[HN Gopher] Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and ...
___________________________________________________________________
Biden launches action on "Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Ag" - can
it be real?
Author : horseradish
Score : 121 points
Date : 2021-07-11 18:22 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mattstoller.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (mattstoller.substack.com)
| deregulateMed wrote:
| Big pharma is significantly less of a problem than the physician
| and hospital cartels.
|
| I have no idea why these groups have survived scrutiny for their
| literal multi-hundred million dollar lobbying/bribery of
| politicians.
|
| My closest guess is that we all know "My" physician or a well
| paid nurse that benefits from the bribery.
| throwawayswede wrote:
| They're part of the same mafia, Pharmaceutical Research &
| Manufacturers of America spent $8664000 in 2021 only on
| lobbying.
|
| https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders
| deregulateMed wrote:
| So much evil in 1 list.
| the-dude wrote:
| That looks like a big number, but it is $8.6M ? Is that a
| lot?
| gregsadetsky wrote:
| I double checked -- another source[0] mentions amounts that
| are a bit higher:
|
| "The Chamber [of Commerce] spent nearly $82 million on
| lobbying in 2020"
|
| But generally in line with the list posted by the GP:
|
| "Facebook and Amazon were the only companies in the top 10
| spending list and spent nearly $19.7 million and more than
| $18.7 million on lobbying in 2020, respectively"
|
| I too, am surprised as how little this is for these
| gigantic companies ($20M for FB? 1/1000th of their
| quarterly revenue?) and more generally, how little money
| this is... in comparison with the entire US government
| budget?
|
| Sorry, this is probably all obvious? Just a bit.. sad?
|
| [0] https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/536082-us-
| chamber-nu...
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Do you think this is a big number? $8mm across a huge
| industry is barely enough to get a legal team out of bed.
| This is really pocket change.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I don't see most physicians being an issue. Many of them are
| fed up with the insurance, pharma, and regulations. Most are
| forced to work for large providers instead of being independent
| just due to the overhead of dealing with digital record
| systems, legal, insurance billing, etc.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| When they spent $400,000,000 on favorable monopolistic
| legislation it helps to aim the spotlight on anyone else.
| giantg2 wrote:
| What organization and legislation was that?
| deregulateMed wrote:
| American Medical Association, aka physicians
| giantg2 wrote:
| And what was the legislation? How was it monopolistic in
| favor of physicians?
|
| The AMA does not really represent physicians. Less than
| 1/4 of doctors belong to the AMA. Many of them do not
| feel the AMA represents them. The AMA also accepts
| substantial donations from other sources, including
| corporate donors and foundations.
|
| https://www.physiciansweekly.com/is-the-ama-really-the-
| voice...
| wormslayer666 wrote:
| Direct link to the executive order (it's in the article, but
| might as well put here):
|
| https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
| giantg2 wrote:
| Sort of good, but we'll see how it plays out without other
| policies supporting it. Frankly, many consolidations are not
| malicious but necessary for survival. Economies of scale and
| verticle integration are required to complete with foreign
| companies with lower costs. Look at domestic steel production. No
| way the market can support numerous domestic options that can
| compete with the low cost of foreign imports.
|
| Then there's vertical integration. I don't know if this will
| effect vertical integration. If it does, I wonder how domestic
| companies will compete without it.
|
| As a beekeeper, it's vastly cheaper foreign imports (some of it
| fake) that are more damaging than large domestic producers
| (although there's a healthy variety). The low prices have been
| forcing consolidation, or for some people to switch from
| producing domestically to packing imported honey. It's tough to
| market local honey for even $12/lb when walmart sells honey for
| less than $5/lb.
| tayo42 wrote:
| What are some uses for honey by the pound? Off topic but
| curious, I only ever put it in tea rarely or simmiliarly rarely
| use it as a sugar alternative when cooking.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Price per pound is mostly just a standardized measure used to
| compare prices regardless of container size. The most common
| container size is a one pound jar, but 8oz jars are fairly
| common too. You would buy a jar and use it in tea, other
| drinks, on waffles, etc. You can buy larger quantities to do
| things like baking, making candy, making mead, etc.
| tayo42 wrote:
| I see, yeah I only ever get a the little honey bear ones
| lol, but the big jars at farmers markets look interesting
| but they're always huge and I almost never use honey
| giantg2 wrote:
| As long as they're airtight they stay good for years.
| Some local producers sell small jars too. I mostly sell
| pint jars (1.4 lbs). I will probably switch to standard 1
| lb jars soon.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > they stay good for years
|
| The lifespan is indefinite. If crystals start to form,
| you can heat the honey and it'll return to it's normal(?)
| state.
| giantg2 wrote:
| As long as it's air tight, sort of. They found honey that
| is safe to eat from the pyramids. I wouldn't recommend
| eating it as it probably doesn't taste good at all. The
| flavor will decrease after a while, but that generally
| takes years. Eventually it will taste bad, but that
| should take decades.
| [deleted]
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "The most interesting pushback was by Google, Facebook, and
| Amazon, as well as Chinese giants DJI and Alibaba. All of these
| firms speak though the trade association Netchoice, which has
| them as key members. Netchoice didn't bother to try and convince
| Democrats. Instead, the big tech trade association used the order
| to lobby Republicans, making the case that Biden's actions
| against monopoly are opening the door to a larger more powerful
| government. Here's the key part of Netchoice's statement:
|
| "Sen. Lee and Rep. Jordan's warnings were right - when
| Republicans back progressive antitrust proposals because of
| concerns about tech, they open the door to progressive antitrust
| activism... By backing hard-left proposals, like nominating Lina
| Khan to the FTC and Rep. Cicilline's antitrust legislation, anti-
| tech Republicans bear responsibility for the damage that will
| result from importing a European-style antitrust framework to all
| sections of the American economy."
|
| Netchoice represents mostly American giants, but also Chinese
| dominant players. So it's interesting is to see the Chinese tech
| giants through their lobbying proxy coming out against Biden's
| anti-monopoly actions, and praising conservative Republicans Jim
| Jordan and Mike Lee in the process. It's clear that both big
| tech, and China's own tech giants, do not want to see anti-
| monopolists like Lina Khan succeed. But conservative Trump-
| supportive ranchers, by contrast, do."
|
| It is almost as if these "tech" companies are trying to sow
| divisiveness. Divide and conquer.
| walkedaway wrote:
| > It is almost as if these "tech" companies are trying to sow
| divisiveness
|
| It's worked in their business model for over a decade. Their
| actions over the last five years have shown they have built up
| operations as core competencies in helping divide our country.
| Although one could argue they are just delivering what their
| customers want (otherwise customers would leave said
| platforms).
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Perhaps we would look at the donations to see if this is likely
| or not?
| jedmeyers wrote:
| Is buying a son's painting considered a donation or not?
| jjeaff wrote:
| No. In what world does buying setting from an adult relative
| consist of a donation?
|
| And if a foreign government overpaying for hundreds of
| thousands of dollars worth of hotel stays in properties owned
| by the politician is not considered a donation, I can't
| imagine anyone thinking the painting thing would be.
| mathisonturing wrote:
| Elaborate? Out of the loop
| jeffbee wrote:
| It's a game of "Spot the Fox News viewer". If you're a fan,
| you believe the largest ethical quandary facing the nation
| in the last quarter-century is that a person related to the
| President of the United States is selling a painting in an
| anonymous auction.
|
| https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-ethics-chief-
| hunter-b...
| zepto wrote:
| > a person related to the President of the United States
|
| The sitting president's son, you mean?
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| While I detest bias in all media (Fox included but in no
| way do they have a monopoly on)...
|
| Are you saying Hunter Biden (the son of, not just "a
| person related to") hasn't recently sold his artwork for
| $500,000 a pop to anonymous buyers?
| jeffbee wrote:
| As I understand it from reputable reporting, all such
| sales are hypothetical.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/deal-of-the-art-
| whit...
| specialist wrote:
| I vividly remember when Billy Beer was a scandal. Simpler
| times.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Beer
| cabaalis wrote:
| Here's an article from the NYT about how they are trying to
| ethically sell Hunter Biden's artwork. "Ethically sell" was
| a term I chose specifically because Hunter Biden is not an
| artist, and the question of why his paintings are being
| sold for half a million dollars and to whom is substance.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/us/politics/hunter-
| biden-...
|
| Edit: Anyone can be an artist of course. Selling artwork
| for such a price would be quite an artist.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| That's anonymous - there's no way for the Biden's to ever
| know the buyer. Of course, the buyer can just show them a
| picture of the painting in their house or whatever but that
| would be unethical.
| alea_iacta_est wrote:
| It's unethical for the public to know who's the buyer,
| that's what they meant.
| qeternity wrote:
| > Of course, the buyer can just show them a picture of the
| painting in their house or whatever but that would be
| unethical.
|
| Unethical, yes...something which a good chunk of society
| have no qualms with, especially those in the business of
| bribing politicians.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| Don't know why your downvoted for asking a basic question.
|
| Career politicians do not betray those who fund their
| campaigns, especially in the highest office.
| ratsmack wrote:
| I can understand them going after Ag and Pharma in a big way, but
| I'm skeptical about the Tech part. There is just too much to lose
| in political support from that industry for any politician to
| attack them too aggressively.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| But, see, if I'm a politician, it's exactly "there is just too
| much to lose in political support from that industry" that
| worries me. I've seen how much weight they can throw against a
| politician they don't like; I've seen them decide to go from
| "not throwing that weight" to "throwing that weight" very
| abruptly; and I realize that such a move can be made against
| _me_ at the drop of a hat. That would worry me. Would it worry
| me enough for me to risk _triggering_ their wrath right now? I
| don 't know.
|
| As a non-politician, here's what I think needs to happen. They
| either need broken up, or they need heavily regulated. (We
| didn't break up the power companies. But we _did_ create the
| Public Service Commissions to heavily regulate them.) I could
| see a Public Network Committee or something, saying: "No, you
| can't make that change your UI to make it even more addictive.
| No, you can't gouge advertisers. No, you can't directly sell
| personal information..."
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Both health and agriculture have huge lobbying budgets, I'm
| skeptical that tech offers much more political support than the
| other two.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| What does Ag do? "Efficiency Is Everything" eats for $500/year.
| Compare that to medical which is a minimum of a few thousand
| dollars a year if you are perfectly healthy and $20000 if you
| have a 1 day stay at a hospital.
| colordrops wrote:
| Big Ag is responsible for horrible factory farming practices
| growing the wrong crops and producing food lacking nutrients
| while destroying the environment and torturing animals. They
| take huge subsidies and use them to support these
| unsustainable practices.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| Not to mention the fragile state of supply chains for food,
| the food deserts, absurd water usage.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| The fact that one of the largest famines in the Western
| world as of late was caused by an economic system that
| led to people relying on monoculture crops to feed
| themselves[1], the fact that ours results in
| monocultures, as well, should be worrying.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)#
| Causes_...
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| What part of that is big ag, opposed to ag in general. I
| don't see the difference on those topics personally.
| worik wrote:
| Economies of scale, when viewed from the perspective of a
| cattle beast in a feed lot are a horrible thing in
| agriculture.
|
| Modern industrial agriculture with its expensive inputs,
| ruination of land, and abuse of live stock is a quite
| horrifying thing and is impoverishing the people
| responsible for the base of our food supply.
|
| It is the most efficient in terms of output per input,
| but not by most other measures.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| But you don't need to be a monopoly or even a big company
| to have an awful feedlots, monocrop farming, ect.
| colordrops wrote:
| What you say is true in theory but not in aggregate. It's
| no different from any other business in that respect.
| Look at companies in a field you are familiar with and
| you will find that the very large ones are a lot more
| impersonal, ruthlessly efficient, and amoral.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| That's the huristic I'm pushing back on: Big = bad,
| efficient = bad, ect. Some problems are indeed
| exaserbated at scale, others are not. I think this is
| especially true for the ag industry and the issues
| mentioned up thread. You can bust up the biggest factory
| farms into 100 smaller companies, but they would still
| have the same practices. Same with monocrop farming.
| postpawl wrote:
| Even in 2019, 2/3 of Americans supported breaking up big tech
| companies: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
| politics/2019/9/18/20870938/b...
|
| The political support is definitely there. But if you're
| talking about rich Silicon Valley donors, yeah they might have
| a problem with it.
| ardit33 wrote:
| I think for tech, the forks/knifes are out from both parties,
| for different reasons. As for the other industries, I am much
| more skeptical anything significant will be done.
|
| This administration as pushed lots of 'agendas' just for
| political show even though it new it had 0 chance for them to
| pass and wasting everybody's time.
|
| Time will tell if this is just another political show, or they
| will actually accomplish anything.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Isn't that exactly the reason they should be attacked?
| FractalHQ wrote:
| I hope it's real. We need modern anti trust laws, big tech is
| out of control. You're right though.. sadly. Most importantly,
| we need to get money out of politics to free our government
| from the grips of these corporate conglomerates.
| dkdk8283 wrote:
| We must free ourselves from censorship.
| worik wrote:
| Clearly you are suffering a lot from censorship...
| seattle_spring wrote:
| Moderation is not censorship.
| thoughtstheseus wrote:
| If there is no viable alternative then it's censorship.
| Put the power of moderation in the hands of people,
| create a market for it, that's a winning strategy.
| seattle_spring wrote:
| What are some of your opinions that can't be shared
| freely on at least some platforms? "Conservative
| opinions" don't count, because if they were actually
| censored then I wouldn't have to have them rammed down my
| throat every minute of every day from every angle.
| Bancakes wrote:
| Cut sugar industry subsidies and promote real food. Covid
| pandemic is nothing to the obesity one.
| gautamcgoel wrote:
| He misspells Tyler Cowen as Tyler Cowan.
| throwawayswede wrote:
| No it can't.
|
| Top 10 spenders on lobbying in 2021: "Lobbying
| Client","Total Spent" "US Chamber of
| Commerce","$17590000" "Pharmaceutical Research &
| Manufacturers of America","$8664000" "National Assn of
| Realtors","$7985521" "American Medical Assn","$6520000"
| "American Hospital Assn","$5852623" "Blue Cross/Blue
| Shield","$5774300" "Raytheon Technologies","$5360000"
| "Amazon.com","$5060000" "Facebook Inc","$4790000"
| "Northrop Grumman","$4610000"
|
| Look up more stuff: https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-
| lobbying/top-spenders
|
| Plus, Biden is the last person to be trusted with this. The
| overall lockdowns in the US are basically a joke. Your government
| let big pharma abuse the entire society for more than a year and
| people are still so discombobulated by what happened that they've
| started to develop a stockholm syndrome.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > Your government let big pharma abuse the entire society for
| more than a year
|
| Explain.
| throwawayswede wrote:
| Lockdowns are useless.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Evidence? Also, motivation?
| throwawayswede wrote:
| One of the principles of public health is that you can't
| just look at one disease isolated, you have to look at
| public health as a whole. With lockdowns there's been a
| lot of collateral public health damages: Cancer
| treatments and scanning that were not provided, worse
| cardiovascular disease outcomes, diabetes not being
| properly taken care of, tragic mental health situation,
| education of kids going to school, and other unintended
| side effects. One of the things known from the beginning
| is that, even though anyone can get infected with covid,
| there's a 1000 fold difference in the risk of mortality.
| [deleted]
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Finally, they've started attacking big tech on the privacy front.
| The whole "monopoly" and "anti-trust" thing was going nowhere.
| But privacy orders like this are a step in the right direction.
|
| And to put the nail in big tech's coffin, congress should pass a
| law forbidding the sharing of any personal information on any
| resident of the US for any commercial reason whatsoever. With
| draconian penalties assessed per user infraction. That would stop
| these tech companies in their tracks.
| dodobirdlord wrote:
| While ultimately a ban on sharing personal information for
| commercial reasons would be good in the long term, in the short
| term (many years, certainly, maybe forever) it would serve to
| entrench existing big tech companies. Google, for example,
| doesn't directly share personal information with advertisers.
| Where side-channels exist that would enable advertisers to
| extract data from Google, Google has the scale and the
| resources to create technical solutions like having advertisers
| send their entire software stack to run in Google datacenters
| so that Google can ensure nothing is being logged, and force
| advertisers to comply. Facebook, Amazon, and Apple likely have
| the resources and scale to pull of the same feats. Anybody else
| would be put out of business. Hardly a mandate that would make
| sense in the context of encouraging competition.
| bogwog wrote:
| > With draconian penalties assessed per user infraction.
|
| You mean like chopping off a limb/finger for every violation?
|
| Unfortunately, that won't work for a certain lizardman CEO who
| is purported to be able to regrow limbs.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| I was thinking more along the lines of heavy fines.
|
| I'm not a big supporter of violence against pharma, tech, and
| Ag CEOs. I'm not a big supporter of violence against anyone
| where massive fines will serve the same purpose. In fact, the
| fines would work better.
| ratsmack wrote:
| And how do you feel about sharing the collected data of your
| conversations and travel with government agencies?
| bilbo0s wrote:
| I feel there is nothing the government is going to do about
| that. This doesn't mean that I throw up my hands and say, OK,
| I'll let everyone have all of my communications logs since
| the government has them.
| ratsmack wrote:
| I personally believe being targeted with advertising is
| much less intrusive than the government having unfettered
| access to my daily interactions with people and various
| institutions. I would prefer to not have to worry about
| either.
| wincy wrote:
| After all, now that the NSA has all their spy networks set up
| they don't need the tech companies to do the spying anymore.
| Time to crack down.
|
| Makes me think of an abusive relationship where the abuser is
| very jealous and protective of the abused.
|
| "If anyone spies on my citizens, it's gonna be me!"
| bilbo0s wrote:
| I actually agree with this, it is an abusive relationship.
| Only the abuser has a gun to your head so there's nothing you
| can do about it.
| qeternity wrote:
| > And to put the nail in big tech's coffin, congress should
| pass a law forbidding the sharing of any personal information
| on any resident of the US for any commercial reason whatsoever.
|
| At this point, a huge number (majority?) of Facebook et al
| users know what Facebook are doing. They value their own data
| less than Facebook do and are happy to trade it in return for
| free social media service. You may not like it, but free people
| should be able to engage in a transaction if it's not
| infringing on other peoples' rights.
|
| I'm not sure why you would know what's better for them than
| they would.
| laurent92 wrote:
| Some people buy an iPhone just because Apple imposes
| draconian rules on Facebook. People do put a price on
| privacy, thousands of dollars probably.
|
| When you reduce the value of interconnecting people to a
| linear scale, it's unfair. How much value do you put on a
| friendship? How much value do you extract from belonging to a
| Facebook group? It's probably a million dollars per person.
| It doesn't mean the privacy part isn't extracted by coercion,
| taking friendships as hostage, threatening to remove you from
| participation to a lot of the social life if you revoke your
| Facebook account.
| qeternity wrote:
| > thousands of dollars probably.
|
| > How much value do you extract from belonging to a
| Facebook group? It's probably a million dollars per person.
|
| No idea what you're on about. The average person doesn't
| buy Apple products, they have a small percentage of market
| share. You're just throwing absurd numbers around.
|
| You've argued my point: people value socialization
| (millions, according to you) more than they value privacy
| (mere thousands, again according to you).
|
| Nobody forces anybody to use Facebook. Yet billions use it.
| It boggles my mind when people feel they should dictate
| other people's personal choices.
| jeffreygoesto wrote:
| It is infringing other's peoples rights. Shadow profiles are
| and even if you paid for subscriptions everywhere in the net,
| you could not get away untracked and being targeted for ads
| you neither want nor need.
| qeternity wrote:
| I'm not saying I agree with it, but what rights are being
| violated by shadow profiles?
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Facebook shares lots of data about people who have never
| signed up for a Facebook account. Everyone is a Facebook
| "user" whether they want to be or not.
| qeternity wrote:
| Well, I guess this makes sense because you can be a
| Facebook user without an account...
| Supermancho wrote:
| > Facebook shares lots of data about people who have never
| signed up for a Facebook account. Everyone is a Facebook
| "user" whether they want to be or not.
|
| Same with Twitch/AMZ, YouTube/GOOG, Target, Wall Street
| Journal, etc. It's basically the state of digital
| advertising today, which is not remotely limited to or
| monopolized by FB. I've worked on the adservers, across
| multiple companies, for over 15 years now.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| A lot more people support action than support any given outcome.
| I worry that the majority will be disappointed by the outcome
| because of this.
|
| Take the big tech action: some people support it because they
| want less censorship (that's me), others because they want more.
| The same applies in other aspects of peoples' issues with big
| tech (fake news, hate groups, grooming and CP, privacy, foreign
| election meddling etc). We can't all be happy with whatever the
| FTC does to social media sites can we, given we mostly want
| different things.
| alessandroetc wrote:
| It's not actually real. The lobbying firm behind most of the fact
| sheet is made up of people on the boards of different tech firms.
| ampdepolymerase wrote:
| How about Big Telecom and Big Fintech and Banking? Or is it
| simply because the rest did not pay enough to the lobbyists?
| bilbo0s wrote:
| The ISPs have been getting hit in this series of orders.
|
| That said, yes, fintech and banking are conspicuously absent.
| Which kind of lets you know that they are just too powerful.
| fastssd wrote:
| And people say crypto is bad. Sad world we live in.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Or that you really, really need to establish precedent (and
| ideally, a pttern) by first successfully going after the
| "easier" targets. It's much easier to go after fintech and
| banking if you can go "what's the problem, you're just next
| in line, your industry's hardly getting singled out"
| dodobirdlord wrote:
| Banking is getting impacted in this series of executive
| orders, there's a mandate that banks make customer financial
| history portable so that customers aren't locked into
| continuing to use their current bank to keep their financial
| records. Aside from that issue that stops customers from
| being likely to _switch_ banks, there's a ton of competition
| in banking. There are many consumer banks, they all provide
| essentially the same services, and they compete on things
| like branch density, customer service, and saving /loan
| rates. Aside from that, consumer banking is already one of
| the most regulated industries.
|
| Fintech consumer products and services are rare with the
| exception of tax preparation. E-trading is becoming more
| popular, but existing consumer banks and brokerages are
| stepping up to compete across the board. Intuit's TurboTax
| product is really the only example I can think of in the
| fintech industry that needs antitrust attention.
| jeffbee wrote:
| There's much more in the actual order addressed toward banks
| and telcos and ISPs than there is language directed at "big
| tech".
|
| https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
| summerlight wrote:
| This executive order is really comprehensive, it touches
| literally every economical areas where competitions are
| withering away. To be specific, I think this part addresses
| your concern on big telecoms. > (l) To promote
| competition, lower prices, and a vibrant and innovative
| telecommunications ecosystem, the Chair of the Federal
| Communications Commission is encouraged to work with the rest
| of the Commission, as appropriate and consistent with
| applicable law, to consider:
|
| The following also partially addresses big banks, though I'm
| not sure it's sufficient enough to tame them. Better than
| nothing though. > (e) To ensure Americans have
| choices among financial institutions and to guard against
| excessive market power, the Attorney General, in consultation
| with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal
| Reserve System, the Chairperson of the Board of Directors of
| the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Comptroller
| of the Currency, is encouraged to review current practices and
| adopt a plan, not later than 180 days after the date of this
| order, for the revitalization of merger oversight under the
| Bank Merger Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956
| (Public Law 84-511, 70 Stat. 133, 12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) that
| is in accordance with the factors enumerated in 12 U.S.C.
| 1828(c) and 1842(c). > (t) The Director of the Consumer
| Financial Protection Bureau, consistent with the pro-
| competition objectives stated in section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank
| Act, is encouraged to consider:
| Animats wrote:
| We need to bring back the Glass-Stegall Act, which kept banks
| and brokerages separate. It's not really about competition,
| though; it's about isolating broker failures from bank
| failures. That was in Trump's plaform, by the way.
| Jenk wrote:
| Some is better than none.
| annadane wrote:
| No, this is Hacker News, where we have to gripe about every
| single little thing until it loses all fucking meaning
|
| Edit: you downvote me because you know this is exactly how it
| goes around here
| Notanothertoo wrote:
| Yes and that's a good thing. Politics is mostly a game of
| pretend and therefore bullshit, as uhh.. engineers we like
| to be more practical. We simply see the bullshit they are
| selling regardless of political affiliation. If they wanted
| to actually solve problems the approach and results would
| be totally different.
| specialist wrote:
| Around 2005, I asked Kevin Phillips:
|
| Me: According to your book, America's political parties have
| flipped every ~70 years. It should have happened around the time
| of Ross Perot, so I guess we're overdue. Do you think another
| realignment is emminent?
|
| Phillips: No. It won't happen while Wall St. and finance remains
| in control of our political discourse.
|
| --
|
| It'll be amazing if Biden Admin is able to uncork the next cycle.
| But I'm not holding my breath.
|
| Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich
| [2003] https://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-
| Am...
|
| Here's a more recent account:
|
| Lobbying America: The Politics of Business from Nixon to NAFTA
| [2015] https://www.amazon.com/Lobbying-America-Politics-Business-
| So...
|
| Edit: I changed "Last decade" to "Around 2005". Time flies. My
| bad.
| the-dude wrote:
| > hospital price transparency,
|
| Wasn't this already put in place by the previous administration?
| ryanSrich wrote:
| Of course it was, also see "value based care". It's all
| bullshit.
|
| Hospitals have zero incentive to be transparent, and all the
| incentives to be opaque. So long as you're a non-
| Medicare/Medicaid patient you'll continue to suffer.
|
| The American healthcare system is completely fucked (there's no
| better word).
| giantg2 wrote:
| Only for billing cost of procedures. It's still a mess.
|
| Did you know that hospitals make money by using name brand
| medications? They will get a contract with a brand, like
| Motrin, and charge you full price at $8 a pill. Then Motrin
| will will evaluate how much the hospital used and give them a
| big rebate to bring the hospital's cost down under $1 per pill.
| You can literally buy a bottle of ibuprofen for what they
| charge for a single pill, but of course in the name of safety
| (and really kickbacks too) they won't allow the cheaper outside
| medication. It's effectively an internal monopoly.
| revscat wrote:
| I'm not sure what your point is. These contracts between
| seller and merchant were voluntary. There are other hospitals
| available should you choose, and if not then you have no one
| to blame but yourself.
| LimaBearz wrote:
| I love how conservatives still make this argument. You're
| arguing for the free market in a system that literally
| isn't, and doing it in such a way that it tries to be a
| thought-terminating cliche.
|
| If you get into a car accident tomorrow driving to work,
| the ambulance/paramedics aren't going to ask you to do your
| research prior to shuttling you to a hospital to get life
| saving treatment. Even if you could how would you be able
| to tell which hospital has what price structure, what
| services you'll actually need given your medical condition,
| and what arrangements they have with various drug
| manufacturers and how that relates to what you require to
| help your condition. Save it.. "no one to blame but
| yourself" is so incredibly idiotic is comical.
|
| Take something even more benign, like someone falling and
| breaking/straining something. Wanna still do your research
| first? Is it a sprain, fracture, break? How do you know? Is
| it clear cut? What pain medication will you need? Will you
| require surgery? What lab work will you need? How many
| tests will you need? X-rays? CAT scan? MRI? What kind of
| surgeon? How many nurses? Will you require blood? Whats the
| recovery like? What about follow up visits? Do you expect
| us all to practice free market principles and know all that
| crap in advance for price discovery before deciding to seek
| treatment?
|
| True free market principles require an asymmetry of
| information for the system to work, and even "fathers" of
| the theory understood that and acknowledge the need for
| regulation when its absent.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| Are you trolling?
|
| A hospital has even more lock in than the App Store. They
| can literally legally lock you in.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Not everywhere has multiple hospitals to choose from. Even
| if there are multiple hospitals, your insurance might
| influence your choices too. And at the end of the day, if
| you're incapacitated, they will just take you to wherever
| is closest.
|
| The point was that the hospitals are doing things behind
| the scenes that are not well known that affect the pricing.
| In this example, they charge you more for using name brand
| medication and then get a kickback to make money for
| themselves.
| ModernMech wrote:
| > These contracts between seller and merchant were
| voluntary.
|
| I'm guessing you've never been placed on an involuntary
| psych hold, or woken up at a hospital after an accident
| left you incapacitated.
| dralley wrote:
| The hospital you end up in is not a free market and usually
| it's not even a choice. Anyone who who gets in a car
| accident, falls off a roof, has a heart attack will be
| lucky to still be conscious when the ambulance picks them
| up, much less in a state of mind to be considering the
| relative merits.
| ytdytvhxgydvhh wrote:
| It was, but apparently we're not there yet in terms of
| compliance: https://www.axios.com/hospitals-price-transparency-
| costs-reg...
| throwawayboise wrote:
| "Hearing aids cost thousands of dollars apiece, for no other
| reason than there is a cartel established by government that
| prevents firms from selling hearing aids without a prescription."
|
| An example of how many (most?) monopolies are able to exist
| because of some sort of legal authorization or protection.
| Regulatory capture.
|
| There are dozens of companies who would no doubt start making
| inexpensive hearing aids tomorrow. Absent government regulation,
| they already would be.
| ISL wrote:
| Queue "overpowered OTC aids destroyed my hearing" pushback...
| oliv__ wrote:
| Queue private agency testing, evaluating and rating products
| on the market
| antifa wrote:
| https://github.com/auchenberg/volkswagen
| rtkwe wrote:
| Cue rating agencies passing anything because hearing aid
| companies can go to another rating company if they don't,
| like what happened with mortgage securities in the 00s...
| watwut wrote:
| Yeah, it is totally impossible to have competition on
| regulated market. Monopoly is only possible solution.
|
| Or something.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Credit rating agencies and the subprime crisis: https://en.
| wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the...
| giantg2 wrote:
| Is that really going to be a thing? Earbuds have been out for
| a long time and are easily capable of destroying hearing.
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| As someone with a relative who install these: yeah, it can
| be a thing.
|
| The gap between "too soft, doesn't help you hear" and "too
| loud, damages your hearing" can be narrow.
|
| Usually it's more of a problem in the other direction, with
| doctors playing it safe and tamping down the aid to the
| point of uselessness.
| im_down_w_otp wrote:
| Total aside, in this context I think it's "cue". Like a cue
| card.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Bose's hearing aids were recently approved by the FDA, and
| they're only $850. The APM Marketplace program recently
| covered this development and the hearing aid monopoly. The
| sky isn't going to fall.
|
| https://www.npr.org/podcasts/381444600/marketplace
|
| https://www.bose.com/en_us/products/headphones/earbuds/sound.
| ..
| mgerdts wrote:
| $850 each and as of a month or so ago only available in 3
| states.
|
| At Costco you can get what seem to be high end hearing aids
| for $699 each. The current generation are rechargeable and
| support bluetooth. This includes the free hearing test free
| fitting ("real ear", which is current best practice) and
| followup so long as you have a membership.
|
| The key thing that is lacking is a decent app or api for me
| to write my own. Oh, that and phone conversations using the
| hearing aid's bluetooth is pretty bad.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Half seriously, Medicare should consider including a
| Costco membership with their coverage for the elderly.
| the_third_wave wrote:
| > Bose's hearing aids were recently approved by the FDA,
| and they're only $850.
|
| _Only_ $850? That is a new use of the word _only_ as far
| as I 'm concerned. These things, which are in many ways
| similar to if not identical with bluetooth earbuds should
| not cost more than those - and given the fact that Apple
| managed to convince people that $200 is a normal price for
| these things that should leave more than enough margin for
| an unhealthy profit margin seeing as how the ones I'm using
| cost [?] of that while achieving a longer battery life.
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| Is there an earbud costs $30 with active noise
| cancelation and transparency mode? I want this.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Traditionally, the cost for hearing aids runs in the
| thousands of dollars. Perfect is the enemy of good
| enough, progress takes time.
| the_third_wave wrote:
| The only progress needed here is for the protection
| racket to be broken down, this can be done with the
| stroke of a pen. Allowing it to "take time" only gives
| those who seek to extract as much money as possible from
| the artificially limited market more time to do so.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I encourage you (and others) to actively engage with your
| Congressional representatives and regulators in this
| regard.
| odiroot wrote:
| *Cue
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > There are dozens of companies who would no doubt start making
| inexpensive hearing aids tomorrow. Absent government
| regulation, they already would be.
|
| And with the lack of certification requirement, someone _will_
| start cutting corners to make an extra chunk of profit. Just
| imagine a faulty hearing aid that fails while a person is
| driving, and the person causing an accident as a result. Good
| luck suing anyone over that one. Or people mis-tuning hearing
| aids leading to more damage than before.
|
| Another thing I can easily imagine is unscrupulous
| manufacturers using banned chemicals to manufacture the hearing
| aids. We have enough of this sort of shenanigans with nickel
| allergies in jewelry.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| Hearing is not required to safely operate a vehicle.
|
| And why wouldn't someone be able to sue successfully?
| tomc1985 wrote:
| What? Driving with headphones is forbidden where I am. And
| at minimum you need to be able to hear a carhorn.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Are deaf people forbidden to drive where you are?
| jdavis703 wrote:
| And emergency sirens/bullhorns, motorcycles, train horns
| at unguarded railroad crossing gates, etc.
| comex wrote:
| Even assuming that's true, if your hearing suddenly cuts
| out, and you decide to pull over in response, the chance
| you'll encounter one of those objects in the few seconds
| it takes to pull over is rather low.
|
| For this to be a real danger, either the driver would
| have to not notice that they suddenly couldn't hear
| anything, or the faulty hearing aid would have to pass
| through some sounds but not others. Both of those
| scenarios seem pretty unlikely.
|
| Meanwhile, from some quick googling, it seems to be
| common for completely deaf people to drive; apparently
| there are devices that can translate sirens and such into
| visual cues, but such devices are not universally used.
| To be fair, it's a bit different if you're not expecting
| it or practiced at it.
| [deleted]
| giantg2 wrote:
| "monopolies are able to exist because of some sort of legal
| authorization or protection"
|
| The entire point of patents...
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| It was not great before patents when a big company could
| steal your work and put you out of business after you put in
| the R&D effort.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| what big business was doing that before 1789?
| ModernMech wrote:
| Now they just file the patent before inventing it, let you
| do the R&D for them to make it a reality, and sue your for
| patent infringement when you go to market.
| Notanothertoo wrote:
| As someone who started a business only to get a bullshit
| suit that I was unable to afford by one of the largest re
| insurance providers in the world (#1/2), the idea that the
| ip/patent legal framework as it is today helps the little
| guy is a slap in the face.
|
| They preemptively sued me in a state I've never worked in
| or entered for that matter because the favorable corporate
| law there, and that is why they have their hq there. They
| would file a bullshit motion, get everyone in front of the
| judge. Somebody would point it out, they would retract it,
| and immediately file a new one and request everyone have
| time to review it. All the while bleeding me dry at 500$ an
| hour for litigation on top of travel expenses plus the
| regular legal fees of multiple lawyers across two states.
|
| The whole thing was bullshit, lots of red flags but I
| lacked the capital to assert my agency legally..
|
| The ip/patent framework as it is today helps nobody but big
| co and promotes regulatory capture. It prevents the kind of
| reverse engineering you see in China and why we don't have
| things like removable battery cell phone mods and other
| "hacks" here. It's why the right to repair is an issue at
| all, if they didn't have this legal framework they wouldn't
| be able to enforce any of it legally. Somebody would come
| along and offer a service to do it at a fraction of the
| cost. Why do I have to keep buying the same media over and
| over again on different formats. It's amazing to me seeing
| the most authoritarian regime in modern history leverage
| the free market better than the "capitalists". Sorry for
| the rant but this shit is imo the reason for most of the
| corporate bullshit today. It's what empowers the lawyers.
| giantg2 wrote:
| The court system is a joke. It has nothing to do with
| justice. On the criminal side, you can get a citation for
| a $500 fine and it's better to just plead guilty because
| a lawyer will cost you at least that much. It's a
| financial punishment even if you are innocent. If you
| don't hire a lawyer the judge won't take you seriously
| and call you names like "sovereign citizen". The number
| of mistakes and the amount of ignorance by the people
| running the system is repulsive and leads to violations
| of rights.
|
| As _just one_ laughable example, I had a magistrate think
| that requesting the case to be dismissed with prejudice
| was me calling him prejudice. You dont even need to have
| a law degree or pass the bar to be a magistrate.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Yeah, that used to be the point of patents. Now it seems
| it's mostly to squeeze as much out of people by capturing
| the majority of the market by not allowing similar
| products.
|
| I mean, we have CEOs of biomedical companies admitting that
| they aren't basing prices off of what it costs to research,
| develop, and deliver a therapy, but rather base it off of
| what a deaparare person is willing to pay for it. This is
| the very thing antitrust laws were supposed to prevent, but
| the patent system is used to create a similar environment.
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| Agreed? Patents are being misused. We should fix that.
| Patents fixed gross injustices when they were created,
| and we shouldn't forget that, either. Software is
| probably the worst example of a field for patents and I
| think the case for patenting algorithms or design is
| dicey. But if you sink 100M into drug R&D, a novel type
| of medical device, or a new type of semiconductor CVD
| process you should have some protection against reverse
| engineering from competition for a period of time.
|
| Since the problem seems to come a lot, maybe the problem
| is the role of money in politics and we should address
| the root cause. Just a thought.
| Notanothertoo wrote:
| No you shouldn't.. The idea that your idea is so novel it
| should be legally enforced as "yours" is pretty
| egotistical imo. How do you credit the millions of ideas
| you are basing yours off of. It's also information, it's
| not "stolen" in the sense that multiple people can't use
| it at the same time.
|
| Benefit of rnd is being first to market. You will capture
| much of the market while everyone else catches up and you
| are in a better position to innovate.
|
| Also without these legal barriers if somebody can improve
| on it and make it better that's better for the community
| and consumer at large and allows for constant iteration.
|
| Also there is a lot of bad behavior and things encouraged
| by the patent system. You have judges giving patents over
| technical nuances they can't possibly learn in a
| courtroom. You have companies like Intel spending
| millions on legal teams to enforce things rather then
| engineering innovation, which is great until you are no
| longer the dominant player and global players don't play
| by those rules.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Drug companies spend more on marketing than on R&D. Much
| of the research is done with grants and government money.
| The vast majority of medical devices use the 510K process
| for approval, which means they are substantially similar
| to existing device (to bypass testing).
|
| Sure some protection is necessary. You could make it
| based on development costs and have much shorter times
| for things that were cheap to do.
|
| "maybe the problem is the role of money in politics and
| we should address the root cause. "
|
| There are a lot of problems in politics that should be
| fixed - rules for thee but not for me (rule of law
| ignored), basically insider trading, high lifetime
| pensions, long careers, two party system, media
| bias/lies, and even problems in the voter base (us v
| them). Money is an issue, but it's really only good if
| the constituents are gullible or believe in the ends
| justifying the means. The real root of all of this is
| that politicians are a separate class from the rest of us
| and aren't accountable to anyone unless their
| transgressions are egregious, and then only sometimes.
| Rule of law has become a joke.
| em3rgent0rdr wrote:
| There are good arguments for abolishing or limiting patents.
| The cost of monopoly may exceed any benefit.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > The entire point of patents...
|
| Well, if that were so, you would expect them to be secret and
| to never expire. The fact that are published and expire after
| a relatively short period belies the simplicity of that
| statement.
| giantg2 wrote:
| In today's world, 20 years could mean the patented object
| is obsolete by the time it is public domain. Having
| exclusive use of the technology for the duration of it's
| useful life expectancy seems like a monopoly to me...
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Yes, there is probably a good argument to be made that
| many patents should have a shorter protected period. Also
| the "non obvious" requirement for an invention seems to
| need more emphasis, when an idea like "one click
| ordering" can be patented.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I really feel like ideas shouldn't be patented at all,
| just their implementation.
| Notanothertoo wrote:
| Ever greening patents is standard practice today. This is
| why insulin is so expensive. Another good example is
| Disney's bs. They have kept thinks out of public domain for
| over a hundred years.. The 20 years thing is for the little
| guy, if he can ever afford the 50k patent and legal fees in
| the first place.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Disney is copywrite, not patent. Copywrite lasts 50 years
| past the creators death (was shorter, but Disney lobbied
| to have it extended).
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| If it's true that hearing aids shouldn't need a prescription
| and can be made cheaply, shouldn't it be easy for anyone who
| needs one to buy online from overseas? The same way you can get
| grey market viagra.
| slg wrote:
| >An example of how many (most?) monopolies are able to exist
| because of some sort of legal authorization or protection.
| Regulatory capture.
|
| To be clear this "legal authorization or protection" is not
| necessarily over regulation. Depending on the market, sometimes
| monopolies are the result of too much government regulation and
| sometimes they are the result of not enough government
| regulation. For example, most of the big tech monopolies do not
| exist because of regulatory capture. They exist because the
| government never put in enough effort to stop the monopolies
| from forming.
| Notanothertoo wrote:
| Big tech wouldn't have the silos or platform lock downs (ie
| power/user capture) they have today without the ip legal
| framework. People would be able to legally circumvent their
| bs and offer services around gaps in their platforms and
| would encourage more competition and result in a less
| monopolistic practice.
|
| I think all monopolies are violence enforced or they are
| competitive otherwise somebody would step in and undercut
| their costs and the government has a monopoly on violence
| so...
| walkedaway wrote:
| > do not exist because of regulatory capture
|
| It's reasonable to conclude that Facebook and Twitter have
| benefitted greatly by not having expenses to properly monitor
| their platform due to section 230 safe harbor exemption. They
| are able to get away with selective enforcement on their
| platform and not pay a monetary penalty for doing so.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Some exist because of copyright otherwise Microsoft would
| have been legally cloned out of business back in the day.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > For example, most of the big tech monopolies do not exist
| because of regulatory capture. They exist because the
| government never put in enough effort to stop the monopolies
| from forming.
|
| Is it possible they exist because the immense economies of
| scale and near zero marginal cost that software provides
| makes for a winner take all market?
|
| As a customer, why would one use the 2nd best option, when
| the best option is available at no extra cost or very little
| cost?
| slg wrote:
| Well yes, that is the "Depending on the market" part I
| mentioned in the sentence before the one you quoted. Some
| markets have traits that are more likely to lead to natural
| monopolies. A government acting in the best interest of its
| citizens would usually work on creating regulation in these
| markets to discourage monopolies.
| cD2nmRoHAbI wrote:
| Quoting: 'Markets have traits'
|
| [sings] IN REAL LIFE WE ARE ALL ZONED IN SPACES (-:
| nicoburns wrote:
| That and lack of anti-trust action (or other deterrents
| against large businesses) on the part of the government.
|
| A consumer shouldn't chhose the second if they don't want
| to. But governments should step in to ensure that the
| market remains competetive.
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| That assumption doesn't go well with what we saw in the
| case of Instagram and then Snapchat. Both took significant
| share out of Facebook but Facebook was able to buy
| Instagram and copy Snapchat to retain its monopoly. The
| Instagram acquisition shouldn't have been possible is what
| the parent seems to be alluding to.
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| Instagram had 10mn users and a one week old Android app
| at the time it was acquired.
|
| Their ad system was pretty much ported from FB, one
| assumes, and their ads were sold by FB reps as part of a
| package.
|
| I honestly don't know if they would have made it
| independently (and we'll never know, I guess).
|
| The snapchat thing was different. Snap had a policy of
| focusing on iOS, while FB, IG and Whatsapp (all of which
| cloned their core feature) were available on Android. I
| personally think Snapchat shot themselves in the foot
| with bad product strategy.
|
| And look at TikTok. They are definitely the biggest
| competitor FB have ever faced, so I'd imagine that the
| future competitive landscape for them looks much more
| difficult than the past.
| stevetodd wrote:
| > I personally think Snapchat shot themselves in the foot
| with bad product strategy.
|
| Seems to have worked out poorly for them.
| maxk42 wrote:
| The only problem I see with allowing anyone to offer hearing
| aids is the hypothetical problem that a malfunctioning product
| may harm someone's hearing further.
|
| That's a real issue to be addressed, but generally I agree that
| making it easier for people to help other people is better than
| throwing up obstacles.
| yissp wrote:
| A huge number of everyday products have the potential to
| cause serious harm if they're defective, but they generally
| aren't regulated to the extent that hearing aids are. As a
| sibling comment points out, the threat of law suits keeps
| manufacturers in check.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| In the pre-regulatory system, you could sue the manufacturer
| in those cases.
|
| I think that was better for most cases.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| I assume there are countries where you can already buy hearing
| aids without prescription?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-11 23:00 UTC)