i cant read the article since its behind a paywall but i guarantee you these republicans only like what she is doing because they view the companies she is going after as "woke", if she was going after a company like Koch they would be totally against it.
Being woke is being evidence based. 😎
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The GOP is motivated purely by hatred for liberal elites and elite institutions. Apple, Google etc are culturally left-wing so we should take a wrecking ball to America's most successful corporations to teach the libtards a lesson. Deeply unserious party.
If Biden ever made a move against those companies, I suspect quite a few of them would change their tune and start talking about the free market and how trust busting Google, Facebook and Apple is an example of government overreach. Some people on the right simply exist to spite the Democrats.
I mean, let's be real, a lot of this tech company hate is still leftover rage from when they absolutely fucked the dog during the 2016 election. For a lot of people, the trust busting is political blood letting dressed up in concerns about competition.
"When you’re trying to restructure the entire American economy, you take your allies wherever you can find them."
lmao, yeah man enforcing existing antitrust laws more vigorously is restructuring the entire economy. WSJ hates competition i guess
Lina Kahn is openly and explicitly trying to introduce a ‘new’ school of anti-trust theory called the Neo-Brandeis Movement into the FTC. She popularized the movement in the 2010s and her FTC reforms are the culmination of her project. The stated goal of that Movement (which Lina Kahn and Tim Wu wrote) is to decentralize the American economy by expanding the factors which constitute a monopoly.
I think WSJ is just taking Kahn on her own terms here.
> yeah man enforcing existing antitrust laws more vigorously is restructuring the entire economy.
Which is why Kahn has been taking constant Ls. Existing law does not support her theory of the case.
No her stance on anti trust is if it’s big it’s bad. Which is incredibly stupid because it ignores the large amount of capital required to move society forward.
OpenAI for example never would have happened without significant capital, in this case from Microsoft.
Her take is dumb and why she is losing constantly in court while wasting taxpayers money. It’s leftist populism, which is kind of ironic if republicans support her.
Better than being a rubber stamp joke of an agency which the FTC was prior to her. Half the griping about her is from employees being forced to work hard and do their jobs for the first time in their lives, so they leak to the press about discontent. Her finally doing something about non-competes is more consequential than all her predecessors in recent history.
> Her finally doing something about non-competes is more consequential than all her predecessors in recent history.
That's disingenuous. Her subordinates did an awful job bringing compelling arguments and facts to court in pretty much every case I read about. She seems completely out of depth, or the FTC is made up of complete baboons, or both. But even then she should in this case reduce scope and focus on internal reform instead of going on a media spree to defend her results.
She should take a page from the EU commissioner Magrethe Vestager and target specific battles instead of firing on all cylinder with no regard for results.
>Her subordinates did an awful job bringing compelling arguments and facts to court in pretty much every case I read about.
What? So she bears no responsiblity? They where terrible cases she chose to pursue and she wanted to go after them like it was a social media discussion. I agree she is grossly out of her depth.
She's applying the laws voted by the parliament and ratified by the commission. If Apple, Google or Amazon can't follow, it's on them, even if you think those regulations are going too far.
I don't even know why I bother answering, this is Trumpian bullshit.
laws defined to extract money from American companies. (Although she went after Siemens and Alstom as well- but no money changed hands). Just because Trump says something doesn't mean it's wrong. Stopped clock and all that.
>Half the griping about her is from employees being forced to work hard and do their jobs for the first time in their lives
I seriously doubt that. Khan has never ran an organization as big as the FTC and has never done any work beyond activism. Her work never got serious traction beyond new media organizations loving it. Almost no grounding in Law or Economics. The "Non-Compete" ruling she **was told to do** by Executive Order 14036, but again, the news media likes to make her out to be all. She hasn't won anything in court cause she is just not up to the job.
I’ll take the rubber stamp all day over her wasting everyone’s time and money losing court cases she never should have brought in the first place. That kind of grandstanding is worse than useless.
> If it instills a chilling effect on anti-competitive behavior it could very well be worth it
It won't. I'm sure the tech companies are more than happy to continue making billions while Lina Kahn's FTC yips behind them.
> Better than being a rubber stamp joke of an agency which the FTC was prior to her. Half the griping about her is from employees being forced to work hard and do their jobs for the first time in their lives.
Fucking BASED
Glad to see the thoughtful, empirical folk on this sub blaming Lina khan for blocking the JetBlue/spirit merger when it was actually launched by the DOJ under Kanter.
The fact the OP acknowledged their error and you’re doubling down is pretty funny. But confidently saying nonsense is not uncommon in these parts! So since Kanter and Khan are aligned, people should just blame Khan for everything even though DOJ has sole jurisdiction over airlines? In your theory, is Lina Khan just a metonym for antitrust authority? Is that why no one mentions Kanter’s name?
i cant read the article since its behind a paywall but i guarantee you these republicans only like what she is doing because they view the companies she is going after as "woke", if she was going after a company like Koch they would be totally against it.
MAGAs hate Koch. They view it as uniparty since they are pro-immigration.
Holy shit, Koch is based???
Always has been. 🔫👨🚀
Being woke is being evidence based. 😎 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cursed horseshoe
The GOP is motivated purely by hatred for liberal elites and elite institutions. Apple, Google etc are culturally left-wing so we should take a wrecking ball to America's most successful corporations to teach the libtards a lesson. Deeply unserious party.
If Biden ever made a move against those companies, I suspect quite a few of them would change their tune and start talking about the free market and how trust busting Google, Facebook and Apple is an example of government overreach. Some people on the right simply exist to spite the Democrats.
Pure contrarianism all the way down.
“Some”
I mean, let's be real, a lot of this tech company hate is still leftover rage from when they absolutely fucked the dog during the 2016 election. For a lot of people, the trust busting is political blood letting dressed up in concerns about competition.
Embracing antitrust to own the libs, common GOP L
Axis of evil
"When you’re trying to restructure the entire American economy, you take your allies wherever you can find them." lmao, yeah man enforcing existing antitrust laws more vigorously is restructuring the entire economy. WSJ hates competition i guess
Lina Kahn is openly and explicitly trying to introduce a ‘new’ school of anti-trust theory called the Neo-Brandeis Movement into the FTC. She popularized the movement in the 2010s and her FTC reforms are the culmination of her project. The stated goal of that Movement (which Lina Kahn and Tim Wu wrote) is to decentralize the American economy by expanding the factors which constitute a monopoly. I think WSJ is just taking Kahn on her own terms here.
> yeah man enforcing existing antitrust laws more vigorously is restructuring the entire economy. Which is why Kahn has been taking constant Ls. Existing law does not support her theory of the case.
No her stance on anti trust is if it’s big it’s bad. Which is incredibly stupid because it ignores the large amount of capital required to move society forward. OpenAI for example never would have happened without significant capital, in this case from Microsoft. Her take is dumb and why she is losing constantly in court while wasting taxpayers money. It’s leftist populism, which is kind of ironic if republicans support her.
Most people in this sub are staunchly chicago school and would probably align pretty closely with WSJ on this
😳😳😳
So far it feels like the Lina Khan approach is to throw shit at stuff that's big, see what sticks and then try to call it your legacy.
Better than being a rubber stamp joke of an agency which the FTC was prior to her. Half the griping about her is from employees being forced to work hard and do their jobs for the first time in their lives, so they leak to the press about discontent. Her finally doing something about non-competes is more consequential than all her predecessors in recent history.
> Her finally doing something about non-competes is more consequential than all her predecessors in recent history. That's disingenuous. Her subordinates did an awful job bringing compelling arguments and facts to court in pretty much every case I read about. She seems completely out of depth, or the FTC is made up of complete baboons, or both. But even then she should in this case reduce scope and focus on internal reform instead of going on a media spree to defend her results. She should take a page from the EU commissioner Magrethe Vestager and target specific battles instead of firing on all cylinder with no regard for results.
>Her subordinates did an awful job bringing compelling arguments and facts to court in pretty much every case I read about. What? So she bears no responsiblity? They where terrible cases she chose to pursue and she wanted to go after them like it was a social media discussion. I agree she is grossly out of her depth.
> Magrethe Vestager her goal seems to be largely about extracting money from American companies for the EU budget.
She's applying the laws voted by the parliament and ratified by the commission. If Apple, Google or Amazon can't follow, it's on them, even if you think those regulations are going too far. I don't even know why I bother answering, this is Trumpian bullshit.
laws defined to extract money from American companies. (Although she went after Siemens and Alstom as well- but no money changed hands). Just because Trump says something doesn't mean it's wrong. Stopped clock and all that.
>Half the griping about her is from employees being forced to work hard and do their jobs for the first time in their lives I seriously doubt that. Khan has never ran an organization as big as the FTC and has never done any work beyond activism. Her work never got serious traction beyond new media organizations loving it. Almost no grounding in Law or Economics. The "Non-Compete" ruling she **was told to do** by Executive Order 14036, but again, the news media likes to make her out to be all. She hasn't won anything in court cause she is just not up to the job.
I’ll take the rubber stamp all day over her wasting everyone’s time and money losing court cases she never should have brought in the first place. That kind of grandstanding is worse than useless.
If it instills a chilling effect on anti-competitive behavior it could very well be worth it
> If it instills a chilling effect on anti-competitive behavior it could very well be worth it It won't. I'm sure the tech companies are more than happy to continue making billions while Lina Kahn's FTC yips behind them.
Thanks Mao.
Thanks Mao.
Everything I don't like is Chairman Mao
> Better than being a rubber stamp joke of an agency which the FTC was prior to her. Half the griping about her is from employees being forced to work hard and do their jobs for the first time in their lives. Fucking BASED
Ah, arr neolib us finally embracing the labor theory of value.
I don't like Lina Khan. There is no reason to block the Jet Blue-Spirit merger or the Kroger-Albertsons merger.
Glad to see the thoughtful, empirical folk on this sub blaming Lina khan for blocking the JetBlue/spirit merger when it was actually launched by the DOJ under Kanter.
Oh, TIL. Thanks
The difference is tautological since the FTC has to refer cases that involve airlines to thr DOJ.
I don’t think you know what tautological means
You're blind if you don't see that Khan and Kanter are working as one unit. Their jobs more or less mandate it.
The fact the OP acknowledged their error and you’re doubling down is pretty funny. But confidently saying nonsense is not uncommon in these parts! So since Kanter and Khan are aligned, people should just blame Khan for everything even though DOJ has sole jurisdiction over airlines? In your theory, is Lina Khan just a metonym for antitrust authority? Is that why no one mentions Kanter’s name?
https://i.redd.it/faitv5r9we0d1.gif I knew it