“Do no harm…” for those of a certain age those words were believed as a glimmer of hope that change for the better was a possibility. Instead they are the eulogy for any hope tech would change corporate culture.
If I’m reading your comment correctly, it seems like you’re arguing that regulation is unlikely to happen, or something along those lines. One of my takeaways from Matt’s work is that our government used to practice strong antitrust enforcement (i.e., regulation), it worked well, we never should have stopped doing it, and the Biden administration has thankfully resumed doing it.
Do you disagree? If so, what’s your argument? That regulation is unrealistic, despite the fact that it appears to be happening as we speak? And if, again, you’re arguing that regulation is unlikely to happen, do you have a proposed solution, or do you think we’re just screwed in this respect?
No snark intended here; I’m genuinely trying to understand your argument.
I started reading Matt's Goliath. I knew that antitrust was strong in the past, but I didnt know that it was that strong. So I very much agree with your point. Maybe a rule of thumb could be: Too big to fail is too big to exist.
Yep. And tune in if they Zoom it. (Destroying documents would get the average citizen/defendant jailed.)
It is quite obvious that the willing complicity of big tech in aiding the expansion of the surveillance state requires that it be broken up. It was the opportunity for free enterprise to stand with the Republic and it was proven unworthy.
The jump in tech/communication represents a new age and an expansion of consciousness that can unite the peoples of the world. It has made much of the political/financial grift transparent to reality and the perps are trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
It would be strength to us all if there was someone like Matt Stoller on Substack who dealt exclusively with home computer networking, security, privacy and community enhancement. BIG helps demystify and provide a place for the grounded objectivity necessary for seeing the problem of monopoly sans knee-jerk and the polarity prison. There are people in government and the private sector fighting for fair and equitable business regulation. We need that conversation.
Looking forward to seeing Mr. Stoller on SYSTEM UPDATE again soon.
The perennial problem is people assuming good faith when there is absolutely no reason to. Sometimes I think it's just a lack of knowledge, sometimes I think it's willful ignorance or naivete, and sometimes I think it's just blatantly weaponized by someone who will pretend everything is alright until the situation comes crashing down and there's no possible way to deny the truth anymore.
I think it is good to practice to assume good faith towards people but not towards corporations (hence also people who speak as representatives of corporations). Is that compatible with what you are saying or not?
I think there's a whole heaping of nuance on what I said that's hard to get across in one message. My statement was partially based in my personal experience, with some friends who do not feel the need to research or learn about topics before talking about them. So they will advise me that good faith is important towards someone like Elon Musk, and act as if they've never heard anything bad about him and have no reason to doubt his honest intentions. A tougher example is Bill Gates since a lot of people view him as philanthropic. Both of those fit with your point about people vs corporations and it seems generally reasonable. The missing piece of my first comment I think is that we should always consider power dynamics when considering someone's actions. A person with more power should always be held to a higher standard than someone with less. So I think the more power people have, the more we should expect their actions to align with their stated intent/values, just because of the greater capacity for harm if they don't. A random individual can make a mistake or a lapse in judgment and maybe make a friend upset, but a politician or CEO doesn't have the same luxury. In most cases with public officials or people in power, you can spend time to learn about their past actions and history if you want to know whether they act in good faith. If they have a history of cheating, you may need to rethink your assessments. (with the potential for forgiveness and reparations too)
"The missing piece of my first comment I think is that we should always consider power dynamics when considering someone's actions."
I totally agree ... btw, do you know Peter Turchin "End Times" ... the best book I read since Henrich's "The WEIRDest people in the world" ... there is a lot of interesting stuff about the rise and fall of states and the internal power struggles that bring states down. Of course the book has an eye on what is happening today in the US but it is really a work of history that is interesting also independently of whether one wants to apply historical lessons to the present.
I was about to say no, but when I went to add it to my ever-expanding book list it was already on there haha. I'll bump it up a little higher on the list. Thanks for the recommendation!
Not to be too self-promoting, but I just recently finished Adam Smith's America by Glory M. Liu and it was excellent. I listened to the audiobook and in a few chapters I paused it every couple of seconds to write down the name of a historian or author I wanted to check out later. Lots of gems in it. I wrote up my thoughts on it on my own Substack, but there's a lot more depth to it than I could convey - https://bathruminations.substack.com/p/piecing-politics-and-economics-back
Matt, I don't know if this qualifies as a weird monopoly, but it's a private equity rollup with devastating consequences for kids with autism - for whom good services at a young age can mean a huge difference in outcome.
Until I read this piece, I don't think I fully understood how little incentive PE has to make the acquired business work at all.
I kind of want to vomit just thinking about that one.
Assume, for a minute, that starting tomorrow, all existing antitrust regulations were aggressively enforced; would it have any impact on this particular kind of PE plunder?
“Do no harm…” for those of a certain age those words were believed as a glimmer of hope that change for the better was a possibility. Instead they are the eulogy for any hope tech would change corporate culture.
Imho, it’s a naive hope that anything other than regulation can change corporate culture.
Good luck with that.
If I’m reading your comment correctly, it seems like you’re arguing that regulation is unlikely to happen, or something along those lines. One of my takeaways from Matt’s work is that our government used to practice strong antitrust enforcement (i.e., regulation), it worked well, we never should have stopped doing it, and the Biden administration has thankfully resumed doing it.
Do you disagree? If so, what’s your argument? That regulation is unrealistic, despite the fact that it appears to be happening as we speak? And if, again, you’re arguing that regulation is unlikely to happen, do you have a proposed solution, or do you think we’re just screwed in this respect?
No snark intended here; I’m genuinely trying to understand your argument.
I started reading Matt's Goliath. I knew that antitrust was strong in the past, but I didnt know that it was that strong. So I very much agree with your point. Maybe a rule of thumb could be: Too big to fail is too big to exist.
Leopold Kohr: "Whenever something is wrong, something is too big"
Nice overview. I'll be following with interest.
Yep. And tune in if they Zoom it. (Destroying documents would get the average citizen/defendant jailed.)
It is quite obvious that the willing complicity of big tech in aiding the expansion of the surveillance state requires that it be broken up. It was the opportunity for free enterprise to stand with the Republic and it was proven unworthy.
The jump in tech/communication represents a new age and an expansion of consciousness that can unite the peoples of the world. It has made much of the political/financial grift transparent to reality and the perps are trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
It would be strength to us all if there was someone like Matt Stoller on Substack who dealt exclusively with home computer networking, security, privacy and community enhancement. BIG helps demystify and provide a place for the grounded objectivity necessary for seeing the problem of monopoly sans knee-jerk and the polarity prison. There are people in government and the private sector fighting for fair and equitable business regulation. We need that conversation.
Looking forward to seeing Mr. Stoller on SYSTEM UPDATE again soon.
The perennial problem is people assuming good faith when there is absolutely no reason to. Sometimes I think it's just a lack of knowledge, sometimes I think it's willful ignorance or naivete, and sometimes I think it's just blatantly weaponized by someone who will pretend everything is alright until the situation comes crashing down and there's no possible way to deny the truth anymore.
I think it is good to practice to assume good faith towards people but not towards corporations (hence also people who speak as representatives of corporations). Is that compatible with what you are saying or not?
I think there's a whole heaping of nuance on what I said that's hard to get across in one message. My statement was partially based in my personal experience, with some friends who do not feel the need to research or learn about topics before talking about them. So they will advise me that good faith is important towards someone like Elon Musk, and act as if they've never heard anything bad about him and have no reason to doubt his honest intentions. A tougher example is Bill Gates since a lot of people view him as philanthropic. Both of those fit with your point about people vs corporations and it seems generally reasonable. The missing piece of my first comment I think is that we should always consider power dynamics when considering someone's actions. A person with more power should always be held to a higher standard than someone with less. So I think the more power people have, the more we should expect their actions to align with their stated intent/values, just because of the greater capacity for harm if they don't. A random individual can make a mistake or a lapse in judgment and maybe make a friend upset, but a politician or CEO doesn't have the same luxury. In most cases with public officials or people in power, you can spend time to learn about their past actions and history if you want to know whether they act in good faith. If they have a history of cheating, you may need to rethink your assessments. (with the potential for forgiveness and reparations too)
"The missing piece of my first comment I think is that we should always consider power dynamics when considering someone's actions."
I totally agree ... btw, do you know Peter Turchin "End Times" ... the best book I read since Henrich's "The WEIRDest people in the world" ... there is a lot of interesting stuff about the rise and fall of states and the internal power struggles that bring states down. Of course the book has an eye on what is happening today in the US but it is really a work of history that is interesting also independently of whether one wants to apply historical lessons to the present.
I was about to say no, but when I went to add it to my ever-expanding book list it was already on there haha. I'll bump it up a little higher on the list. Thanks for the recommendation!
Do you want to share a highlight from your list with me?
Not to be too self-promoting, but I just recently finished Adam Smith's America by Glory M. Liu and it was excellent. I listened to the audiobook and in a few chapters I paused it every couple of seconds to write down the name of a historian or author I wanted to check out later. Lots of gems in it. I wrote up my thoughts on it on my own Substack, but there's a lot more depth to it than I could convey - https://bathruminations.substack.com/p/piecing-politics-and-economics-back
Matt, I don't know if this qualifies as a weird monopoly, but it's a private equity rollup with devastating consequences for kids with autism - for whom good services at a young age can mean a huge difference in outcome.
Until I read this piece, I don't think I fully understood how little incentive PE has to make the acquired business work at all.
https://cepr.net/report/pocketing-money-meant-for-kids-private-equity-in-autism-services/
I kind of want to vomit just thinking about that one.
Assume, for a minute, that starting tomorrow, all existing antitrust regulations were aggressively enforced; would it have any impact on this particular kind of PE plunder?
Thanks for taking the effort to write a whole review ... I will check it out (and subscribed to your substack).