Now, hot on the heels of historic Senate antitrust hearings, Klobuchar has published her own book on the antitrust fight, ANTITRUST: TAKING ON MONOPOLY POWER FROM THE GILDED AGE TO THE DIGITAL AGE, which comes out today:
Klobuchar spoke with @reckless for @TheVerge's Decoder podcast about the book; it was a long interview and they transcribed it. It's got some great nuggets (though to be frank, it's a little rambling in text and could use some abridgement).
A couple areas that really struck me: first, Klobuchar's reminder that monopoly isn't a tech phenomenon, that it extends to "pharma and ag and everything," and that blocking mergers and reversing Borkism in every sector is key to fighting monopoly.
11/
And Patel pushes Klobuchar on this, pointing out that while there's a bipartisan consensus in the Senate and Congress on trustbusting, that consensus does NOT extend to killing the "consumer welfare" standard - Republicans want to bust trusts, but keep this rule intact.
12/
In other words, the GOP wants to fight monopolies selectively, where their constituents care about them, but not create a broad antitrust system that fights monopolies wherever they form.
13/
So @ChuckGrassley will fight ag monopolies to score points with Iowa farmers, @hawleymo will fight social media so that lies about election fraud can spread unchecked, but that's as far as they go - they're fine with monopolies that afflict people who don't vote for them.
14/
Patel tries to press Klobuchar on this point a couple of times, but Klobuchar evades the question, which is a pity.
I mean, I think there are lots of ways to address this.
15/
For example, she could say, "Once we curb monopoly in a giant industry like ag or tech, it will prime the American people to keep fighting monopolies and make GOP fairweather trustbusters look like assholes."
16/
This is what I tell people who correctly point out that some of the antitrust energy against Google is astroturf from Comcast and AT&T: "Sure, but if they think that success in curbing Google will mean LESS appetite to slay Big Telco, they're in for a hell of a surprise!"
17/
As to Klobuchar's book: the interview interested me enough that I've ordered a copy, in part because I wanted to get a look at the "over 100 cartoons" from Gilded Age newspapers editorializing against monopolies from the last century.
eof/
ETA - If you'd like an unrolled version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
Back in November, we learned that Disney had pulled a breathtakingly criminal wage-theft manuever on one of science-fiction's most beloved authors, Allan Dean Foster, an elderly cancer-patient caring for his sick wife.
Foster is the bestselling author of some of the most successful movie novelizations ever, from the first STAR WARS novel to ALIENS novels and more. Thanks to Disney's monopolistic buying spree of companies like Lucas and Fox, they now owned the movies and Foster's contract.
2/
Here's where things get criminally weird. Disney argued that when they bought out Lucas, Fox, etc, they acquired their assets, but not their liabilities. In other words, they'd acquired the right to sell Foster's work, but not the obligation to pay him when they did.
3/
For a society to be unequal and stable, it needs a STORY. If you have less-than-enough and your neighbour has more-than-enough, it's natural to ask why you shouldn't take it from them.
1/
If that sounds weird to you, that's because you believe the story property is, by and large, legitimate. But what if you KNEW that your neighbor had cheated other people to get their stuff? Maybe then you'd support taking it away?
Market societies are, by nature, unequal. Markets produce winner-take-all wealth distributions of great inequality. The winners in markets have guards and cops and courts to help them defend those winnings, but their primary defense is LEGITIMACY.
3/
For at least a decade, US politicians have made symbolic, unfulfilled promises to do something about the "#CarriedInterest tax loophole," a thing that virtually no one understands. @yvessmith's explanation will remedy that.
To understand carried interest, you have to start with capital gains tax. In the US, wages - money you get for working - are taxed at a higher rate than capital gains (money you get because you sold something you own at a profit).
2/
Supposedly, that's because capital gains are critical to pension savings. That's important given the annihilation of employer-backed pensions and the rise of "market-based" pensions dependent on working stiffs figuring out how to win at the stock-market casino.
3/
Tomorrow, I'm helping Bruce Sterling launch "Robot Artists & Black Swans," a book of sf short stories in the Italian "fantascienza" mode, at Austin's Book People!
Remember when a group of establishment Congressional Democrats vowed that they would add means-testing to the emergency relief checks so that "the money wouldn't go to people who didn't need it?"
(If you'd like an unrolled version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:)
The argument that federal relief should target the 99% and not the 1% is a familiar - and defensible - one. The Trump #taxscam handed trillions to the richest Americans, triggering stock buybacks: