Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
It’s only a threat of violence if it’s from the right. Otherwise, we know this is a metaphor. 🤣 https://x.com/aoc/status/1844034727935988155?s=46
9 replies
10 recasts
81 reactions

Jared 🎩 pfp
Jared 🎩
@javabu.eth
What are your thoughts on Lina Khan?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
All her big tech policies have been terrible
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions

Jared 🎩 pfp
Jared 🎩
@javabu.eth
Can you elaborate? From the outside perspective, I'm generally supportive of breaking up monopolies and other anticompetitive practices. It seems like she's been one of the most active FTC chairs. Although I generally agree with many of Marc Cuban's takes, I saw this from him. “If it were me, I wouldn’t” keep her on as a commissioner next year. Cuban, who founded CostPlusDrugs in 2022, said he supported Khan’s efforts to regulate the pharmaceutical industry but thinks “she’s hurting more than she’s helping” by going after artificial intelligence firms. “This is about AI. It’s a zero sum race for global dominance,” Cuban added later on Tuesday on social media. “If we lose, the consequences are far more than economic.” https://qz.com/aoc-mark-cuban-kamala-harris-ftc-lina-khan-billionaire-1851669012
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
> From the outside perspective, I'm generally supportive of breaking up monopolies and other anticompetitive practices. It seems like she's been one of the most active FTC chairs. What does this mean practically, though? 1. How do you define monopoly? 2. Who is being harmed? 3. What is remedy? Separately, she's killed the M&A market, which has a lagging effect on overall company creation, which is good for the economy and consumers.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Jared 🎩 pfp
Jared 🎩
@javabu.eth
1. I would define a monopoly as a corporation or corporations, if we extend to oligopolies, that can determine market outcomes through limiting competition or price fixing. 2. In the end, consumers are harmed in the end through either having to pay more for goods and services than they otherwise would in a perfect market, or through the limitation of innovation by limiting competition. 3. I guess that's the question. How do you remedy these bad actors without doing more harm than good? Is it through antitrust lawsuits, breaking up companies, or limiting mergers? So you see M&A as a net positive on the economy and consumers? Also, not asking to be combative. My undergrad was in economics but I have never worked at a for-profit company so my blinders are high.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Can you give a concrete example of a big tech company that you believe to be a monopoly and then define 1) the consumer harm and/or 2) market power (by defining the market, which is important part of legal definition)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Jared 🎩 pfp
Jared 🎩
@javabu.eth
I don't think any big tech company has a perfect monopoly but companies like Amazon have a significant market share that allows them to limit competition. This lawsuit is an example of how they harm consumers. *Biasing Amazon’s search results to preference Amazon’s own products over ones that Amazon knows are of better quality. *Charging costly fees on the hundreds of thousands of sellers that currently have no choice but to rely on Amazon to stay in business. These fees harm not only sellers but also shoppers, who pay increased prices for thousands of products sold on or off Amazon. I won't say that Amazon has complete control of the e-commerce market but they have enough power to hurt competitors. Amazon is larger than the next 15 largest US ecommerce retailers combined accounting for 40.4% of total US ecommerce retail sales in 2024. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power https://www.emarketer.com/insights/amazon-revenue/
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
*Biasing Amazon’s search results to preference Amazon’s own products over ones that Amazon knows are of better quality. Do retail stores get to decide where items get placed within a store? *Charging costly fees on the hundreds of thousands of sellers that currently have no choice but to rely on Amazon to stay in business. These fees harm not only sellers but also shoppers, who pay increased prices for thousands of products sold on or off Amazon. Who is forcing them to sell on Amazon? Plenty of brands choose not to sell on Amazon.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Jared 🎩 pfp
Jared 🎩
@javabu.eth
*Do retail stores get to decide where items get placed within a store? They do. But the market share is very different. There's more opportunity to break through in retail stores - grocery stores market share graphic for example. *Who is forcing them to sell on Amazon? No one. But that's the go-to place for e-commerce. *What percent of retail commerce is online, though? Looks like it's 16%. I believe I understand your point. Please correct me if I'm wrong: You don't see these businesses as monopolies or engaging in anticompetitive practices because there are still opportunities to break through, despite the roadblocks big tech companies might place. In your view, when would it be appropriate for the FTC to step in and take action against a company? https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_ecommerce_sales_as_percent_retail_sales
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
1. Amazon doesn't have majority market share either online or overall (80% of commerce still happens in the real world; buying an item online or in a store is equivalent) 2. Plenty of brands have successful online businesses without Amazon 3. Consumers *prefer* Amazon because it's customer-centric, so brand choose to sell their goods there as a channel 4. You might consider how retail grocery stores work in terms of product placement in stores (spoiler: it's pay to play) So with all of those points above, how do you think the government is going to be able to make a case on consumer harm and market power with the facts and current set of laws (remember, that's what the courts will decide the case on)?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

Jared 🎩 pfp
Jared 🎩
@javabu.eth
It seems like it will be difficult for them to make that case and win. But that might be a part of her strategy. Summing up one exchange, the House investigators concluded: “In other words, it was apparent to staff that the chair did not share staff’s goal of completing quality work and winning cases because the chair wants to force Congress to enact legislative change instead of winning cases in litigation.” Thanks for taking the time to have the conversation and for your replies. You provided me with a different perspective and new things to consider. I really appreciate it. https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4490640-internal-ftc-emails-show-ftcs-khan-is-actually-trying-to-win-by-losing/
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction