Antitrust. The nuances within this topic are significant, and the propaganda from governments at all levels is even greater. Politically, it is entirely divisive between the poles. The Left would see this topic from the perspective of empathy and wanting to defend the interests of innocent consumers. The Right would take the more proactive stance of wanting to defend Capitalism. Both sides seek to utilize this power of government for their own goals.
Both sides are wrong.
Antitrust Laws are the most significant weapon governments have to rein and control our markets, businesses, and private affairs that the world has ever devised. They are the most destructive, abusive, and nuanced weapons governments have, and they wield them with disregard, the likes of which are almost entirely unimaginable to the average person. Yet, they wield this weapon openly and in the highest name of the highest honor – In YOUR name and under the guise of YOUR interests.
These are lies.
I've spent weeks wanting to write this article for you while also dreading the very thought. I've struggled with how exactly to write it while parsing between both ideologies in our society, to navigate between your knee-jerk reactions and political ideologies or concerns to bring you closer to my perspective. At first, more of a technical perspective would suffice. Then I thought a sprinkle of comedy or perhaps discussing the latest FTC filings relating to Microsoft and others would be the best way to grab your attention. But, in the end, this topic is too complex and easy to dismiss out of hand for me to encapsulate it easily for you.
Therefore, I'm writing it and letting you disagree, as you will.
What's Antitrust law?
Antitrust law, simply put, is a set of laws designed to “promote competition” within the marketplace through the introduction of government oversight, heavy fines, and unprecedented powers –including criminal proceedings, towards any private agreement or contract which seeks to “restrain trade.” Ironically, this trade restriction is a private contract's literal definition/intent.
When were Antitrust Laws created?
Originally, Antitrust principles existed within Common Law Doctrine and case law long before politicians attempted to grapple with the expanding marketplace following the industrial revolution. These principles were enshrined within the 'Restraint of Trade' provisions under Contract Law. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade).
When did Antitrust Laws begin?
The closest landmark ruling to be defined would be Mitchel v Reynolds in the year 1711. Here a baker (Reynolds) leased his bakery to another baker (Mitchel) on a $50 bond with the contractual promise that Reynolds wouldn't bake for a period of 5 years within the community. Reynolds later began practicing his trade before the end of the five-year term of the contract and therefore violated the terms of the contract. Reynolds attempted to argue that the contract was invalid from the start, as the contract's provision of non-compete was in violation of the “Restraint of Trade” Common Law Doctrine. This argument was overturned by the courts on the grounds that the entire contract rested upon the agreed terms that Reynolds would cease his trade within the community and thus allow Mitchel to service the demand of the area while paying Reynolds rent. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchel_v_Reynolds)
This particular case, which is shrouded in some controversy and corruption, has since muddled the waters of Antitrust Principals and led to a variety of legal interpretations. This case was later quoted as the defining case law which caused the rising of other exotic legal interpretations and the eventual creation of the most destructive federal agency in the United States – The Federal Trade Commission.
Are Antitrust Laws effective?
Antitrust laws are designed to protect consumers from anti-competitive markets and practices while simultaneously causing the exact effect they are supposed to prevent. Through the prevention of mergers and acquisitions, which allow companies to combine patents, technologies, and systems for greater efficiency and innovation, government intrusion in this natural market process actually inhibits, if not makes such impossible, through lawsuits or threats of legal action.
When two companies begin a merger, this allows for these companies to create what we call 'Economies of Scale,' which creates better opportunities and pricing for consumers and clients. The combining of patents and processes further opens up other efficiencies and technologies through innovation. Organizations such as the FTC exist in direct contravention of these efficiencies of Capitalism and, therefore, are naturally anti-Capitalistic and anti-competitive, while the FTC carries itself as the government's champion of these principles. It is a true 'Orwellian' other-speak in government if there ever was one.
Antitrust laws can also prevent companies from engaging in certain pricing strategies, such as lowering prices for consumers and clients, as this action itself is considered anti-competitive. Where a company attempts to offer a high-competitive discount, for instance, this action can be taken as a violation of antitrust laws as other smaller firms are potentially unable to compete. Where a company is capable of offering something for free where others must charge, this again is considered anti-competitive and subject to FTC oversight, lawsuit, and potentially criminal charges of individuals and officers of a business.
On the shorthand, where it would appear better for consumers that various companies compete with each other for your dollars, it actually leads to less competition and higher prices, including price fixing, as companies are disincentivized from the competition with each other under threat of government action. Taken even further, many companies are prevented from collaborating on projects or starting new projects to offer the marketplace new innovations, developments, releases, or services, as this action is itself considered anti-competitive. Where a new partnership is offered, especially through the sharing of patented technologies or processes or market access between two or more companies – this action is exclusionary towards others in the marketplace and, therefore, susceptible to government intervention. This lack of innovation leads to inevitable stagnation, the entrenchment of currently existing participants, and inevitably higher prices for consumers and clients.
To further add insult to this injury, every company exists under the shadow of potential antitrust lawsuits by the FTC and others around the world, which actually leads to less research and development. A company must be very careful when investing in new avenues of research and product development or mergers and acquisitions, as this action could itself be a violation of antitrust laws as these actions may otherwise interfere with or disrupt already existing companies or processes. New technologies or processes which disrupt existing companies or processes could be seen as anti-competitive, even though it is fundamentally a competitive action to encourage innovation and development of a marketplace. These reasons can further lead to less investment in startup companies that seek to disrupt existing processes or technologies as the risk of antitrust interventions by the government can be extremely costly and time-consuming, among a variety of other ills in our entrenched economy.
“Competition is a sin.”
John D. Rockefeller
Price-Fixing and Price Rigging
One of the primary examples often used as to why Antitrust laws are required is the example of three identical products and their pricing. For this example, let's call them Things, which could represent almost any thing offered.
Thing #1 = $100, Thing #2 = $105, Thing #3 = $108
Things 1, 2, and 3 are nearly identical in design and underlying costs. If the three different companies attempted to price their three nearly-identical products at the same price – this would be a violation of Antitrust legislation as it would be assumed to be anti-competitive pricing or price fixing.
Therefore, these companies might price their products at slightly different prices while providing legal justification for the price differences in terms of internal differences such as branding, material quality, or warranty coverage. Even if there are little or no actual differences requiring a difference in pricing, companies are legally required to find legal justifications for pricing for presentation to any agency or government official who seeks inquiry into pricing mechanics and the nature of costs. Failure to do so creates liability toward antitrust lawsuits and potential criminal fines and criminal proceedings against actual persons, not just the company itself.
Another method of avoiding these trappings is the alteration of fit with a similar function. An example of this practice is common among Automotive Manufacturers and Apple Inc – whereby specialized tools or connectors are needed to repair/replace/connect to a particular part or device even though standardized connectors or tools are widely available. The Apple iPhone “Lightning USB” charger and specialized fittings in Automotive Manufacturing or tools are very common. These are what we could call workarounds for Antitrust as the product itself is not the 'same thing'; it's a 'new thing' and therefore demands a similar or higher price. The issue with patent and patent control is also embroiled within this particular set of circumstances. An example of this is the Allen Key, which is a trademark brand vs Hex Keys and Torq Keys which all seek the same underlying function. Patent Law is itself a complex issue I won't begin to investigate here.
(https://www.lifewire.com/usb-c-vs-lightning-5206813#toc-overall-findings)
Government Involvement
When governments insert themselves, either directly through a lawsuit or by the threat of potential action or creation of new laws to address a particular company or market – this itself is a limiting factor in market development. Governments are historically and presently anti-development. New marketplace creation and technologies increase the complexity of government oversight and can even lead to the destruction of existing government tools and weapons for controlling free markets. These actions and threats are not only Federal from the perspective of the FTC in the United States or the extremely active EU's Competition Commission but also extend heavily into the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, Congressional Committees, and even individual State organizations under Attorney General offices and otherwise. Furthermore, the creation of private capital and industry is itself a threat to the monopolization of control and power within governments.
An example of this is Uber, which is highly disruptive to the Taxi Industry, especially in major city centers.
Prior to Uber and Lyft entering consumer markets – yellow medallions held by yellow cabs were the only legal choice to be made by consumers. These medallions were valued at over $1 million US and rising and required extensive lending and loan schemes to fund them. Professional Drivers would lose much of their income to maintain this archaic system of registering, while the owners of these medallions, many of whom have never driven a taxi, would simply collect rent off the ownership. Cue 2019 and the inclusion of Private-4-Hire taxi services; this industry faced massive disruption. The value of the medallions dropped to below $150,000 each, and the market was effectively disrupted to make way for greater efficiencies and enlarge the pool of participants. Professional Drivers could still operate their businesses but now had other options for finding customers along different revenue streams and far fewer fees and regulatory burdens.
(https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-medallion-foreclosures-taxi-bailout-plan-uber-lyft-20200130-s2mjkhjubzgptdxasoxddwdote-story.html)
Though it's easy for politicians to lean towards protectionism – as in New York, these Yellow Medallions were first introduced in 1937 as a means of regulation and control, the idea in the modern era that it is illegal to pick up a private citizen from the sidewalk and take them somewhere is entirely archaic. Not only is this practice destructive to the innovation of the industry and others, but equally disastrous to those who are forced into the clutches of rent-seeking parasites who see these professions as a form of indentured servitude. We would never accept this form of abuse of our trucking industry – which is far larger and more critical to the economy than a taxi, and yet many cannot imagine a world without such systems and schemes.
Imagine it was made illegal nationwide for Uber/Lyft or any other ride app to exist, merely to protect the investment some individuals made over 40 years ago or more. The cost of the yellow medallions was steadily rising, and the political pressure to not print too many of these protected pieces of metal was extremely high. This industry was ripe for disruption and has been for almost a hundred years, which was never going to occur within the systems of governance or politics. The entrenchment of participants and increasing costs for base-layer services were always the result.
Fundamentally, it is important to consider that private automotive transportation was originally under great threat from governments. Governments didn't like the sudden disruptions caused to various existing industries by these noisy and 'dangerous' motor vehicles. In some States, it was even entered into law that any automobile to be used on public streets was to require not only a professional operator but also professional signal-men holding flags on the front and rear of the vehicle – all under the guise of public safety. Truly, it had nothing to do with safety and entirely to do with prohibitive regulations and restrictions to make this burgeoning industry nearly impossible to establish itself. These laws were obviously removed or never enacted as ridiculous reactionary politics by foolish men in the protection of existing industry.
It is often speculated that if the automobile had been invented far later, such as in this modern era, it would have simply been banned by governments under the same logic but with far more effectiveness. Private Automobiles are themselves anti-competitive towards public transportation and related government services and present one of the largest causes of death in the country. This is also the logic behind flying cars and why the public is forbidden from its mass production and utilization. It is simply too dangerous to allow such freedom, which isn't entirely untrue or unreasonable in that particular case without the advent of self-flying autonomous vehicles – which are currently in development and research as a form of taxi service.
The Threat
Antitrust and the threat of antitrust action hangs over all businesses of almost any size, excluding perhaps some small businesses which aren't rapidly expanding. This is a political threat utilized against those who are successful in maintaining those who are not as successful. This threat, and it is a threat, forces many companies to take fewer risks and causes a stifling of innovation and market development. Most companies, when faced with this external circumstance, will simply defend their market share as opposed to the natural market drive to increase market share, innovate and develop new products, and lower prices for consumers. This is commonly seen in the Pharmaceutical and Technology industries, where tech is not exclusive to digital but also all forms historical. Given the incremental successes and discoveries of research and development, which requires a massive investment with no guarantee of return, companies are incentivized towards protectionism over expansionism – especially if that company is already entrenched within a marketplace.
This leads to two immediate outcomes:
In order to expand or grow, companies will seek out their competitors or other startups and merely merge (or attempt to merge pending FTC lawsuits) with those companies to assume their patents, products, or processes.
Companies won't invest as heavily in development and research, which lowers the value of those occupations in the marketplace among a variety of knock-on effects.
Government response to this reaction has been another over-reaction – Tax Incentives for Research and Development costs in order to encourage entrenched firms toward further development and research, when in fact, all incentives are against this form of practice. It is infinitely cheaper to acquire someone else work and patents than it is to develop and compete within the market naturally. In most cases, a startup doesn't present a massive threat to entrenched market participants, and where they are a threat – one can simply purchase them outright.
An example of this would be the WhatsApp purchase by Facebook – a $19 Billion dollar acquisition deal in 2014 ($33.5 Billion in today's dollars). Facebook was and is increasingly well aware of its falling chic among the younger generations, and instead of innovating its product or reinventing itself – it harnessed the only thing it had available to them, money and credit.
(https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2014/10/06/facebook-closes-19-billion-whatsapp-deal/?sh=51f2122f5c66)
In our current climate, it is almost entirely an unwritten goal of startups not to build the next big platform or project, which is the most difficult but to be bought out by an existing competitor. These deals are often celebrated by many in the media and online, both lambasting and stewing over the riches of these original investors, VC funds, and owners. Is this the type of Capitalism we want? The type that develops something only to have it shelved? This type of 'rent-seeking' is what has led us to our overly polished and not-that-impressive lineup of same-old tech, which is quickly speculated on and just as quickly forgotten along with heavy entrenchment leading to over-regulation, which itself leads to further entrenchment.
Chilling Effect
Antitrust has a natural chilling effect on almost all forms of competition and development – which is the exact opposite of its legislative intention. Through the threat (or direct instigation) of legal action, brand destruction, and eventual financial fines and settlement - Antitrust has created an atmosphere of monopolization in many sectors while inducing profitable companies towards heavy and expensive lobbying efforts among Congress and Parliaments the world over to prevent investigations and brand-shattering headlines in the media. A literal situation of the only companies left standing are those that can buy the most congressmen, media, and competitors while gliding under the regulatory spotlight. This has led to an interesting reverse of action from our business leaders, in that companies will actually proposition Congress and Parliaments for greater regulatory oversight and regulations in order to prevent competition. A most recent example of this action is from none other than Amazon, who famously petitioned to raise the Minimum Wage – a fascinating strategic move as Amazon develops towards a predominantly robotic workforce within its massive and growing warehouse infrastructure.
This isn't to bash Amazon, as I personally would do the exact same in our current climate. It is infinitely easier to champion 'worker's rights' within the press while simultaneously working towards automation of most activities and tasks on the backend. Both of these elements themselves are seemingly innocuous, and yet, in combination, are effectively chilling towards any other competitor who wishes to come after Amazon's market share. MrBeast, the Youtuber, and Jeff Bezos have a lot in common in this regard which is negative reinvestment until profitable and then keep going – which is, in form and function, a hallmark of their success.
Indeed regulations, which are often heralded as methods and means of controlling existing industries and marketplaces, actually significantly increase the cost of business and entrance within those marketplaces and therefore cause a chilling effect on competition. Cellular Spectrum and Bandwidth, Private Infrastructure, and various Licensing Schemes are all nuanced examples that are often met with Government rebates, tax incentives, and direct investment into these industries in order to break up or cause competition among 'The Big 5/4/3/2' companies within those sectors. Literal government reactions to government created problems, which furthers entrenchment and rarely accomplishes the outcomes sought – but it sells a lot of newspapers and calls-to-action to get out the vote.
Political Tool
What is fundamentally destructive about Antitrust Laws is their capability to reduce to rubble any marketplace or company which happens to get between the goals of politicians and the whims of some consumers and weaker competitors – most of the time, these being entirely different.
Where consumers and competitors want, politicians seek to limit, regulate, and deny in the form of causing higher prices or the inability to operate entirely through the issuance of permits. Where a company disrupts a currently existing marketplace or way of life, Politicians are quick to threaten lawsuits, investigations, punitive regulation, and fines. Often seen among the European Union Parliament as knee-jerk reactions of puritans seeking unfounded futures of ideological purity (See the Dutch Farmer Protests), this is also common in the US from the Permanent unelected Tribunals such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and many others which tend towards overlapping each other indirectly.
Antitrust laws exist within both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal Department of Justice (DOJ), and various State Agencies. There is also further overlap in some forms of oversight with recently created organizations such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which was the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren (b. 1949), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which was a Federal Expansion upon the previously enacted Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other inter-departments under the FTC heading.
“Aggressive competition among sellers in an open marketplace gives consumers — both individuals and businesses — the benefits of lower prices, higher quality products and services, more choices, and greater innovation.”
-FTC Guides
(https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws)
Created in 1914, the FTC has two main goals:
To protect consumers by preventing fraud, deception, and unfair business practices in the marketplace
To maintain competition by preventing anti-competitive business practices
The first goal was already extensively covered under the existing Common Law Doctrine, as mentioned above, along with a host of other already existing laws to the exclusion of “unfair,” which is a subjective qualification, not an objective one. What is unfair to one party is not necessarily unfair to all parties or even the service of a marketplace as a whole. This doctrine of fairness is a weapon, not a legal principle, that can be applied objectively and therefore is highly prone to exotic legal arguments and interpretations by judicial authorities, politicians, and lawyers.
The second goal is, in and of itself, contradictory. The form and function of what the FTC deems 'competitive' and 'competition' is generally a measure of quantity over quality or directly in relation to perceived access. The FTC has no concern over the quality of a marketplace or the quality of production for consumption but almost exclusively towards the quantity of such. Namely, how many firms produce how many products and how are those products priced against each other and received by consumers. At the same time, the contradiction itself falls within the intended focus. According to the FTC – their goal is to 'maintain' competition by preventing non-competition, which itself is a form of competition. In fact, any contract ever drawn between two private parties, either corporations or individuals, is itself a limitation or restraint upon competition. Aggressive Competition requires no private entrance of contract or agreement between parties. Dog eat dog. This is not what the FTC wants, and in fact, such actions would be seen as anti-competitive and would be sued against. Therefore, in both action and premise, organizations such as the FTC are political. The laws governing antitrust are so vague as to be applicable to almost any company in any industry, which is entirely by design.
The most recent example being the FTC filing lawsuit against Microsoft for its proposed $69 Billion dollar acquisition of Activision/Blizzard Inc is just another account of an overzealous Federal Agency which is sticking its nose in areas it should never have the mandate to do so, nor do they fundamentally have the slightest awareness of. Another frivolous action and intervention into a market, based on a mandate which was originally conceived by ideologues with roots tracing back to the disastrous policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt – a man whose entire presidency and career was literally lifted from a wheelchair and into the oval thanks to the highly charitable and secretive dealings of the press who hid his intentions, actions, and limitations from the public. Which, itself, was notably the first major instance of Press Freedom being used to suppress yours. A power grab that has never ceased since and continues to this very day.
Effective propaganda has its roots in power, after all.
This period started before the Roosevelt's Presidencies (FDR and his cousin Teddy) but carried its vigor well into it, with a vitriol height between the periods of 1918-1938. Most of these policies and ideas had to be temporarily ignored during the war effort (WW2) as, naturally, companies building tanks and shells for the government had little competition. Prior to this was the 'Progressive Period' in American history which was marked by near-constant high-profile lawsuits of any industry that entered government radar as being 'too big'. It was later determined that this practice of hyper-suing industry during a time when 'Big Business' was considered a bad thing was not itself the right course of action. Subtly of oversight began to form as a government directive under threat of prosecution and fine.
The U.S. Sherman Act of 1890 attempts to make illegal “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” along with attempts by companies towards “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.”
The U.S. Clayton Act of 1914, following the Supreme Court decision limiting aspects of the Sherman Act, goes even further than the Sherman Act through the illegality of Corporate Directors who are overseeing multiple organizations of the same type along with the prohibition of certain types of company mergers.
The US Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 further enshrines aspects of the Sherman Act in a Federal Agency which pretends itself to be politically neutral, much the same as the structure of the existing Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The Sherman act was later refocused by the Supreme Court in 1911 in order to insert the “unreasonableness” clause within the intent of the legislation, as the act itself is a contradiction of its intent. Which, of course, begs the question – what is an unreasonable contract or monopolization?
See More: “Trustbusters,” FDR and Antitrust, The Progressive Era
Monopolies and Google Antitrust
Historically, one could look towards the famous case of Standard Oil (1870-1911) and its alleged monopolization. However, the far more recent and interesting results of United States v Microsoft (2001) are more interesting and telling of modern government, as even the Standard Oil case was later blasted by FDR as being too aggressive in scope and result. Here, the original judgment was that Microsoft was a monopoly and therefore was ordered to break into two companies. Upon appeal, it was later settled against this judgment, though too much criticism by the joining States and other parties to the original legal action. The government struggled throughout the trial to truly apply the 1890 Sherman Act toward Microsoft's technologies while simultaneously engaging in endless political rhetoric.
The result? Microsoft was forced to go against its own interests and desires by opening a Washington, DC office and hiring a fleet of lobbyists and lawyers with the goal of political contributions, parties, and the handshaking of the political elites and journalists alike. This is a standard requirement of any company which is successful and hopes to remain as such.
In this case, as in many related antitrust cases: The government both failed to succeed and failed to lose. The disastrous ad hoc results, as they are, speak for themselves.
(https://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/how-microsoft-learned-abcs-of-dc-052483)
This instance brings us now closer to the Google situation and online technology corporations. Google itself holds approximately 91% of the online search market across most of the world, where it isn't directly banned. Google has faced near-constant threats by politicians and agencies of almost every level of government for its current market position, which has continued to this day, namely because of the difficulty surrounding the enforcement of these laws. The act of the government attempting to apply these antitrust acts against Google would itself open the question of not if Google is in violation of the intent and purpose of these laws, but rather, how does the government enforce them?
The use of Google as a search engine is entirely driven by consumer choice. Every single one of us must utilize Google with intent, and therefore, any action attempting to break up Google would itself become ineffectual and fly in the face of consumer choice – which these agencies and laws pretend to protect. For instance, in the event we broke Google into two companies, which company retains the ownership of www.google.com would itself be and remain the Google. The only way for governments to truly break up Google is to force that company to abandon its namesake, make its use illegal by consumers, or endlessly sue them to provide more options and choices of their competitors as a means of forcing and encouraging YOU to abandon Google. Therefore, the problem with Google isn't Google; it's you, the consumer, who refuses to shift to another search engine in any serious or meaningful way, which isn't actually a problem for consumers but an endless problem for governments in their puritan pursuit of control over your activities and private affairs.
The European Union and others have since laundered the greatest fines imaginable against Google, with the most recent being a record $4 Billion dollar fine due to Google not extending enough effort towards including competing search engine services within its Android Operating System. Google was also fined upwards of $2 Billion by that same Union's courts for not including more of their competition within search results. These lawsuits and fines are being lauded as effective means of forcing Google to cease what is perceived as anti-competitive behaviors, which effectively require Google to circumvent its own services and products for those of its competitors in an attempt to diminish the value and use of Google and Google Products. Further lawsuits are expected to continue, with the potential for even higher and more punitive fines. Google does not attempt to limit or restrict your choices and, in fact, has done more than any other company in the world to open your choices to other options while continuously being sued and fined during the process. The only remaining methodology available to Google to cease these endless operations is to offer the government what government wants - backdoors and insider information, including government plants within the company. That may appear shocking to you, but it's actually very common, especially within the United States, Europe, and India. This is a natural flow of business expansion, especially global, which always begins with demands for corporate offices within a nation and is immediately followed by the introduction and inclusion of political allies within. A system of control that isn't exactly corrupt but is otherwise entirely outside of the need for transparency laws and declarations founded by existing legislation. What follows after this point is entirely dependent on the nation and its goals.
"The judgment strengthens the hand of the (Antitrust) Commission. It confirms the Commission can use antitrust proceedings as a backstop threat to enforce rapid compliance with digital regulation also known as the DMA," said Nicolas Petit, professor at European University Institute.
Outside of Google being the most popular and widely used search engine in the world, another very sticky topic among antitrust proponents is the offering of free services. Free, in terms of competition, is itself anti-competitive. It is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to compete with free. Since most products offered by Google are end-user termed as free, such as email, maps, web search, phone, and social media services – this, to its critics, creates great difficulty for any company wishing to charge for these services. It was, once upon a time, a requirement to buy maps for navigation and, therefore, a direct cost to consumers to keep their navigation services updated. Facebook has also faced the same criticism, including by sitting members of congress during the infamous Zuckerberg Congressional Testimony on multiple occasions.
“So, how do you sustain a business model in which users don’t pay for your service?” Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT)
“Senator, we run ads,” Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook
Conclusion
In short, Antitrust Principals have the following issues:
Limits Consumer Choices
Stifles Innovation, Research, and Development
Promotes Over-Regulation Lobbying by Businesses as Market-share Protection
Ideological Political Tool by all Parties
Decreases Foreign Investment – Especially among smaller nations
Creates Confusion and Uncertainty, leaning towards Marketshare protection over innovation
Difficult to Enforce and Monitor
Difficult for Judicial Interpretation – Requiring Exotic exploration and argument
Damaging to a Capitalist Society and Principals
Very Costly for Taxpayers and Businesses, and thereby Consumers
Antitrust is a weapon of great power, wielded irresponsibly by ideologues in our society to the detriment of every participant, consumer, business, and investor. A threat to the fundamental Three Pillars of Capitalism (Free Enterprise, Private Property, and Capital/Profit) and, perhaps more importantly, the greatest threat to innovation, competition, and consumer choice. These are Orwellian dictates if there ever was a legal standard for such a term. This isn't to say every action by the FTC and related entities is entirely wrong, nor is it to say the pursuit of consumer protection is entirely right. Nuance is thick here, to be certain.
This is fundamentally a bipartisan issue which, I expect, will rarely see bipartisan support as the power these laws grant governments across all aisles and scopes is far too great to ever be overturned willingly. Free Markets and Free Choice will never reign within our systems as long as these depositions of despotism exist and are utilized.
And yet, perhaps, that won't always be the case.
The only way we can ever change the tide is by first drawing attention to the waves.
Consider your attention drawn.
As always,
Farewell and Good Luck.
-Dark Philosopher
Article Updates
November 16th, 2023 - Fixed Format, Layout, Signature
November 17th, 2023 - New Audio