Let me drop a few quotes from teh report here

"1. Potential Coordination: Conspiracy and Collusion

As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of “collusion,” but through the lens of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” appears in the Acting Attorney General’s August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, e.g., Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute"

Or, like i have to keep reminding my dad, yes they didn't find "collusion" because there's no legal definition for it and they were never looking for it. They were looking for conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Operating at a loss is a legitimate antitrust issue where competition exists. Walmart wouldn't have taken over so much of the US so quickly if that rule had been enforced. Still, putting a stop to that deal was enough, the 300% tariff seems like madness.

Matt Stoller had a good piece on the destruction of Silicon Valley, with this horseshit as a prime example. Without antitrust enforcement, this is what you end up with: playtoys for the oligarchs.

You have a charming definition of crime, which seems to boil down to "I hate this behavior, so it must be criminal"? I'm not saying I approve of Microsoft (presumably*) botching their product roll-out, but you're kind of proving my point about the hyperbole parade.

Of course, everything Microsoft does could be criminal from an antitrust perspective, but that's the risk of having a platform monopoly. From that perspective, making W10 free for most users could be seen as pro-consumer or anti-consumer with equal validity.

*~35% of Windows users appear to be using W10 - I don't know if that's above or below their current target.

3. My answer is meant to show that your question is laden with faulty assumptions. (Your initial post is a textbook example of begging the question.) But, again, to humor you, I'll address what would happen without farming subsidies in the United States: (a) Americans would eat more healthfully; (b) no, farming would not become unprofitable (except maybe for the huge corporations who wastefully produce the once-subsidized products, namely corn); (c) the average percentage of income spent on food might go up, though it wouldn't necessarily cut "heavily into the income of poorer people."

By the way: farming is profitable for many farmers, and to suggest that it isn't ("would it become profitable again") is misleading.


2. I'll spell it out for you: I choose not to address it. There are legitimate arguments to be made in favor of labor laws. To suggest that, in their absence, people would be "fired on a whim" is not one of them, and it relegates this conversation to something unworthy of my time.


1. The point of the link was to show, without engaging with your assumption-laden imaginative dystopia, that there are many defensible positions for those who question the wisdom and necessity of antitrust laws.


4. "That text says on the first page (paraphrased): "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance."

That's worse than a bad paraphrase; it's intellectual dishonesty. You and I gain nothing from this kind of conversation if we interpret information with that strong a bias. Read it again and see if you can't come up with a more intellectually honest response:


"A common argument advanced in support of greater government intervention in the American healthcare market is that a large and growing fraction of the gross domestic product (GDP) is spent on healthcare, while the results, such as average life expectancy, do not compare favorably to the Western nations that have adopted some form of universal healthcare.

This argument is spurious for two reasons:

A growing fraction of GDP spent on healthcare is not a problem per se. In the early half of the twentieth century, the fraction of GDP spent on healthcare grew significantly as new treatments, medical technology, and drugs became available. Growth in spending of this nature is desirable if it satisfies consumer preferences.

Attributing national-health results to the healthcare system adopted by different countries confuses correlation with causation and ignores the many salient variables that are causal factors affecting aggregate statistics (such as average life expectancy). Factors that are likely to be at least as important as the healthcare system include the dietary and exercise preferences of a population.

Another argument commonly used in healthcare-policy debates is that there are almost 46 million people who have no health insurance at all. Again, this is not a problem in and of itself. According to the National Health Interview Survey, 40 percent of those uninsured are less than 35 years old, while approximately 20 percent earn over $75,000 a year. In other words, a large fraction of those who are uninsured can afford insurance but choose not to buy it or are healthy enough that they don’t really need it (beyond, perhaps, catastrophic coverage). The real problem with the American healthcare system is that prices are continually rising, greatly outpacing the rate of inflation, making healthcare unaffordable to an ever-increasing fraction of the population—particularly those without insurance.

If prices in the healthcare market were falling, as they are in other markets such as computers and electronics, the large number of uninsured would be of little concern. Treatments, drugs, and medical technology would become more affordable over time, allowing patients to pay directly for them. Identifying the cause of rising healthcare costs should be the first priority for anyone who seeks solutions to America’s broken healthcare system."


Again, the full article: http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Of course the post is highly speculative ...

In your first paragraph you paint the picture of absent federalism or nullification, practically pre-civil war state power restored. If it'd come to that, I think the USA would cease to exist in its current form of 50 states.

2nd paragraph: Aurens hinted at the antitrust laws being too lenient. I agree that money needs to be taken out of the political process, but I don't think dissolving anti-trust instead of fixing and enforcing it is preferable.

third paragraph and following: American Dream and American Exceptionalism and Excellence have turned negative, i agree.

My rant : I think RP'S fight against selfishness is in the wrong direction, but social policies are decried as "Socialism!" too fast, succumbing to scaretactics, which sadly work. Imho, market libertarianism is a political ideology: The solution to everything is "free market!" and "Voluntary everything!"; this sounds nice, but will likely fail, because everything is too complex for a one-phrase-solution. "How will our country prosper? - Communism!"

I (think I) know how it works, I've been ideological myself, it is very nice to think one's movement as better than all other movements, and everyone else is wrong. All solutions of my movement will work, and all imperfections couldn't be helped, they who fell through the cracks did not trust the movement enough.

Isms do not hold the answer,imo, not statism, not liberalism, not communism, not fascism, not liberalism, and not conservativism. Instead of trying to see how an -ism can provide the solution, a politician should just try to find the best solution. Rant end.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Or you could just choose a state that represents your ideas and move there--where laws could prevent wanton firing, the state could have a universal health plan, etc. Problem is, people would be rebelling against their own stupidity. They would be to lazy and complacent to vote via boycott to create honest corporations...
Besides, we already have mega corps that are bleeding us dry from the throat, and then moving on. We are already in decline.
And besides that, we all note that RP is more a movement than anything. Those lazy, arrogant, cocky bastards who go day-to-day about their lives with only a care about themselves--that's what RP is fighting against. Is he doing it wrong? Sure. But that's not the point. Someone has to fight it.
"American excellency." How horrible a lie! How decadent, how evil, pure evil! That attitude is rotting us from inside out. And most Americans believe it! But RP says NO. And that is why I like him.
Off soapbox.

>> ^aurens:

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:

1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."
If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)

2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."
Too absurd to even address.

3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."
You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.

4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."
Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.



Of course the post is highly speculative: It says that RP gets elected. I thought this would be obvious.

1. The question would be: What would happen if Antitrust-laws exist no more at all, not: Are Anti-trust laws at the moment used fairly?


2. Either you adress it or you don't. It is not absurd. Tell me why it would be.


3. Again, the inferred question is not: Does it work now?; the question at hand is: What would happen if the farm subsidies in a first-world-country would fall away? Would farming become too unprofittable and only be used for subsistence; importing cheaper food from outside the US? Or would it become profittable again by increasing the price of food immensely, cutting heavily into the income of poorer people?


4. That text says on the first page (paraphrased): "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance. Give me a serious unbiased text on this, and I'll read it. I really will. But to dismiss at least 40% of the uninsured right out of hand is highly irresponisble and assholish.

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:


1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."

If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)


2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."

Too absurd to even address.


3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."

You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.


4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."

Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'broadband, internet, speed, isp, engadget' to 'broadband, internet, speed, isp, engadget, competition, antitrust, FTC fail' - edited by rasch187

While I do admire Mr. Wierner's passion for a health care system, he does need numbers. It could be possible he does have these numbers. Make sure, before you pass judgement, you understand the rules the group uses for speaking. I know from both the Senate and House at the federal level, each person is allocated a box of time. They can use some or all of it, or give some or all to another member of the Senate/House. In this case, that could be true. If Mr. Wierner had more time, he may have explained his position with data and evidence. Maybe have a look on this guy's site for more information.

I myself, have Mass Health (being a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts). It has its problems, but, it works pretty damn well for health care. If I have questions, I call up Mass Health and get answers quickly. I had to go through a pretty serious illness. If I didnt have Mass Health I would not be here. So I am quite justified in saying, we should get our fellow Americans who dont have health coverage, something more then nothing. If for nothing else, but to reduce suffering in the world.

I challenge Mr. Pennypacker to forgo health insurance (or as he would say...'hand out') until Republicans get someone in the White House. I know its a challenge he cant accept, because his arguement is unwise from a health perspective. Mr. Pennypacker is more concerned for himself, then those around him.

I could argue that Mass Health has been a tremedous success from a accounting perspective. Next year's health cost in Massachuseets is 1/3rd of 1% of the total budget. That's right folks, 2010 for MA, is $27 BILLION. The Cost for Mass Health: $88 Million. In fact, looking at residents in the other New England states, actually pay more for their health insurance, then the supposive Taxachuseets. So it begs the question: Why do we allow this system that is not working for us as Americans to do what it does?


In addition, it should be noted that the health care industry does not have to worry about antitrust laws. Thats right boys and girls, those insurance companies Mr. Pennypacker is defending, can conspire with your health and more profit for them, and there's NOTHING you can do about it. Since what is the object of a FOR PROFIT company? I think Mr. Weiner explained that one...

Imstellar,

As always you misinterpret data to fit your perceptions.

Real GDP growth has doubled from 1970 to 1990 check BEA, national debt has only increased larger then a fraction of total GDP from 1980 to 1990, with massive debt growth from 1990 to 2000. These levels however are still below levels of World War 2.

Your example really however applies when it comes to the recent so called growth from 1997 to 2007, as real wage increases were nonexistent, so was real stock market growth on the S&P 500. So instead of the economy expanding the US economy has been fueling growth with borrowing. At the same time credit card debt started overtake real wages, with massive increases from 2003Q1.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/02/the_failure_of_1.html

Your idea that private enterprise can solve these issues is again wrong, given that the Progressive movement brought government intervention to sustain fair markets and competition which lead to break ups of monopolies. Bringing forth agencies like the FDA, FTC and the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Federal Reserve was created to control tariffs and antitrust cases. All these agencies came about in the 1900s and were responses to citizen requests after laissez-faire economics in the 1800s, they also paved the way for the roaring 20s. Before you start complaining about the the government extending the great depression a recent study showed that only 20% of professional economists hold that view, and even then they claim that they Fed should have been the one to instigate change by reducing interest rates and allow credit back in the economy but this is in hindsight with development of Monetary policy in the 50s and 60s.

Furthermore, I never advocated for socialism in the US because it is not going to happen, what I said was socialistic policies, the capitalistic component is not being removed from the US unlike what you seem to believe. Its called a Mixed economy for a reason. There is no pure capitalistic or socialistic economy in the world bar Cuba and some failed states, the closest capitalistic state in the world is actually Singapore.

You keep saying '2%' unemployment.

The unemployment problem is far more severe, but you are underestimating its very nature, the stimulus package was created to save or create 3.5 million jobs, the unemployment figures currently place it at 4.4 million (half of this in the last 4 months) since the start of the recession.

With levels spiking to 8.1 as I mentioned earlier in single month, the highest level since 1983. This strikes at consumer confidence, and further reduces consumption and aggregate demand, not to mention that it means that more foreclosures are coming. Consumption is already taking a hit as confidence plummets and expenditure is being relegated to essentials (however I think the electronics sector will still thrive, especially the video games market, it has been shown to be fairly recession proof unless EA goes crazy and starts to buy up other companies).

Not only are layoffs large but there is increasing firms that are simply coming out of entire market sectors. The Labor department has stated that Unemployment benefits will not recover lost jobs but more must be spent on actual job retraining to realign the US economy with trend factors over the last 10 years, 4.5 billion is in the stimulus package for job retraining. That is still too low as in current dollars $20 billion a year went to job training in 1979, compared with only $6 billion last year.

This recession will fundamentally rebuild the economy, even with unemployment benefits and a sudden resurgence in consumer confidence there is not enough credit available to allow a short term return to employment. Which again necessitates the large fiscal policies we are seeing enacted.

Education will also play a vital role in this, am an advocate of centralized educational standards. I disagree with educational avenues in the US, which usually require graduates to graduate with massive debt which they repay for several years afterward. Not to mention that systems like the SAT and No Child Left behind have only created a system where children learn more about test taking then actual acquisition of knowledge. But this is another debate entirely which I don't really feel like expanding on right now.

Finally. Again to reiterate what I said about the 'let them fail' ideas with regards to the banking system. The Treasury still has not made up its mind how it will cover the toxic debt, the Fed let Lehman Brothers fail and see what happened, the entire finical sector melted down and dragged several other big firms with it. There is talk of letting Citigroup fail, that is a huge bank, and the actual cross exposure is not clearly relevant if its allowed to fail. It could drag the rest of the financial sector with it. However there is clear rallying right now as Citigroup posted a profit, with markets perking up.

Any movie should be watched with the understanding of what the world was like when it was made. Otherwise most of the time the true quality and shock value is lost.

>> ^syncron:
In retrospect, that movie is soooo cheesy. Awesome? Maybe back in 1995 it was so was the second Hackers movie. I do like the 3rd one, Antitrust though, but only because the antagonist suspiciously resembles Bill Gates.

In retrospect, that movie is soooo cheesy. Awesome? Maybe back in 1995 it was so was the second Hackers movie. I do like the 3rd one, Antitrust though, but only because the antagonist suspiciously resembles Bill Gates.

I note at 7.45, the statement from Mr Rockefeller is superimposed over the symbol of a pyramid intersecting the sun (then also once again at 9.42)... What the producer of the video is trying to imply is that the reason we have not had full transparency on the events pre/post 9/11 are due to the machinations of a secret ruling group known as the Illuminati. Such theories are propagated by the likes of David Icke and a few various websites... Pretty crazy stuff, frankly.

because he was just there for a promotional spot, that's it. it was release day (or pre-release day, not sure) and they were just trying to reach out in other ways to people. it really was a rather quiet release and there's been tons of problems along the way, so i don't blame him for sidestepping the question, seeing as how it would just prolong the promotional spot. he's got people to see, and places to be...

for informational purposes (a quick read through the technews topics in the bluesnews archives), the uk release was probably more expensive due to the fact that the european commission asked for a ton of changes to be made in the OS in order to fulfill an antitrust agreement. not only were specific details not mentioned in the agreement, but a ridiculous timetable was given to fulfill it. anyways, if you're interested, the information is there.