Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cameron Armstrong
@cameron
“Under Antitrust laws, you become a criminal the moment you go into business. If you charge too much, you can be prosecuted for monopoly. If you charge too low, it’s unfair competition. If you charge the same prices as your competitors, you can be prosecuted for collusion” What’s y’all’s take on this take?
6 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Leo
@leosn.eth
Nah this ain’t a good take These things are bad if and only if you can convince court that these pricing decisions are related to market power In essence, if you have too much market power, antitrust should be able to get to you no matter what your prices are As it should be
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cameron Armstrong
@cameron
So while ultimately I agree with you I’d push back on the characterization slightly - regulators (unelected one’s btw) don’t have to convince a court of truth in order to materially damage or hinder your org. They just have to threaten or charge and you’re locked up in a multi year public swamp trial
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
RoboCopsGoneMad
@robocopsgonemad
You've mentioned "unelected" regulators more than once, and it feels dogwhistley, so what are you trying to imply with that?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cameron Armstrong
@cameron
That I generally like government employees with direct power to influence private sector goings on to be selected by the people instead of political party operators
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
RoboCopsGoneMad
@robocopsgonemad
That would be great, i also have many problems with the united states constitution. I'm not sure what an "elected regulator" would look like, and would fully expect the executive branch to challenge it. Regulation (enforcement of legislation) is literally the execs responsibility.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Cameron Armstrong
@cameron
totally agree w all that - governance is a perpetual experiment and I think we’re due for some new hypotheses to test tbh
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
