Political Roundtable Part XXVII

[dobrojim]

a couple/few relevant stories this morning on NPR

re judges - it appears the big and powerful will get their wish about vertical integration,
previously called illegal but soon to be just peachy.

in b2b stories NPR reported poll results in the wake of impeachment revelations
and a story about romance fraud, how difficult it is for victims of fraud to accept
that they've been had.

[pancakes3]

I guess my big pushback against ILD and the overall point that Trump/GOP/FedSoc making a shadow push for pro-business in the guise of pro-life is that (1) the antitrust jurisprudence is pretty well set and has been for some 40 years now to be pro-business, and (2) it's not like [centrist] Dems are immune from pushing pro-business agenda. The rise of massive conglomerations with both vertical and horizontal integrations is not a Trump phenomenon, or even a Republican phenomenon.

Also, my primary complaint about the recent confirmations is that they're wholesale unqualified, not that they're facially qualified but secretly yes-men.

It would take a lot of undoing, and multiple bold, precedent-shifting SCOTUS decisions to change the current benchmark of "consumer protection" (read: low prices, whatever the cost) back to the trust-busting market-share analysis jurisprudence.

FWIW, the too-short-oversimplified justification for "consumer protection" is that if the chief evil of monopolies is monopolistic pricing (high prices, bc what are you going to do? we're the only game in town) and we monitor prices so that even monopolies have to produce competitive prices (amazon operating at a loss, google/facebook/microsoft providing ostensibly free services, apple/verizon/Disney/Wal Mart providing goods and services that are in line with "market prices"), then the harm is mitigated so it's ok.

[queridiculo]

David Nunes is now submitting opinion pieces by Solomon/The Hill as evidence to the impeachment hearing

I guess you can only beat the whistleblower horse for so long.

[dobrojim]

David Nunes is now submitting opinion pieces by Solomon Hill as evidence to the impeachment hearing

I guess you can only beat the whistleblower horse for so long.

LOL

I wonder if his submission will reflect any revisions apparently now underway at The Hill.

[queridiculo]

David Nunes is now submitting opinion pieces by Solomon/The Hill as evidence to the impeachment hearing

I guess you can only beat the whistleblower horse for so long.

LOL

I wonder if his submission will reflect any revisions apparently now underway at The Hill.

All part of the deep state conspiracy.

[pancakes3]

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/471031-new-york-man-pleads-guilty-to-threatening-to-kill-omar

cool. cool cool cool.

[queridiculo]

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/471031-new-york-man-pleads-guilty-to-threatening-to-kill-omar

cool. cool cool cool.

“Pat Carlineo is passionate about his political beliefs and his right to express them,”

Love the insinuation that "bullet in her **** skull" was intended as political speech.

[pancakes3]

BuT hE PlEaD gUiLtY - aCcOuNtAbIlItY!!!!!!

[UcanUwill]

da1's political views are as bad as his Luka Doncic scouting takes (oh yeah I remember ). Its easy to sound like you are good guy when you decide to call your point ''for life''. OH yeah, I stand for life, I cant possibly be in the wrong. This is grey area at its best, and I hate everyone who is so full of believing he is right on such subject, its just insulting to see.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I guess my big pushback against ILD and the overall point that Trump/GOP/FedSoc making a shadow push for pro-business in the guise of pro-life is that (1) the antitrust jurisprudence is pretty well set and has been for some 40 years now to be pro-business, and (2) it's not like [centrist] Dems are immune from pushing pro-business agenda. The rise of massive conglomerations with both vertical and horizontal integrations is not a Trump phenomenon, or even a Republican phenomenon.

Also, my primary complaint about the recent confirmations is that they're wholesale unqualified, not that they're facially qualified but secretly yes-men.

It would take a lot of undoing, and multiple bold, precedent-shifting SCOTUS decisions to change the current benchmark of "consumer protection" (read: low prices, whatever the cost) back to the trust-busting market-share analysis jurisprudence.

FWIW, the too-short-oversimplified justification for "consumer protection" is that if the chief evil of monopolies is monopolistic pricing (high prices, bc what are you going to do? we're the only game in town) and we monitor prices so that even monopolies have to produce competitive prices (amazon operating at a loss, google/facebook/microsoft providing ostensibly free services, apple/verizon/Disney/Wal Mart providing goods and services that are in line with "market prices"), then the harm is mitigated so it's ok.

I don't think the harm is mitigated the way you think it is. For one, price controls have a rather sketchy history at best of being a long-term solution for anything. For two, it's not just about high prices - it's about a fair few things but a key point is that it's also about political power. Companies aren't going to charge more than people can reasonably pay for things. It's not a workable solution for them. They can charge just enough, pushing the demand while toying with the supply/cost and the offshoot of that is an increasingly large population that isn't in a financial situation to exercise their political rights to the same degree. They can also drive down wages, achieving similar results. We're already seeing several consequences of that today and it can definitely get much, much worse if not carefully monitored.

And economic/monopoly actions aren't such that setting a singular law is ever going to solve all the problems. It's going to need to be a living, learning and evolving law. Antitrust law is a lot harder to enforce with regulatory capture, political advantages in the courts and limited political will from an increasingly struggling voting populace that is gradually gravitating towards a collective minimum wage. I'm sure there are a fair few reasons for these kinds of issues we're seeing but antitrust is definitely a significant one. And while you're understandably focused on tech companies, which have a whole ream of issues, basically every sector of the economy has similar issues. Agriculture is a huge one, for example.

[pancakes3]

I guess my big pushback against ILD and the overall point that Trump/GOP/FedSoc making a shadow push for pro-business in the guise of pro-life is that (1) the antitrust jurisprudence is pretty well set and has been for some 40 years now to be pro-business, and (2) it's not like [centrist] Dems are immune from pushing pro-business agenda. The rise of massive conglomerations with both vertical and horizontal integrations is not a Trump phenomenon, or even a Republican phenomenon.

Also, my primary complaint about the recent confirmations is that they're wholesale unqualified, not that they're facially qualified but secretly yes-men.

It would take a lot of undoing, and multiple bold, precedent-shifting SCOTUS decisions to change the current benchmark of "consumer protection" (read: low prices, whatever the cost) back to the trust-busting market-share analysis jurisprudence.

FWIW, the too-short-oversimplified justification for "consumer protection" is that if the chief evil of monopolies is monopolistic pricing (high prices, bc what are you going to do? we're the only game in town) and we monitor prices so that even monopolies have to produce competitive prices (amazon operating at a loss, google/facebook/microsoft providing ostensibly free services, apple/verizon/Disney/Wal Mart providing goods and services that are in line with "market prices"), then the harm is mitigated so it's ok.

I don't think the harm is mitigated the way you think it is. For one, price controls have a rather sketchy history at best of being a long-term solution for anything. For two, it's not just about high prices - it's about a fair few things but a key point is that it's also about political power. Companies aren't going to charge more than people can reasonably pay for things. It's not a workable solution for them. They can charge just enough, pushing the demand while toying with the supply/cost and the offshoot of that is an increasingly large population that isn't in a financial situation to exercise their political rights to the same degree. They can also drive down wages, achieving similar results. We're already seeing several consequences of that today and it can definitely get much, much worse if not carefully monitored.

And economic/monopoly actions aren't such that setting a singular law is ever going to solve all the problems. It's going to need to be a living, learning and evolving law. Antitrust law is a lot harder to enforce with regulatory capture, political advantages in the courts and limited political will from an increasingly struggling voting populace that is gradually gravitating towards a collective minimum wage. I'm sure there are a fair few reasons for these kinds of issues we're seeing but antitrust is definitely a significant one. And while you're understandably focused on tech companies, which have a whole ream of issues, basically every sector of the economy has similar issues. Agriculture is a huge one, for example.

I'm not arguing with you about whether it works or not, I'm just stating the 30,000 ft view of how antitrust is being enforced and has been enforced since the late 70's.

I agree that wage depression is a huge problem, as is political influence, and other negative consequences of letting monopolies exist even if they do provide us modern bread and circuses.

I also agree that antitrust is incredibly important, and that we're due for a serious rethinking of how we treat these mega conglomerations but this is a far pivot from the original discussion re: Judges.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Pivot? Maybe. My point has always been that stacking judges is an effective means of limiting antitrust effectiveness. I probably should have expanded that to include all sorts of economic laws - tax law, enforcement, etc. Locking up government on one hand isn't as effective if you have a means of undoing it in the judicial system as a form of checks and balances. Lock up the judicial system, too, however, and... ugh... And yes, unqualified also fits the bill. Unqualified often means more likely to tow the line and figure out a way to rationalize the unrationalizable or to polarize things in a partisan fight of incompetence.

Our institutions are both there to protect us and require us to protect them. Running to the courts or police or whatever for defense is invariably going to change the function of those institutions gradually over time. There needs to be support and guidance for institutions for them to function properly.

[Pointgod]

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/471031-new-york-man-pleads-guilty-to-threatening-to-kill-omar

cool. cool cool cool.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/19/ilhan-omar-pleads-compassion-man-threatened-her-life-letter

“We must ask: who are we as a nation if we respond to acts of political retribution with retribution ourselves? The answer to hate is not more hate; it is compassion,” she wrote.

“Punishing the defendant with a lengthy prison sentence or a burdensome financial fine would not rehabilitate him. It would not repair the harm he has caused. It would only increase his anger and resentment,” wrote Omar.

She’s a better person than me. Daoneandonly should take notes and learn what religion truly is about. I know he had strong opinions on her. Wonder what he has to say now?

[pancakes3]

we should drop the attacks on D1 re: religion. (1) it's not convincing and (2) it's just kind of sad

to quote omar, it would only increase his anger and resentment.

plus, none of his political stances are actually rooted in religion. just run of the mill dumb.

[queridiculo]

Boom, Sondland just dropped his bomb.

He confirmed that Giuliani was working on behalf of Trump and that it was the Donald's express desire to make this a quid pro quo.

Mulvaney name dropped as being in the loop.

[queridiculo]

we should drop the attacks on D1 re: religion. (1) it's not convincing and (2) it's just kind of sad

to quote omar, it would only increase his anger and resentment.

plus, none of his political stances are actually rooted in religion. just run of the mill dumb.

His political stances are steeped in moral superiority, and he's frequently expressed what his moral compass is based on.

Pointing out his hypocrisy hardly qualifies as attacking religion.

[pancakes3]

well, all i'm saying is that pointing it out just an exercise in futility.

it's pretty easy to see the actual foundation on which that sense of superiority is built. the GOP talking point re: accountability wherein the poor are casually characterized as intrinsically lazy and the anyone who's ever broken a law as irredeemably subhuman preys on the instincts of the dumb, specifically the one where unremarkable people are allowed to feel remarkable by comparing themselves to those worse off than themselves.

[pancakes3]

guys. real life right here.

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Gordon Sondland's dropping bombs.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19