0:27

really do with your advantage over

0:30

host of isn't it hot coffee

0:32

by the dispatch and dispatch media i'm

0:35

very excited about today's

0:38

yeah it's a first timer i

0:41

suspect that if

0:43

i ask you guys to guess what was

0:46

it would take your while he

0:48

is i i i was at an off

0:50

the record saying where we were talking about interesting

0:52

things and he had interesting things to say

0:55

and i was gonna i thought about asking him to

0:57

be on the remnant and before

0:59

i could even ask him he said he divulged

1:01

he was in fact the remnant listener and i said okay now

1:03

you're stuck yeah to come on the remnants and

1:07

though i would normally at this point in

1:09

this these kinds of introductions i would say of

1:11

course i'm talking about so and so ah

1:14

but in this one it's not really and of course

1:17

i am talking about at know of philips

1:19

he's a commissioner on the federal trade

1:21

commission would

1:23

your as we all know is is

1:26

a a hotbed of scum and villainy ah

1:30

now but ah but ah

1:32

excited to have him on he is it

1:35

is first time on so give him a warm welcome are

1:38

no thanks for coming

1:39

german thanks for having me and let me just

1:41

begin by saying that was a really polite way

1:43

of safe none as you have ever heard an

1:45

auto a professor frankly

1:47

i kind of like exactly

1:49

i would our at all and today

1:53

and so are we should also we should make some

1:56

so do some full disclosure stuff because as we were saying

1:58

before hints at

1:59

pretty sure you were the first

2:02

federal official

2:05

who is not an elected politician

2:08

and i try to avoid having elected politicians

2:10

on air arm services this is all

2:13

brave new to this off new territory for

2:15

me

2:17

that the

2:19

what virgo have been i'll let you

2:21

do your full disclosure is and what you're speaking

2:23

fees us up but i should also

2:25

just tell listeners that you

2:27

are sort of like the rabbi

2:30

on the national pork councils

2:32

barbecue contest in so

2:34

far as you are more of a free market

2:36

guy and the ftc is

2:38

not going that way these days and so

2:43

sort of like when they pass around the baby back ribs

2:45

the rabbis just like what can i do

2:48

that sort of your of every have that wrong

2:51

you feel the correct me on that as well

2:53

so let me first speaking with the most important

2:56

disclosure and that his dad

2:59

into all the faculty

3:02

at my alma mater the solomon shifter

3:04

days school of greater boston i have

3:06

not on a pork council so

3:10

i just very clear here there

3:13

early eat at my house and will attack

3:15

the other disclosures i'm obligated

3:18

to make our that has you were alluding to only

3:20

earth i'm just speaking for myself

3:22

important thing is not necessarily reflect

3:25

the of have a policy of the commission as a whole

3:27

and sometimes my colleagues

3:29

there are five of us from the federal trade commission

3:32

one or two or three

3:34

of my colleagues don't agree with me an

3:36

address please understand this is no a phillips talking

3:39

not the whole ftc

3:41

okay so let's see some level setting for

3:43

for listeners who don't know a lot about the ftc

3:46

we should start with the fact

3:49

it was created under the

3:52

this is of the worst president to the twentieth

3:54

century or woodrow wilson

3:56

and , you take it from their shoes

3:59

he opened it's doors

4:02

in drinking

4:03

i'll go back a little bit further

4:06

eighteen ninety

4:08

the congress passed the sherman

4:10

antitrust act

4:12

the and

4:13

may nineteen cans especially

4:16

after the government succeeded

4:18

in breaking up the soda sort of original

4:21

gangster trust of the time

4:23

said royal trust ricky

4:25

martin there was a feeling that

4:28

the government wasn't doing a nice that

4:31

the courts weren't allowing and allowing and

4:33

congress passed a couple a new laws

4:35

underwear the first

4:37

is the clinton it we don't need to belabor that

4:39

right now any other was the fcc

4:41

act which created the federal trade commission

4:43

which is today the longest

4:45

still standing independent agency

4:48

in the us government there's a whole tibet

4:51

soup the s e c of the see

4:54

a t c a d f b or c order

4:56

for it and then we are the federal trade commission

4:58

the fcc little oldest one that's

5:00

still around today so

5:03

retorted doing anti trust

5:06

that period and when we got

5:08

pretty soon a little bit over our skis

5:11

the supreme court knocked us

5:14

down

5:15

case in the nineteen thirties at which

5:17

point congress then gave us what we now

5:19

call consumer protection lot today would be

5:22

can address the and success side

5:24

which is unfair methods of competition

5:26

and we can now actress or six

5:28

hundred ninety three eight wouldn't

5:30

very deceptive practices

5:34

there is the broad rubric under

5:36

which we hadn't done lots of really time we

5:38

issues like data security

5:41

the

5:42

we also over to leave

5:45

little what already from congress should

5:48

expect you to rule making some things like that

5:51

but basically the ftc does anti trust

5:53

which we do with the department of justice

5:55

when we do consumer protection

5:57

you see without much cognizance of the foreshadowing

5:59

i should that are you get these

6:03

the additional little responsibilities

6:05

from congress over time the

6:08

be current debate about the have to see these

6:10

days is sorta like it's the

6:12

opposite of what

6:14

does supreme court is doing right the supreme court is

6:16

saying congress go do your job

6:19

if you want to regulate call factories

6:21

right a law just don't expect the a p

6:23

a to run with whatever they want to do in

6:28

out again for level setting purposes

6:30

i understand why you when won't talk about this but look lena

6:32

khan was a very smart were respected

6:35

for young

6:36

the

6:38

no lawyer ah

6:40

law professor was in a favorite

6:43

of elizabeth warren was made

6:45

the head of the ftc not too long ago about

6:47

a year ago and she

6:50

made she made for herself arguing

6:53

about why we need to break up things like amazon

6:55

and serve changing the anti trust standards

6:57

in america and all that and so

6:59

there are a lot of people amongst

7:02

my tribe let's say i'm not referring

7:04

to the for council people ah

7:08

who's see her not wanting

7:11

to wait for authorization

7:13

from congress the do x

7:15

y or z but the

7:17

doing stuff that she thinks is worthwhile

7:21

you know how fair do you think those

7:23

general characterizations are about

7:27

the ftc exceeding it's authority

7:29

how clearly do use how clear do

7:31

you think that authority is so i think it to

7:33

choose which authority we're talking to

7:36

there is a lot of discussion

7:38

congress in the context of oversight

7:41

the letter is that we frequently get for

7:43

members of congress

7:44

to a lesser extent in the press and certainly

7:47

in the remarks of fcc commissioners

7:50

over the last few years about

7:52

different authorities that we do

7:54

have that we may have

7:56

or

7:57

that would lean in a moment in my view that

7:59

week

8:00

the and

8:01

maybe it's best to start with the last

8:03

one because that's it authority

8:05

that appears not just rhetoric

8:08

not just the letters from congress but actually

8:10

a year ago in the president's executive

8:12

order on competition

8:15

the president biden

8:17

lena was the chair of my agency

8:20

and other standing right behind him

8:22

kind this executive order alaska

8:25

one of the things that the order does

8:27

yeah

8:31

you that acts asks us they're

8:33

different kinds of for the verbiage

8:36

who do competition rulemaking

8:38

been a variety of different

8:40

that's

8:43

just to make competition rules about

8:45

labour it asks us to be competition

8:47

rules about pharmaceuticals about

8:49

devices about privacy their seven

8:52

different areas

8:53

the presidency law

8:58

for the executive branch that

9:00

we can make regulation and

9:02

the theory of the thing was

9:04

concocted in the 1960s

9:07

by fec lawyer who were looking at

9:09

the statute i'm saying to themselves

9:13

nice to bring these cases like we have

9:15

been for fifty years it's

9:18

nice to get these injunctions

9:20

cease and desist the bad conduct that you're doing

9:22

what wouldn't life be easier for us

9:25

federal regulators if we could just make

9:27

rules for the whole it

9:29

it is precisely what they started doing

9:32

in the nineteen sixties

9:33

the precisely what they got a forgive

9:36

me but activists set of judges

9:38

on the dc circuit a bless the

9:40

beach instead

9:42

though the agency was making a bunch

9:44

of was

9:46

based on this kind

9:48

of cryptic text in our statute

9:51

that said you could make rules to effectuate

9:53

your jurisdiction until that point

9:55

everyone thought that was things like husky

9:57

how do we do a peanut how do we

9:59

the commission meeting

10:01

how do we run our administrative court which we

10:03

also we can talk about it later to

10:06

in the sixties again be

10:08

eager beaver lawyers decided life would be better

10:10

if we just have more control over the whole economy

10:14

and they gotta set of judges who said

10:16

something like this

10:18

well

10:19

we're gonna look at the legislative history

10:22

that would be determined like it seventies

10:24

and it's not really clear we

10:27

have a strong policy preference

10:29

as a court to give agencies

10:32

i see and in expanding their regulatory

10:35

the that's what we're gonna

10:37

read that case it's called national

10:39

petroleum refiners said it was written by skelly

10:42

right david basil on some paths

10:44

of these are ya

10:46

real classic not supreme court

10:49

level but activist judges of the road

10:51

to read that case in light of what the supreme

10:53

court did with the play

10:56

what they did with the taxi mandate

10:58

what they did with the affection moratorium

11:01

it oil

11:03

and it seems really inconsistent

11:06

we only ever made one competition

11:08

rules

11:09

it had to do with the critical aspect

11:12

of our society which is

11:14

the boy killed clinton

11:17

at the rule was never enforced and it was withdrawn

11:20

in the idea here

11:22

we're gonna bring back this

11:25

we can not just bring competition

11:28

pieces

11:29

the only have a pretty tasty

11:31

damage

11:32

we also just regulate

11:34

anything that meet you as an

11:37

unfair method of protection and i'm

11:39

what orange

11:40

are you

11:42

that

11:43

to

11:44

no clearer all that the statute

11:47

gives us

11:49

the concerned exacerbated because

11:53

need look look no further than that

11:55

president's executive order to just see how

11:57

broad some people think that our it

12:00

i think it is hard to fully

12:02

than the statute in the we were looking

12:04

at statutes know we're going to have

12:06

a presumption against

12:08

broad unclear greens authority

12:10

the also i think it raises a delegation

12:13

which is it the authority as

12:15

as broad as the president appears to think

12:17

it is this

12:19

raises a question of whether constitutionally

12:21

even if congress didn't

12:24

the give that kind of power to agency

12:27

it that would not support

12:29

with our view of separation of powers today

12:32

no i'm if not outside your belly work but

12:34

it's outside of sort of the scope of this little bit

12:37

the more web advisory opinions

12:39

podcast point than am run

12:41

and one but what

12:45

what what is your take

12:47

on non delegation doctrine arm

12:49

can you i mean i can explain it to our listeners

12:51

but i'm my assumption is he can do it better

12:54

ah i'm i'm

12:56

there was serve go from there

12:58

we just the way that i would express it is

13:00

it's the idea that we should

13:02

this lucky in form of government can be separated

13:05

legislative from the executive

13:08

the judiciary the

13:10

and there is a tweak it which

13:13

the legislator british congress

13:16

you should do all of his job

13:18

okay who would executive

13:21

ages

13:22

the cube see you right

13:25

did you say here's a rule

13:27

we want you to eight

13:29

he was regulation and

13:32

here's some authority which to

13:34

do with it this happens all the time and i

13:36

think that's reasonable enough

13:40

they can do is just say you

13:43

know what

13:44

you can do whatever you

13:47

they were debates the go on in the clerk

13:49

kinda the academy of what level of you

13:51

can do whatever you want permissible

13:54

but i think that's the general idea

13:56

it's the legislature's to legislate

13:59

idiot

13:59

it a branch use to

14:03

so

14:05

you worked on the senate side where i think

14:08

there's still so before you went there

14:10

is a i'm and

14:13

there's still some people on the senate side

14:15

who know how to be this obscure

14:17

thing called legislatures legislate

14:20

tours ah i'm but

14:22

increasingly on the outside it seems like it's

14:25

a it's sort of like old valerian

14:27

game of thrones they just forgot how to do

14:30

what they existed for in the first place and

14:33

we find as find as bit in ai world

14:36

where you know where where

14:38

good faith

14:40

the fear

14:42

the patriotic

14:44

you know congress types

14:46

com doesn't say you know we we talking about the non

14:48

delegation got doctrine for a long time and we

14:51

, to do something about it but we have

14:53

no freaking clue how to do it and

14:55

like and moreover like and

14:57

moreover a second their second order problem

14:59

it's

15:02

not so eight away it's one thing to say how

15:04

do you put then go on all kinds of it's another thing

15:06

to say okay so anything where take our powers back

15:09

we don't know how to legislate you know and there's

15:11

a real sense in which you

15:13

know i'm in is a constant theme on his podcast

15:15

in a that the founding fathers never could have anticipated

15:18

that congress would have voluntarily

15:22

given up it's own added

15:25

he said yeah prerogatives you know

15:28

i wouldn't be a job guardian of it's own power

15:33

one of the process look like mean like if congress

15:35

starts actually legislating things you

15:37

think it's up to the java became alleged they are

15:39

that sort of like the israelites

15:42

in i need to go forty years for a new generation

15:45

because they they can't go into the promised land with

15:48

that old mentality still intact

15:50

there would be the people setting for my dancer

15:54

you alluded to my service on capitol

15:56

hill i worked

15:57

the council and then chief counsel

15:59

open

15:59

the for john cornyn he was the senior senator

16:02

from texas

16:03

the and

16:05

there were a number of years i believe

16:08

certainly at least one

16:10

when i was there i think there have been

16:12

since

16:13

years in which john cornyn was

16:15

the lead sponsor

16:17

more legislation than any other

16:19

member of the

16:21

so he he's a

16:23

person in i worked in an office

16:26

we're getting work done the

16:29

really a trailer

16:30

the live ring for the people of texas

16:32

most of the american people

16:35

there was a priority

16:37

that means a number of

16:40

one thing that it be that a willingness to cover

16:42

because you can't get anything done unless

16:45

you come from it also

16:47

sometimes means are often means

16:50

a willingness to be criticized especially

16:53

when you come from his you open yourself

16:55

up to you're not pure

16:58

not for this isn't everything we want

17:00

sort of any person and you get

17:02

booed at the glp convention in texas

17:04

in as as corn and recently was

17:09

it also means

17:12

to be willing to put a lot of focus because

17:14

it takes a lot to get any piece of legislation

17:17

i'm been fairly small things that maybe whoop

17:20

are you will the

17:22

and if i have it it's

17:25

funny that you mention people coming a day i

17:28

members of congress or people advising members congress

17:30

of how debate the legislate

17:33

known delegation to me the

17:35

most important thing that congress does

17:37

to sort of solving constitutional

17:39

problem that we have is just to

17:41

legislate right we

17:44

all they need to do maybe

17:47

not all they need to do is

17:49

having marine the table the

17:51

delegation problem arises

17:54

when credible

17:56

refused to do it or can't

17:58

compromise

17:59

they just send the agencies

18:02

an instruction

18:03

the do whatever yeah sometimes

18:06

they're not actually doing that and the agencies

18:08

are just taking language doing what

18:12

there's sort of a cousin to non delegations

18:14

which is a constitutional ideas and we call

18:16

it the major questions doctrine right which

18:18

is this court skepticism which

18:20

we saw last week where the agency's

18:22

really appear to be pushing the envelope

18:26

into major questions of

18:28

the regulatory authority to congress clearly

18:30

did

18:32

what interests me with the have to see

18:34

right

18:35

the president's executive order

18:38

an earlier the between

18:40

which in christian

18:42

just your state you if

18:44

their methods could petition

18:47

they were either three important

18:49

things to notice the bush being

18:52

religion before he set the president's

18:54

executive order tix a very broad view

18:56

of what so here you have

18:58

the head of the executive branch the executive himself

19:02

it under article to thinking

19:05

this language means in

19:08

labor

19:09

the places and privacy

19:13

the second issue is one of the first things

19:15

a democratic majority did when

19:18

they got control of the ftc as we had a

19:20

obama era bi curious

19:22

and statement on what are statute

19:24

mint which section five the ftc

19:27

and they pulled it down issued

19:30

guidance so whatever the limits

19:32

on the language or certainly

19:34

the majority who have indicated

19:36

are some of whom it indicated an interest

19:39

in making the rules they're not letting you know

19:41

what can i think that the

19:44

perfect meal which

19:46

is the granddaddy case of the non delegation

19:50

the case involving a national recovery

19:53

national industrial recovery act that shatter

19:55

poultry they

19:58

dragged gave

19:59

a pr

20:01

the power to promulgate codes

20:03

of fair competition

20:05

the

20:07

years that uses couldn't fair with

20:09

it's a competition no one is fair

20:11

and the other is unfair but they're kind of the

20:13

converse the

20:16

court was looking at it the argument

20:18

eighteen thirties they were aware of the ftc

20:22

the time they drew this distinction between

20:24

the a positive and that that

20:27

the codes a fair competition that roosevelt

20:29

was empowered under the enemy or a to promulgate

20:32

what like helping businesses what to do

20:35

where is what the sgc could do

20:37

is to stop them from doing the things that

20:39

belief were unfair methods of competition what's

20:42

critical that in the nineteen

20:44

thirties no one has

20:47

any idea there's

20:49

not a shred of belief to indicate that

20:51

the ftc has regulatory this

20:53

distinction that the court dramas makes a lot

20:56

of sense of all we can do is bring cases

20:58

and get orders that you cease and desist

21:00

the condom and negative power what

21:02

you restore to the nineteen sixties

21:06

can tell businesses what to do the

21:08

distinction falls apart then you

21:10

have a case still

21:13

good luck on the doctrine with

21:15

language in a statute which is almost

21:17

i did the practice to

21:19

the way which we did

21:21

ah

21:23

though i presume the

21:26

your answer to this will be a non answer

21:28

but the

21:31

up to see going to

21:35

the

21:36

running wild with it's own interpretations

21:39

of what it can get away with

21:42

that's that's when the anticipation for

21:45

when a com for a while there's

21:47

a lot of chatter about it doesn't watch at her bum route

21:49

morale problems at the ftc but

21:54

let's just say for the sake of argument in theory

21:57

the ip he started doing a lot of this

22:00

what can you do

22:02

the other than

22:04

play that game where you do the typical triangle

22:06

of paper any make a field

22:09

goal with your with your thumb and your

22:11

index fingers with your other partner and

22:13

n n n play that game

22:15

while the committee

22:17

runs wild

22:19

commission

22:21

sure

22:21

the

22:22

first are we gonna do

22:25

the president has said that he

22:27

wants us to make who

22:31

are be democratic

22:35

commissioners that said that they want to do with

22:38

the chair has written it talked

22:40

about howard important it is we used

22:42

for us to use all the tools and or two bucks

22:44

language like that the i don't think it's

22:47

an unreasonable expectation which

22:49

is part of why i mean frankly i was talking

22:51

about it when the republicans were in charge because the

22:53

idea because to luckily

22:56

the i think the likelihood of

22:58

the thing is increasing the

23:00

democratic let

23:03

me get to what i can do about it

23:05

a minute

23:07

let me also plan to other every the so

23:09

we've been talking about the idea that you can

23:11

bake request regulations

23:14

in just for the listeners who aren't lawyers

23:16

or don't practice stuff we did you pay

23:18

for for the united states for

23:21

rural hundred and thirty years the

23:24

story economic regulation goes

23:26

this is old stuff that have

23:28

some common carriage we have an antitrust

23:30

law he never

23:33

other than the men and boys taylor floating

23:35

rule which we never enforced never

23:39

been done by regulation it's

23:41

always been cases in some

23:44

of them a private litigation summer and government

23:46

litigation by litigation o j or ftc or state

23:48

attorneys general but never but never

23:51

a hundred and thirty two years

23:53

we don't antitrust regulation

23:55

like regular so this is the

23:58

the like the phrases over you

24:00

the and paradigm shift with if

24:03

we apply

24:06

this aspect or

24:08

economic regulation it shows you what

24:10

a bubble we both live in that i could

24:12

think that cooney and paradigm shift

24:14

is an overuse term to because i don't

24:16

think it is in most people's daily lives

24:19

but

24:20

anyway got perhaps too

24:23

much time reading academic articles but

24:25

the number of claims that academics credit

24:27

themselves with shifting paradigms just

24:29

really just really yeah

24:31

what was the i think the video republic

24:33

headline and when app pinkerton

24:36

was doing autism

24:38

up in the first bush white house about paradigm shifts

24:40

and i think it was the new

24:42

republic and line was brother can you paradigm

24:45

anyway , that's

24:47

good specific

24:50

the to other areas worth watching someone

24:53

sticking on the into a trustee is

24:55

whether you're doing it by regulation

24:57

or good the share in

24:59

the majority of definitely a news a

25:01

much more the

25:04

to be non judgmental him but

25:07

, cleaned of conduct that might trigger

25:09

liabilities under the antitrust

25:12

and for scholarships has scholarships lot to do with heard

25:15

you have the courts limiting

25:17

too much like what

25:19

we can take the bobby can start

25:22

what we could penalized the

25:24

and which was looks so number one

25:27

authority to i don't think exists

25:31

and certainly isn't that brought number two

25:33

a much more broad authority of

25:35

what anyone writing for years

25:37

ago would have said the antitrust laws apply

25:39

to those problems compound one the

25:43

third day which is not antitrust in

25:45

also worth watching because we've

25:47

announced in filings with congress

25:49

was we intend to pick

25:52

we also have clearer

25:55

the war

25:56

we're authority to make some rules

25:58

on a consumer protections

26:00

that will wind a little bit to the

26:02

case i was talking about with skill the right

26:04

in there is a little and where they

26:06

blessed are rulemaking authority

26:09

right after that congress passed a law

26:12

that said okay

26:13

u f t c when you're making

26:15

these consumer protection

26:18

you have to go through extra it's

26:20

not just a p a administrative procedures

26:23

act rulemaking you have to do

26:26

additional documents you

26:28

have to be extra shillings you

26:30

have to notify congress

26:32

because we're a little worried you're gonna go too

26:34

far the and one

26:37

of the things that we the new skin filings

26:39

to congress is that we may make a walk inserting

26:41

commercial survey which is like another

26:43

new wave saying what most of us

26:45

used to call price

26:47

you

26:49

the trick here is going to be by the

26:51

rule making authority is clearly there in the statue

26:54

no limits are not into

26:56

the weekend only regulate are condemned what

26:58

we've you as unfair or deceptive exit

27:01

practices and so the ftc

27:03

henry is poised to try to

27:06

condemn a lot more conduct that we have

27:08

in the past

27:09

possibly conduct that exceeds

27:12

where i think or statute let us

27:14

get okay so i probably

27:16

spent too much time and

27:18

i went all my fault on

27:20

processing procedure rather

27:22

than policy itself let's

27:25

assume you guys have the authorization

27:27

to do what you're gonna do right let's assume

27:30

that

27:32

congress

27:33

my do it first right there's

27:37

this amy klobuchar our tax

27:39

bill that wants to get rid of

27:42

the with what's called self

27:44

preferences i'm

27:47

which is basically like so google can't

27:49

have google maps show

27:51

up if you're searching for something first a

27:53

or of the the example that

27:55

i think as as politically fraught is amazon

27:58

might not be able to offer am the prime

28:00

anymore or amazon might

28:03

not be able to offer

28:06

the

28:07

it's own products in the amazon

28:09

marketplace give them preference in

28:11

their results within an hour amazon

28:13

search

28:16

m let me go up a jar

28:18

and i think grassley the

28:20

grassley want to get rid of all of this

28:22

and zip code good six all of this

28:25

and move away and there's a there's a broader

28:27

push to move

28:29

away from the old stand or of consumer

28:32

protection or consumer welfare towards

28:35

what literally some people call

28:39

what is it

28:41

hipster

28:42

surrender trust hipster antitrust

28:44

that's right arm or neo brands

28:46

in islam while

28:50

you sort of explain what that viewers

28:52

regardless of how it affects the f t c b

28:54

just sort of what is the argument behind

28:56

moving away from consumer welfare

28:59

towards this other thing and thing

29:01

what does that look like

29:03

the be argument

29:06

which is not minority but the argument

29:08

that people

29:12

different people make it different ways

29:15

the first one in particular

29:17

as interpreted by the courts

29:20

they moved away from the it's

29:23

political impetus

29:26

historically speaking which

29:28

is why i think a lot of the reformers

29:30

would call anti monopoly

29:33

like you mean for

29:35

what they say this isn't just opposition

29:37

to probably it's like a trusted voted

29:40

for sure animated the anti

29:42

trust

29:43

sherman anti trust

29:47

but

29:48

the big corporations and their place

29:50

in american society the

29:54

the view of the reformers and people

29:56

can quibble with my characterization or to

29:58

my best

30:00

negative impacts

30:03

across the spectrum

30:05

democracy

30:08

what it is a big corporations have the power of big

30:10

corporations has her

30:12

democracy there too powerful political

30:16

the figures for labor

30:19

they think it has increased

30:22

inequality that's actually not that new

30:24

in origin of as an argument

30:26

two people were thinking

30:28

a lot about quite some time he got me get

30:30

it apart century

30:33

they also had an orange image

30:35

which i think is less well grounded

30:38

then it

30:41

schumer is also have been hurt it is

30:43

an ironic argument if your goal is

30:45

to kick the focus of consumers

30:49

what are they or doing against

30:56

certainly into the seventies

30:59

we trust law was kind of achievements

31:02

there was a joke that like

31:05

if you charge a higher price

31:07

like that was a monopoly rent if

31:10

you charged a lower price that was predatory

31:12

pricing and if you charge the same

31:14

price you were colluding so

31:16

for a lot of businesses with

31:19

what you could do and what you couldn't was

31:23

in this is not remotely limited

31:25

to the most famously expounded

31:27

upon by robert bork in a book that

31:29

he publishes copy in texas parrot

31:32

the load of the things that the government

31:34

was working to content

31:40

should be really

31:42

if you company with a lower

31:45

cost of production lower your

31:47

price efforts you're right

31:50

the bet that puts a business that

31:52

doesn't have the same efficiencies that it can

31:54

use drop prices but it's good

31:56

for people

31:57

a good it's good for americans who are percent

31:59

the money on consumer products and healthcare

32:02

for all the other things we spend money

32:04

it is not an accident

32:06

that the evaluation with a reevaluation

32:09

of a lot of conduct that course had condemned

32:12

the government had tried to condemn

32:14

the

32:15

the period to look at what is the effects

32:17

of his conduct happened at a time

32:19

when we have really high inflation

32:22

people were concerned

32:25

that interest rates are

32:27

high in people couldn't afford life

32:29

of course effort the bullshit for

32:31

people with the least

32:33

then you're seeing now

32:34

the practical impact political impact

32:37

of a lower level of inflation believe that

32:41

it's also not an accident

32:43

the lot of bees reform arguments come

32:45

up in the context of

32:48

the any particular mostly

32:50

although not entirely zero price markets

32:53

the people who are concerned about are

32:55

we spotting the problems that may

32:57

arise in zero price market would

32:59

explain what to do you know price murkiness

33:01

sure it's a market where you get the thing for free we

33:05

prefer you get access to that

33:07

out that browser or whatever

33:10

yeah maybe you could put them for paying

33:12

some data but you're not spending cash

33:14

sort of like walgreens in san francisco with

33:16

shoplifting some know i've ever

33:19

dollars yeah so

33:23

people are focused preoccupied

33:25

even with zero price markets the

33:28

conversation begin to find have low inflation

33:31

okay but now we have really high

33:33

inflation in one of the things that i have

33:35

been

33:37

lox finance is in desert you crying

33:40

out into the wilderness about wait

33:43

a minute if we're gonna pit it

33:46

the matter of enforcement read and will make

33:48

you might be we're talking about before

33:49

why do we want a pivot to higher prices

33:52

at a time when we have

33:54

in my life historic inflation

33:57

what the wrong time to do

34:02

hum of the conversation

34:04

is it people act as if there's

34:07

a free lunch like that there are no training if

34:10

we start allowing the government or private

34:12

parties to condemn conducted

34:14

benefit consumers one thing

34:16

that's gonna happen the consumer

34:19

will be benefited as much if

34:22

you start spending the time to this is confirm

34:24

with course say sixteen

34:26

a small businesses

34:28

the

34:29

the be over there are clipped there

34:31

is good if it is illegal in that

34:33

small businesses

34:37

when the age and fifteen gated we should be on

34:39

have like white on rice back

34:41

when you're just worried about does this

34:43

give you a competitive advantage we

34:45

forget the elder work it works

34:48

you probably you get a benefit

34:51

to supplying people more of what they better

34:54

version of what they want for what they want cheaper

35:00

the reminded me i i i was

35:02

talking to a friend of mine that

35:04

are you going to come on okay out as

35:06

read it but i won't disclose it is because that another i'm supposed

35:08

to disclose he says

35:12

if he wanted to go mehta excuse the pun

35:14

a question i've always kind of want to know the

35:16

answer to from a market sympathizing

35:19

anti trust practitioner is

35:22

perspective

35:23

does any of it matter

35:26

i mean we exhaust all this energy debating

35:28

whether some conduct that might be anti

35:30

competitive could be squeezed out through

35:33

these cases to make consumers slightly

35:35

better off then as we are

35:37

all arguing over that with expensive lawyers

35:39

and presenting their cases new products

35:41

come along that usurp the market entirely

35:44

in terms of creative destruction think microsoft

35:47

internet explorer with chrome kodak

35:49

with digital cameras etc antitrust

35:51

by definition can't really account for that

35:53

unpredictable margin of competition it's

35:56

clearly the thing that disciplines

35:58

businesses the most overtime

35:59

the

36:00

though is anti trust the

36:03

anti trust just a complete waste of time

36:06

i like to question for reasons other's clothes in a minute but

36:08

it's it's it's the gonna do

36:10

the watch

36:11

i think the answer is

36:13

no

36:14

i trust is not just a big waste of time

36:16

let me expand on that little bits

36:18

of for similar buried in the question

36:21

i thought i heard a concession

36:23

that it wanted to waste of time

36:25

the cruise i thought the question

36:27

was asking about the impact been big overtime

36:29

other maybe he meant the working there

36:32

, signs of example example

36:35

settle course we

36:38

shrug

36:40

the company in his associate

36:42

a formal bread

36:44

creativity evil scheme

36:46

to prevent

36:49

the by access to a drug and then prevent

36:51

competition from the will was he doing

36:53

i mean to simplify a little first

36:56

the boys the drug and the drug isn't patent

36:58

so there's no like beagle monopoly that he can

37:00

use to raise the prices which is a system

37:03

the boy on exclusive access

37:06

to all of the stuff that you need what

37:08

because the a p i a to make

37:10

the drugs

37:11

then he entered into contracts

37:14

with the parties to whom he would sell the drugged

37:16

up with marketing the drugs to prevent them

37:18

from getting access to the data

37:21

to other drug companies which is how

37:23

the company spot the market opportunities

37:25

that invites the entry in a competition

37:27

but we all the conduct in question

37:30

had no

37:31

it

37:33

and it seemed pretty clear to me

37:36

that was anti competitive and we would

37:38

of course i think

37:40

we

37:41

the boring

37:43

the company from doing what it was doing

37:45

we will never see

37:46

maybe even lower the price for get a better

37:48

pieces but most importantly we'll

37:50

see entry

37:52

the will see that

37:53

market or

37:55

the competition deliver a lower

37:57

cost the ever good the people

37:59

the

37:59

the road

38:01

i think that's a good answer and i'm i'm i'm

38:03

i'm with the on and

38:06

i don't think it's the big of a perfectly

38:08

good the answer to

38:11

the rod version

38:13

the hop the the the bold version of

38:15

the question like doesn't matter at all right

38:18

because you can pinpoint these

38:22

small i was his motive is the people needed

38:24

a drug really needed a drug right but like i'm

38:27

who's a good teaching example where

38:29

are you pick up some really crappy bad

38:31

actor and rome against the wall because he deserves

38:34

it for doing something that he

38:36

thought he get away with within the confines of the

38:38

law and i'm with you on that the

38:41

read i like to question is is is

38:43

was there's no i'm a shumpert or stan and

38:46

one of the points that somebody makes is is

38:48

that the real

38:51

monopoly mean like true

38:53

not mean i

38:56

i don't want to use are real monopoly with putting

38:58

the with you because you're right if you have a patent

39:00

on something you have a monopoly on this thing

39:02

but a sort of a difference between a monopoly

39:04

on us on and on a narrow specific

39:07

product versus a monopoly

39:09

on a sector of the economy in a sense

39:11

and what shoppers point was was that

39:14

you really can't prevent

39:15

monopolies they're gonna

39:17

happen from time to time and they're nothing

39:19

to worry about so long as state

39:22

power doesn't come in

39:24

and protect their monopoly

39:27

instantiated in the marketplace with

39:30

with legal protections that

39:32

make it impossible to outcompete

39:35

it that's what the a that's what agency

39:37

had and the classic period rights there's a time

39:39

when the phone company or the railroads have

39:42

the power of government up their back to

39:44

prevent innovators from

39:47

from from beating them and that

39:50

skill it's not obvious to me that

39:52

anti trust is all that

39:54

valuable i mean but what do you think short

39:57

facilities if you

39:58

the number

39:59

the

40:01

absolutely true love

40:03

my big concerns with pivot in the last

40:06

few years is the fcc has actually

40:08

done great work overtime dealing with governments

40:11

you're giving companies protection

40:14

from competition like states and

40:16

hospitals where you see real competition

40:20

the number one similar is absolutely

40:23

right

40:24

the worst kind of monopoly

40:26

is a monopoly that competition kid

40:28

ever been seat because it's not legal

40:32

do the point about

40:35

creative destruction schumpeterian

40:37

competition

40:38

do you think if you look

40:40

the history of antitrust

40:43

the reading of that history includes

40:46

you have to be is of a

40:48

government chasing after monopolies

40:51

in particular politically powerful

40:54

than up his

40:56

then you spend a lot of money

40:58

the only

41:00

uribe end of it

41:03

so we have

41:05

seen that story and if you look

41:07

today and you know

41:10

the car companies in the u

41:12

s we're we couldn't ever

41:14

be competed against and then hit

41:16

of we lived with an entity isn't of toyota's

41:18

was partly parker if

41:21

you look at some of the tech companies of

41:23

yesteryear idea what you

41:25

see is that the markets

41:27

change over time in some of

41:30

the korean door efforts by and texas

41:32

authorities that are that at the time of

41:34

very politically popular you've got lots

41:36

of complaining businesses that get power

41:39

on capitol hill and this is so awful maybe

41:42

end of the this is added

41:44

more than once the market

41:46

has evolved recruiter doesn't right

41:49

think what we need to do

41:51

with antitrust enforcers is

41:54

have

41:55

based on in history

41:56

inadequate dose of humility

41:59

about aura

41:59

the to predict how markets are go

42:02

into a ball

42:03

the do things you pateria in competition

42:05

is real

42:07

the competition

42:09

would you do it that reduces our role to zero

42:11

and i do want to kind of counter the question

42:14

or with the

42:16

if you have a merger

42:18

the woman the reason for concern

42:20

if you think it's eliminating a creative competition

42:23

and the fact that it's a monopoly of you think it's

42:25

a monopoly probably

42:27

going to satan at concerts and the law

42:29

actually reflects that and not just with

42:32

respect to murders there are times when

42:34

if i trust law will condemn conduct

42:36

only if the know that is where it

42:38

wouldn't condemn it the company

42:41

that was subject to an adequate amount of competition

42:43

because the impact of that is just of can be seen

42:46

the ability of that group the need a kid can

42:48

fill out of the competition is a can get sick let

42:51

me go back to that legislation we're talking about

42:53

because i think this is a have been mentioned before

42:56

in the sixties and seventies antitrust

42:58

law to

43:01

it it one of the to the big change

43:03

was we were going to look at things that people just

43:05

said was bad and evaluate what

43:08

in fact

43:09

course moved from presumptive

43:11

liability which was a be attached to things

43:13

like market division or price fixing

43:16

to what we call the ruling reason

43:18

which is actually ironically justice brandeis

43:21

her which is doing a really careful

43:23

look at what is this kind of

43:25

in the market in which it's second

43:27

place in what does it effect

43:30

the and

43:31

what we learned a lot of things that we were condemning

43:33

worried always so let me go back to self

43:35

preference

43:37

the bills as

43:39

we think self referencing

43:41

as bad general you

43:44

wouldn't be no their self referencing everywhere

43:46

the economy you go to costco and they've got the

43:48

kirkland product in a better

43:50

position for you to buy in

43:52

the more expensive thing that they're sativa

43:55

their shots they are preferences their own

43:57

private label product that the bill says is

44:00

we haven't determined this is bad we just

44:02

want a few companies for if in particular

44:04

not to be able to do

44:06

various

44:08

to with an american tradition

44:10

that says we want to check people that be

44:12

perceived as power

44:13

the new to be perceived powerful with apologies

44:16

to canada romney

44:18

that's wouldn't view of what we want to be doing

44:20

a concern at raises his if you haven't

44:23

laid the groundwork for the conduct is bad

44:25

there were two things you do you're

44:28

making rules that say you can do it

44:30

but you can and and that's kind

44:32

of unfair for her and second what

44:34

you're doing is you're taking conduct that

44:36

is potentially beneficial

44:38

the in your presumptive li condemning

44:41

they're also giving regulators like me a lot

44:43

of power and discretion but that sort

44:45

of the side conversation which brings us

44:47

back to what we were talking about earlier

44:49

the and really worry usually

44:53

with legislation and regulation

44:56

whatever the impact a lasting

44:58

impact of lawsuits in investigations

45:00

are you man enough for me that by

45:02

a lot

45:03

you right

45:05

getting rid of a law is really really hard

45:07

so i think in this context you want to be especially

45:10

yeah but i will admit that if i

45:12

were czar i would punish certain forms

45:14

of self referencing i am

45:17

i think the best supermarket chain at least up until that

45:19

three years ago the i say was wegmans

45:22

the like wegmans a lot

45:24

they're coming to your neighborhood soon i know they

45:26

are but

45:27

the problem is that wegmans now doesn't

45:29

enormous amount of self reference and where

45:32

everything's wegmans brand this wegmans

45:34

brand that and i'm not saying that the wegmans

45:37

brand is necessarily bad but

45:39

i actually like the old style of having

45:41

a different a broader array choices

45:44

a products that weren't made by in our

45:47

wegmans which we all know ah

45:49

his own by the shine hardwick company i

45:51

can't i can't it's a thirty rock joke but i'm

45:54

ah and in in whole foods does

45:56

the same thing now and it's it's a huge trend

45:59

and set mean i was either so to same way

46:02

i wish that there were better market signals to say

46:04

stop doing it i don't know that i want

46:06

the federal government to come in

46:08

and say you can't do this the

46:11

even though i'm sure there are some

46:13

small

46:14

producers

46:16

the been screwed by this writer david crowded

46:18

out like helmand mayonnaise is gonna make

46:20

the shells it might be on a near

46:22

the floor where the wegmans mayonnaise

46:24

is at all levels but some

46:26

you know small startup

46:29

boutique occasional mail company

46:32

they're not gonna get on the shelves at all and

46:34

and i feel bad for them i just

46:36

don't know that i mean you

46:38

are wise and powerful man i

46:40

don't know that your judgment on who

46:43

should be carrying what mail

46:44

should replace the owners of the companies

46:47

so i think that's sector

46:49

because my point isn't that also referencing

46:51

is good right what i would and

46:54

though is that there is another trade off

46:56

one of the reasons that people end

46:58

up buying a store bring and

47:00

as opposed to the brand

47:02

would you write off it is like you

47:05

hear your unilever

47:07

right

47:08

the big companies

47:10

my the ram jack corporation yeah

47:13

v the price

47:15

of the store brand is cheaper really

47:19

important i do work

47:21

us that regulators legislators

47:25

commentators bloggers whomever to

47:27

lose sight of just how important

47:30

i don't know about a typical male i

47:32

don't need around it but i just became demanded

47:34

a suspicious about

47:37

you know there used to be this lovely

47:39

really charming

47:41

we still lives across to where i used to live on capitol

47:43

hill yeah

47:46

people degas uh-huh did they sold

47:48

milk for seven dollars it

47:50

was really good and a with massage

47:53

the cows and he would meet the standards set

47:55

out import landrieu for ordering your

47:57

chicken as a get stuff from that

47:59

store later

47:59

the we go

48:01

or to know these privileges

48:03

there was super smith

48:05

and that's fair is a concern to

48:07

have i want those products on the work

48:09

is too but the preference

48:12

of a lot of people

48:14

the particular people with fewer means

48:16

for things that are cheap it's something

48:18

that i think we need to recognize has

48:20

a very sound basis

48:22

surly for consumer welfare there

48:24

are few things that matter more than affordability

48:27

i think that's turks are perfectly fair

48:29

point but

48:31

certainly certainly

48:35

so we kind of back into this because

48:38

the original plan in my head i don't think i shared it with

48:40

you with actually taught us that

48:43

i talk to you about that i listened to talk about

48:45

before which is this big

48:47

text us i don't want to the

48:49

judge your remarks but you at a point that

48:52

i've been using ever since i'm

48:54

about how our definition of big tech

48:56

need some work some what do we start their

48:59

what is or what is not big tech

49:02

the wonderful

49:04

reprinting in congress with

49:08

, with with line in

49:10

users and market capitalization

49:12

and he said of pressure six hundred

49:14

billion dollars

49:15

the boy be definition of big cat

49:18

the middle

49:21

what matters much smaller make them to the

49:23

others microsoft

49:26

google and amazon

49:28

i'm sorry for google

49:31

that big check the definition

49:33

of those bills underpaid the

49:35

really good proxy for what a lot of people

49:38

are talking how many talk about it to

49:41

him

49:42

you will hear words like gatekeeper

49:45

or platform

49:48

all of those companies are in a sense to keepers

49:51

different things they all platforms

49:54

recruiter platforms but by

49:56

no means or a gatekeeper and platform

49:59

probably

49:59

we the company those

50:02

are words that a plane lots of companies in

50:04

the economy so that's not a to recently

50:07

additionally the other funny thing

50:09

about that grouping we talked about

50:11

number of users are capitalization

50:14

levy's are businesses that are very good

50:18

the amazon doesn't look anything

50:20

like apple doesn't look anything like

50:23

user is different companies now amazon

50:25

is growing and online advertising apple

50:28

is growing an online advertising better

50:30

has a huge presence

50:32

google which is a subsidiary of apple

50:34

execute the alphabet has a huge presence as

50:36

well so there are some things that

50:38

connect these companies but mostly

50:41

you know if you look at like where they're making their

50:43

money

50:44

a murder generating revenue

50:46

or property these are different

50:49

kinds of businesses and it's a little odd

50:51

at least in my view to have one

50:53

kind of regulation not for

50:55

a kind of business conduct and not even

50:57

for the industry but like i

51:00

said of companies that we define

51:02

a similar because of the number of people

51:04

who use them the popularity

51:06

the on

51:07

the market capitalization goes

51:09

up it now a joke

51:12

that matter has fallen below the

51:14

threshold now it's a to your average

51:16

but minute has been below the six

51:18

hundred billion dollar threshold the

51:21

thing that strikes me a bubble defining

51:23

picture you

51:25

will see for instance people in our

51:27

tribe or to pull tried

51:30

the other tribe refer

51:32

to companies that are different from is

51:34

a much smaller this pic

51:37

of you will see people them twitter

51:39

is big check i'm being censored by twitter

51:41

i am being censored by picked

51:44

the point i'm making isn't that you're not being censored

51:46

by twitter

51:47

or whatever it's just it's twitter is

51:49

a much smaller com

51:51

similarities in

51:53

some differences with some of these competes

51:56

with a have a news feed just like peaceful cousin

51:58

who's feet or instagram

51:59

and they make money on advertising

52:02

what they're missing like microsoft

52:06

what i ended to observe

52:09

even with company smaller the twitter and twitter is

52:11

much smaller i market capitalization

52:13

if any of the companies were just discussing

52:16

you

52:17

people you big tech off into mean technology

52:20

company that i don't like so

52:22

you

52:22

will say oh i don't like what they're doing cause

52:24

big ten

52:26

you know because be kept the desert big companies

52:29

doing something i don't like their a big tech for

52:31

the it's twitter is ubiquitous especially

52:33

in washington other not so ubiquitous as

52:37

since it's big but i don't

52:39

know that the phrase has carries a lot

52:41

of meaning people will just a big

52:43

tech is doing something big

52:45

tech companies are doing things that we're really

52:48

concerned about

52:49

open during the conduct

52:51

in question and will give an example with mommy

52:53

is by no means limited to pick

52:56

the we gonna do legislation over gonna

52:58

do regulation we need to have been an

53:00

assist that isn't based on a definition

53:03

which is really not at all ill that

53:06

the review

53:07

you will see rookie the would

53:10

bury their editorialist in the journal

53:12

and she can post and the new york times and

53:14

so forth talk about the privacy horns

53:16

the big tech is the sure

53:18

there are real privacy concerns if you

53:20

think those are the will be companies right

53:23

i'm getting into trouble for privacy things or

53:25

doing the things they are doing the implicate

53:28

pride seats i have a bridge in brooklyn to

53:30

sell them because gathering

53:32

data and selling as using

53:34

those data

53:35

making money trying to keep people on

53:37

your app house of companies

53:39

in the us or two weeks if not

53:42

if we're going to do smart regulation

53:45

we need to have a coherent sense of what

53:47

is the problem

53:49

to pick it helps just to think about companies

53:52

i don't like for some reason

53:54

there's also the i really which is a

53:56

lot of the problems people think they're solving

53:59

hard

53:59

probably going to be solved with anthrax

54:02

the breached is the way conservatives

54:04

get treated are willing isn't clearly

54:07

a manifestation of monopoly

54:09

you'd be companies like twitter which

54:11

are clearly not with

54:14

clearly not monopolies also engaging

54:17

in the same kinda

54:18

who doesn't make a lot of sense to save face of

54:20

whom he gets away with that because it's

54:23

what we have and i got into a colloquially

54:25

hearing with jim jordan about as

54:29

what you had is the problem the fix

54:31

dealing with content moderation

54:33

it scale one we do

54:35

we get everyone in the world a week

54:38

creates a lot of problems in

54:41

trying to solve those problems itself creates

54:43

a second set up from and up a lot

54:45

of what we're debating the states

54:47

the day is also but they're debating in europe

54:49

and legislate on

54:51

that you will see people say i have a

54:53

problem with this

54:55

i would slap the company like that

54:57

and sorry for the visual i got my hands

55:00

different places

55:01

it's not clear to me that some of the solutions

55:03

from accounting or even remotely

55:06

kind

55:07

solving the problem it cost you

55:09

have to me it's it's very much like i'm pagan

55:11

i have the i carry know bruce four

55:14

metre if you can make an argument

55:16

for breaking it up that's consistent with you

55:18

know sound principal and benefits

55:20

the society i'm open to it happening

55:22

with all these places because , a happy that

55:24

someone by twitter i've ever really happy to have

55:26

elon musk by twitter and then flush it down the toilet

55:29

even though i would lose you know that three

55:32

hundred and something thousand followers soviet

55:34

i'm getting to it is bad for everybody but

55:37

to me it's sort of like when people say

55:39

oh we have to breakup facebook because of conservatives

55:43

being censored or whatever i'm like

55:45

okay so harvard's

55:47

has lots of bad opinions and does lots of

55:49

bad things if we split harvard

55:51

into when we get

55:53

like good harvard and bad harvard or

55:55

we just through mitosis get to

55:57

harvard's if you split facebook

56:00

into a bunch of little twitters

56:02

you get a bunch of you still have the say all the same

56:04

issues you just don't have it at the same

56:07

scale and you create some friction and

56:09

costs for these actors but

56:12

no it's it's

56:15

the dirt there's this vengeful sort

56:17

of punitive thing that's gone

56:19

on and so much of the talk about big tech that

56:21

has little to do with actually solving

56:24

the problems that i do think exists

56:26

what's really important points and the first

56:28

is the one you just need and or just a joke

56:30

which is

56:32

a lot of

56:34

the provides the political support

56:36

for some of the changes

56:38

be

56:40

inserting a personal or or adopting

56:42

a laws would have you isn't to

56:44

do with a problem that the legislation

56:47

with people

56:48

the trying to address it's not clear that stems

56:51

from monopoly power it

56:53

really unclear how the solutions a question

56:56

solve the problem there are smaller tech companies

56:58

that are also doing things the conservatives just

57:01

not when i and they would continue to if they got to be

57:04

the size a minute by minute know

57:06

is there's a there's a logic from with you

57:08

it's a little bit like the didn't underpants gnomes

57:10

or whatever how are we getting from taking

57:13

the underpins to trust

57:14

it's really unclear what thinks

57:16

the to other than will show them that

57:18

were match but okay the guys

57:21

are bad too

57:22

they're mad at the content was up in the first place

57:25

so how

57:27

you get from a to see is not

57:29

clear also rethink this is important

57:32

the word didn't get to reflect

57:35

my kid of the net desire have lots

57:37

of different people

57:40

it's not clear that what we have here is a

57:42

market problem so much as another

57:45

let me make a second point though which i think is really

57:47

important this get us back to somebody antitrust

57:50

reform

57:51

one of the things that some

57:53

conservatives a lot of liberals

57:55

have normalized su

57:58

the first

58:03

it should be afraid of country

58:06

we don't think about securities law display

58:08

really this way

58:11

they could mobilize the idea

58:13

if you don't like a company is i trusted

58:15

rapids regular

58:17

they donated

58:20

they don't know that that's ever been right immediate

58:24

the legislators that adopted the laws

58:26

were

58:26

will the candidate and eighty ninety

58:29

were pissed about little buddy a particular

58:31

it a bit uneasy

58:32

the royal other trust

58:34

i don't know that that and since the law as a

58:36

could

58:38

the person with everything is that i

58:40

think these sort of sold the idea that

58:42

if we had a more antitrust however

58:44

that might look you would see better

58:47

outcomes even though people disagree

58:49

in a pool or passion about

58:51

what those outcomes ought to be a

58:53

man i submitted and look

58:56

we're protecting but anti trust is

58:58

competition

58:59

the iraqi seekers the statue says

59:02

competition

59:04

competition doesn't always yield everything

59:06

you want to pyramid a get off

59:08

what would a free very good if

59:11

you think the market is it going to produce

59:14

they got in the argue differently

59:17

the whole argument regulation

59:19

the lyric it is not going to give

59:21

us you for listening in recovery

59:23

production deputy

59:26

it's not going to give

59:28

right that we want them to

59:30

have you name the regulations the

59:32

theory behind it is a failure

59:35

there's an externality produce

59:38

you are view

59:40

or anything privacy

59:42

bias against conservatives you name it

59:45

competition is it going to salt

59:47

that's the premise of the were belief

59:49

and so on wall the purpose of which is to protect

59:52

competition i don't think that's debatable is

59:54

not going to selfies

59:56

then we normalize this view that

59:58

if we just antitrust

59:59

the little more all the problems will

1:00:02

go away sir tim wu was like

1:00:04

oh the medical devices in the pandemic

1:00:07

don't have them because

1:00:08

lack of anti trusts beaches don't think

1:00:11

it holds that at any levels

1:00:14

now to interesting point and it's

1:00:17

the one i wrestle with a

1:00:19

good deal because in a what has

1:00:21

to lot thumbs and loves the free market this

1:00:23

guy but at the same time

1:00:25

the free market is

1:00:28

in a real and serious in not

1:00:31

glib way the government

1:00:33

program

1:00:34

the

1:00:36

you know sort of philosophical sense that that

1:00:39

it requires you know it's

1:00:41

it's it's my standard metaphor of the

1:00:43

birkin english garden right you

1:00:45

duty awarded the keep

1:00:48

make sure that things function the way they're supposed

1:00:50

to function and obviously i

1:00:53

want a much less activists warden than

1:00:56

somebody else does but i'm

1:00:59

in a your point about scroll he is a perfectly good one

1:01:01

your point about you know i'm be externalities

1:01:03

pollution externalities think is a perfectly valid one as

1:01:06

well as that there are places where the government

1:01:08

is come in and and it's an interesting way of framing

1:01:10

it is that that's are like

1:01:13

my friend ron bailey one explain

1:01:15

to me twenty five years ago the whole

1:01:17

point of contracts is disk explain

1:01:19

how you can get out of them we all think of contractors

1:01:21

these binding things we talk about the contract as a

1:01:23

binding thing but a contract

1:01:25

that is four hundred pages long

1:01:28

there's basically three hundred and ninety nine

1:01:30

pages of explanations about how you can get

1:01:33

out of it figure if it was

1:01:35

truly a binding thing it's are like a real

1:01:37

free trade agreement with mexico would be there

1:01:39

will be free trade am but

1:01:41

when you apps six thousand pages the

1:01:44

free trade agreement it's all the exceptions that you're talking

1:01:46

about and how they'll be implemented are not implemented

1:01:49

in whatever and i think you point about regulation is

1:01:51

a good one is that the regulator comes

1:01:53

in when the market isn't doing what

1:01:56

i'm we want them we would prefer

1:01:58

the market today

1:01:59

that said

1:02:01

very often the market does things

1:02:04

that

1:02:06

are better for society then the

1:02:09

the preferences that the regulator would

1:02:11

put in it's place and

1:02:14

here you get into all the public choice theory

1:02:17

and and regulatory capture statham

1:02:19

in my colleague scotland

1:02:21

to come would at

1:02:24

would throw a handmade nacho at me if i didn't

1:02:26

mention things like the jones act where

1:02:28

that regulation is not for the

1:02:30

betterment of all of society the beggar

1:02:33

that that is for a handful of stakeholders

1:02:35

who

1:02:36

benefit from a reduction in competition in

1:02:38

a reduction in trade because they're the

1:02:40

bottleneck and so therefore they get to exact

1:02:42

rents from that policy

1:02:44

and i get the question is

1:02:47

assuming you agree with me one extent or any

1:02:50

other what is

1:02:52

the what is the heuristic what is the way

1:02:54

a regulator the sides

1:02:57

when the trade offs

1:02:59

are such that regulation as require

1:03:02

the i think this brings us back

1:03:04

the most important to where we started

1:03:07

you made your questions and delegation

1:03:10

we're going to make his

1:03:12

to substitute

1:03:16

regulation

1:03:17

as a result competition with regulation

1:03:20

to reduce the amount

1:03:22

of competition that we have

1:03:25

the freedom of people to make their choices

1:03:27

in the freedom affirms to satisfy those

1:03:29

designers

1:03:31

the legislature is the best place to

1:03:34

the new you know the jews act is a

1:03:36

law

1:03:38

course the legislature is impacted

1:03:40

by

1:03:41

all the concerns for we have in public choice

1:03:43

theory

1:03:44

which were regulators

1:03:47

then there's a lot to be said for the fact

1:03:49

that it's before her to get things done

1:03:51

in the legislature the level of social

1:03:53

consensus you need to displease

1:03:56

competition is much greater

1:03:58

the be here fire legislate

1:03:59

when it is the fire easier to find their

1:04:02

grandson

1:04:02

the alone the executor

1:04:05

, all

1:04:07

you need or three votes

1:04:11

the federal trade commission the radio emission

1:04:13

majority that i can

1:04:15

tell you from personal experience i will get into

1:04:17

specifics but the amount of time spent

1:04:20

with last for plus

1:04:22

years listening to companies

1:04:24

come in and say can you go beat

1:04:26

up that guy

1:04:27

it would make my like that and i

1:04:30

can't

1:04:31

do was too good for consumers

1:04:35

the and i need the government to level

1:04:37

the playing field make my life easier

1:04:40

that happens directly all the time

1:04:43

have an indirect rates are we get a lot of letters

1:04:46

from members of congress

1:04:48

they hero vocal advocacy

1:04:51

and sometimes middle local advocacy

1:04:53

will reflect

1:04:55

a popular we all which is what

1:04:58

they are supposed to reflect unfilmable

1:05:01

sometimes

1:05:02

the more you take them to or from the legislature

1:05:05

where you near broader social consensus

1:05:07

and there's visibility into what is going

1:05:09

to be done and there's accountability

1:05:11

and elections and you move it over

1:05:13

to forgive me iraq that's like me

1:05:16

the less those checks on the ability

1:05:19

of the public korea concerns

1:05:21

to operate yeah

1:05:24

i think that that's a democratic

1:05:26

process among other things we

1:05:29

can add more quickly

1:05:31

the

1:05:32

and we can prepare to

1:05:34

solve problems but will be able

1:05:36

to create problems too

1:05:38

the and you have less of a guarantee with

1:05:40

fewer people the all of the different

1:05:43

considerations are being

1:05:45

picked into the pie

1:05:47

or other was this is my the other day

1:05:49

i was going through

1:05:53

adam burke's reflections on the revolution

1:05:55

in france because i was reading something that was

1:05:57

relevant and cameras

1:05:59

where would i really like i'm and

1:06:02

you reminded me of it in this

1:06:06

burke says

1:06:07

wise men will apply their remedies

1:06:09

two vices not to names

1:06:12

the causes of evil which

1:06:14

are permanent not to occasional organs

1:06:16

by which they act and the transitory

1:06:19

modes in which they appear in

1:06:21

a came to mind when we're talking about at coming

1:06:23

up with his rube goldberg no relation or

1:06:26

definition of

1:06:28

the

1:06:29

big tech ray where this market capitalization

1:06:32

bubble bobble by that i was weeks was

1:06:34

if you're gonna write what i was i

1:06:37

think it's a bill of attainder love

1:06:39

prob prohibition right you can't write a law

1:06:42

that just attacks one company right yeah to describe

1:06:45

the company the business practice

1:06:47

in the abstract in some way when you're writing legislation

1:06:49

many correct me if i'm wrong about this and so

1:06:51

sometimes when they want to attack one company they you know

1:06:53

they describe you know

1:06:56

the company in minute detail but in the

1:06:58

abstract in or as a way to sort of go after

1:07:00

it and it's is me that like like

1:07:02

this is something we've talked about a few times on here

1:07:06

the drunk not all a big

1:07:08

chunk of the problems with big cat

1:07:12

the least the ones that porn heartstrings

1:07:14

the most i think and have the most

1:07:18

sort of cultural or social externalities

1:07:20

the would simply be solved by saying you

1:07:24

can't get these kinds of social

1:07:26

media accounts until you're eighteen can

1:07:29

add nothing new it's not a cop and i as know

1:07:31

they do with red regulating competition for say

1:07:34

i mean i'm sure your people could find out a way

1:07:36

to have an opinion on a bit like there's

1:07:38

nothing outside of first the men

1:07:41

a law that says the morgan

1:07:43

freeman was as you can't do that we have limitations

1:07:45

by age for all sorts

1:07:47

of things were going into movies for you know whatever

1:07:50

and good solve

1:07:52

the the sort of promo

1:07:54

teenage girls m m m

1:07:57

m the sort of brain wiring

1:07:59

issues

1:07:59

i mean people worry about

1:08:03

i'm gonna go after any one company in particular

1:08:05

goes after a way of raising

1:08:08

your kids that we have concluded

1:08:10

after considerable study is probably

1:08:12

not super healthy

1:08:14

two to two point i think the first

1:08:17

thing in this to me is critical

1:08:20

it

1:08:21

one helpful in the context of a policy

1:08:23

debate

1:08:24

the get up and yeah

1:08:27

for what purpose writing

1:08:31

i don't like you air goes something

1:08:34

crap what we ought to be doing you say what

1:08:36

are the problems that were salt

1:08:39

what we perceive the problem to be

1:08:42

how we manage to solution that maps

1:08:44

onto the problems and then we can consider

1:08:46

what are the cause of death solution

1:08:48

because they're always gonna be some

1:08:50

who little of the tech discussion today

1:08:53

in my view the this

1:08:55

is my point

1:08:58

the code of to calm and that with picture pretty

1:09:00

from the nazi little creep pretty prose

1:09:03

the base a grouping

1:09:05

which isn't clearly the big companies

1:09:08

but also lots of companies that are

1:09:10

it better closing simple enough

1:09:13

to your point about build a tinder i think

1:09:15

it's better safe when we think is best

1:09:17

the didn't have a discussion about

1:09:19

for we stopped bad and week

1:09:21

or more good or whatever costs doing

1:09:23

so reading

1:09:26

that is like the critical

1:09:29

the naming

1:09:30

we don't make we should say what

1:09:33

is it about their business connect to the liked

1:09:35

him by the way it can be more than one thing

1:09:37

the think assuming that the same solution

1:09:39

will solve all problems is

1:09:42

is misguided

1:09:43

there's no reason to believe that it's true

1:09:47

that's important

1:09:48

waiting to recognize

1:09:50

look at the one thing i went full scan

1:09:52

it had dismissed so minute

1:09:55

i three children the oldest is eleven

1:09:58

she just finished

1:09:59

read next year and

1:10:02

her school

1:10:03

puts out a like monthly student

1:10:05

newspaper the fifth and sixth graders put together

1:10:08

the topic of last issue

1:10:11

what is

1:10:11

the technology that the school was using

1:10:14

to prevent kids from using their laptops

1:10:17

to get to certain web sites in particular

1:10:19

you too

1:10:20

the students were sitting around

1:10:23

the school was trying to shut them down and then

1:10:25

they were hacking more and there's a dialogue

1:10:28

with goes on within the paper into

1:10:30

the students are interview each other about different

1:10:32

opinions on i do

1:10:34

see some of these real concerns with tackling

1:10:37

the point he did hurls and so forth

1:10:39

i think people need to recognize

1:10:42

the kids are often a heck of a lot

1:10:44

savvier in smarter

1:10:47

then

1:10:48

legislators recognized

1:10:50

their ability to get around

1:10:52

whatever we impose his real

1:10:54

a discussion with the same

1:10:56

did not so long ago

1:10:59

where i was saying i don't want you to

1:11:01

use an app

1:11:03

they're going to gather all this data she

1:11:06

looked at me she's like she's like use my own information

1:11:10

then there is a sense which i

1:11:14

really didn't read this book i read in college

1:11:16

and i know i'm sorry to pursue

1:11:18

the english professor darkness the

1:11:21

wrote a book that was supposed to be a metaphor

1:11:23

for nuclear disarmament called giving up again

1:11:26

giving up the gun is the story of how

1:11:28

it was that the japanese who in the sixteenth

1:11:30

century where the greatest gun manufacturers

1:11:33

in the world band sale

1:11:35

and

1:11:36

hundred and fifty years

1:11:39

the focus of again it's supposed to be this

1:11:41

metaphor for why or how

1:11:43

you can take a technology as has real

1:11:45

utility

1:11:47

the get rid of

1:11:48

the course that you come out

1:11:50

with if you think about the history

1:11:52

of government efforts to stop technology

1:11:57

the opposite conclusion

1:11:58

which is that it was

1:11:59

very very particular set

1:12:02

of circumstances in japan

1:12:04

at the time that created

1:12:06

the ability of the government's to essentially

1:12:08

rollback technological progress

1:12:11

and i don't mean progress in l you just

1:12:13

you wait just pray oh

1:12:15

we're movement with technology

1:12:18

when we think about how to ban

1:12:20

technology i do think we

1:12:22

need to be appropriately cognizant

1:12:24

of the fact that most efforts

1:12:26

to do there haven't been

1:12:28

so successful and ,

1:12:31

in a country where we have have

1:12:34

important of the challenge

1:12:36

the definitely says i think the

1:12:38

levels of post all this of

1:12:40

post is greater than

1:12:43

what you might find in the chain of where he did

1:12:45

it in

1:12:46

the government has a lot more ability to just

1:12:48

click an off switch yeah ,

1:12:51

i would i i agree with you directionally

1:12:53

am i would actually love to go down at ten

1:12:55

fifteen minute digression on japan

1:12:58

and giving up guns because i'm always been fascinated

1:13:00

with it in part because it's because great example

1:13:03

of today

1:13:05

the the capture of a certain class you

1:13:08

know it was so dangerous who samurai class

1:13:10

that they were like this was just upset everything

1:13:12

so let's just not have it and

1:13:17

interesting there are parallels to win the the

1:13:19

vatican when the catholic church band crossbows

1:13:23

because it did such violence to the civil

1:13:25

rec understanding of of warfare getting

1:13:27

a kill people from faraway ah

1:13:29

i'm and i but

1:13:31

, get into the second ladder and council another time

1:13:35

so i've reading to do i'm to

1:13:37

i'm i'm i'm i'm i'm i'm

1:13:39

he with you but at the same time the

1:13:42

issue with say rape making an eighteen

1:13:45

a minimum age to have a social media accounts

1:13:48

the the trip there isn't to say

1:13:51

will we have one hundred percent prevention or

1:13:53

compliance no no

1:13:55

miners will ever join read the

1:13:58

the i snuck into any

1:14:00

an r rated movie before

1:14:02

i turned seventeen or eighteen in

1:14:05

the nineteen seventies the

1:14:08

i may even have bought the

1:14:10

magazine a playboy or to prior

1:14:13

to my legal age the point is

1:14:15

that you make it easier to prevent

1:14:18

most make it easier easier

1:14:20

for parents

1:14:21

who

1:14:23

do this stuff they make it easier for

1:14:25

parents to say you can't do it because you're not

1:14:27

allowed to do it you also prevent

1:14:29

they're being a critical mass that defines

1:14:32

youth culture by this stuff

1:14:34

rather than you have sort of like the

1:14:36

all had your kids it wasn't the underground radio

1:14:39

and get all sorts of like frenzy things you're

1:14:42

never going to get rid of fringe cases are corner cases

1:14:44

or whatever you want to call them

1:14:47

that

1:14:48

if you can make it easier and iraq

1:14:50

and i don't know that i would want to ban all social media

1:14:52

platforms who are you know for

1:14:54

minors

1:14:55

but

1:14:56

my point is is that approach which has so

1:14:58

much less did as nothing to do with got

1:15:00

in the anti trust or competition

1:15:03

stuff actually gets app what

1:15:05

people were saying is the problem in

1:15:08

ways that they get in there was one of an

1:15:10

unanticipated new problems it'll create i'm sure

1:15:12

about it does that gives me a better

1:15:14

approach a better way of thinking about is what does the prom

1:15:16

were trying to address and what would solve it

1:15:18

that is consonant with liberal principles and the and

1:15:21

the rule of law in the constitution and

1:15:23

least that one

1:15:24

the it

1:15:25

agree completely

1:15:27

the i think that's the kind of discussion

1:15:29

that wiki to be

1:15:31

my think it lines up the problem

1:15:33

that we perceive

1:15:34

teams are spending too much time on social

1:15:36

media social media at large

1:15:39

is having a negative effect on t

1:15:41

the and

1:15:42

the solution that maps onto it

1:15:44

right there was a theory of how that works

1:15:47

on i think there is some fairness to the theory

1:15:49

i like to be able to say to

1:15:51

eleven year old that you cannot be on

1:15:54

that is not allowed

1:15:56

we do tic toc as an agency before

1:15:58

i knew and like he was using

1:15:59

the find out of princess so there

1:16:02

you go

1:16:02

i guess what i just moved his

1:16:05

i do think when it comes to technology

1:16:07

in particular things that are popular

1:16:10

we need to be cognizant

1:16:13

the level of ability

1:16:14

there we had to sometimes se but

1:16:16

this is separate and apart from with what it costs

1:16:18

and benefits i think that

1:16:21

the level of reality

1:16:24

in terms of

1:16:25

how will we can do what

1:16:27

we want to do i think is really important

1:16:30

when digging out regulation legislation

1:16:33

so quickly , switching

1:16:35

gears as i'm a terrible journalist and i

1:16:38

i was barry the lead arm or

1:16:40

are ignored entirely ah

1:16:43

the walk out there about price gouging

1:16:45

how are and then the

1:16:48

president over the weekend actually

1:16:51

took a break from beating up on the big oil companies

1:16:53

to beat up on gas retailers and

1:16:56

told them and effect at least the from

1:16:58

the tweets i saw the stop

1:17:02

charging as much that

1:17:05

passing on the cost of the consumer in effect now

1:17:07

it's been are you know line for

1:17:09

a long time i try to go find the examples

1:17:11

one of them came after hurricane katrina now

1:17:14

but the fcc is actually looked into the question

1:17:16

about whether or not price fixing a price gouging

1:17:18

happens whether and and and how

1:17:21

all that works was wondering so do

1:17:23

you think they keep yourself

1:17:25

not the agency yada yada yada that what

1:17:27

we're seeing now is the is the product

1:17:29

a price gouging and

1:17:33

do you think that the government has the ability

1:17:35

to sort of deal

1:17:37

with with i don't i

1:17:39

think the governor's ability deal with actual price gouging

1:17:43

i don't know that calling high gas prices

1:17:45

is that price price gouging and i

1:17:47

don't know that the government has the ability deal with with

1:17:50

that where do you come down on

1:17:53

let me see if it so

1:17:55

that in before

1:17:58

the president scintilla

1:17:59

the to check on

1:18:02

he used to work

1:18:05

he viewed as mounting evidence

1:18:08

of collusion behavior

1:18:09

by large oil companies driving

1:18:12

gas prices

1:18:14

the and

1:18:15

mr wilson interviews with other republican

1:18:18

colleagues wrote a letter to brandies

1:18:20

the president's economic chief

1:18:22

economic advisor asking for

1:18:24

the additives

1:18:26

what is it that you have you are see

1:18:28

it

1:18:29

when

1:18:31

prices have gone

1:18:33

politicians

1:18:35

we democratic but also republican usually

1:18:37

treated the looked at the ftc and say

1:18:40

on the prices are too high

1:18:42

go after illegal the

1:18:44

collusion is one period illegal

1:18:47

you're getting together in they're setting prices

1:18:49

and that is clearly illegal

1:18:51

is criminally elite

1:18:54

break down during is another thing

1:18:56

that term is

1:18:57

the fine precisely in a lot

1:19:00

of state laws

1:19:02

there is a federal law but it

1:19:05

is it's related to like the defense production

1:19:07

so when there is an emergency

1:19:10

and there are products that the government needs

1:19:13

as a matter of national security can basically

1:19:15

sailing don't move your prices

1:19:17

and directed at has not been triggered

1:19:22

gambling is a different theory

1:19:25

whatever you the definition and we don't share the

1:19:27

general was getting at

1:19:29

he doesn't

1:19:33

these are two different ways i think

1:19:35

also politically of trying to explain

1:19:38

the lead to a convenient selling

1:19:41

for real problem

1:19:42

which is inflation

1:19:44

and every time the

1:19:46

ftc has looked at it when politicians

1:19:49

on the hill or the president of as we

1:19:52

have never found the alleged illegal

1:19:54

we have found is because rockets

1:19:57

and feathers that's original

1:19:59

a happen whether because

1:20:02

of the international events that can sometimes

1:20:04

drive often drive

1:20:06

the prices the

1:20:08

barrel which is different from the prices

1:20:11

the prices rocket up

1:20:13

the a further down

1:20:14

the tissue

1:20:16

we've been some price variability

1:20:18

of late with the lot of freeze variability

1:20:20

the prices are too happy to be sure

1:20:23

that is that the result of ability the

1:20:25

market forces on every killing

1:20:28

historically at least the fcc has looked

1:20:30

we shouldn't feel that nobody that people success

1:20:33

there's also another

1:20:36

purple when politicians

1:20:38

say to business owners you

1:20:40

should only raise your prices as much

1:20:42

as your increased cost of production

1:20:44

you should take no more

1:20:46

you should not profit from changes

1:20:49

in the input costs

1:20:51

one of the things that they are say whether

1:20:53

they deliberately needed not is

1:20:55

a market should support

1:20:58

the good part of what we rely on it

1:21:00

work at system

1:21:01

it would business looks at the other

1:21:04

and says you're raising your making

1:21:06

more money than we have that kill it

1:21:08

this helps encourage the increase

1:21:11

production of whatever the thing is that we

1:21:13

need

1:21:14

this is how supply and demand

1:21:16

be

1:21:17

if you take out the ability to process

1:21:21

you take out the market signals and the

1:21:23

incentive that companies have to

1:21:25

bring

1:21:26

humor do what people are

1:21:28

asking for which is reflected in the price

1:21:31

signal

1:21:34

companies vaguely service

1:21:36

make north the prices are

1:21:38

a good we all hit but we'll hit

1:21:41

one of the things that they do

1:21:43

is they count companies coming out we

1:21:45

need more toilet paper

1:21:47

we need more gas

1:21:49

and that can be a good

1:21:51

in fact it is the same that

1:21:53

have a lot that has allowed us over

1:21:55

centuries of years

1:22:01

would you not a really awful consequences

1:22:04

to the other option

1:22:06

priests regularly

1:22:08

we're wifi price regulation the market

1:22:10

ceases to function

1:22:12

the and you don't have supply beating to

1:22:14

be and and you could shortages

1:22:16

really

1:22:18

what is the

1:22:20

i think we see this taught i get

1:22:22

it like politically it kind of makes

1:22:25

sense

1:22:25

you the answer to a complicated

1:22:27

question

1:22:28

the also

1:22:32

there will be published the mood

1:22:34

of the people have made that may be

1:22:36

created all or part of what we see

1:22:39

like we shut down production

1:22:41

the government put demand into

1:22:44

the economy and you saw a dramatic shift

1:22:46

into be what people were buying we weren't going

1:22:48

on cruises are a national review with

1:22:50

worried go into restaurants instead

1:22:53

we will buy it a lawn furniture choice

1:22:55

for the kids devices for them to protect itself

1:22:57

polytheistic

1:22:59

and when politicians

1:23:01

say profit

1:23:04

i didn't i don't know what it's waiting or otherwise

1:23:07

but it's not

1:23:09

i think a fair description either

1:23:12

of what's going on and it's also suggestive

1:23:15

of a policy solutions that is a solution

1:23:17

in the movie and in fact the creator

1:23:19

itself many

1:23:21

yeah i was also i mean i agree that entirely

1:23:23

business the example i keep using

1:23:25

his exxon mobil has high

1:23:27

profits right now it also had

1:23:30

the worst losses and forty years

1:23:32

two years ago an unknown

1:23:35

was talking about making exxon

1:23:38

oh

1:23:39

for at losses but they want to shave off

1:23:41

it's profits and if if you going to

1:23:43

if you going to tell investors tell investors volatile

1:23:46

industry

1:23:47

that

1:23:48

your

1:23:50

your losses will

1:23:52

be privatized and so and

1:23:54

and and you'll you'll absorb losses

1:23:56

but the government will take away the profits

1:23:59

you're not going to a lot of investors in

1:24:01

in that industry ramos

1:24:03

or to on the on the the the gouging thing

1:24:06

russ roberts made this point a long time ago was

1:24:08

that the tournament to signal aspect

1:24:11

of it if you look at surge

1:24:13

pricing for things like over after

1:24:16

you know a disaster kind of thing or

1:24:18

or up just bad rainstorm the

1:24:22

benefit of surge pricing is that

1:24:24

it tells all these other uber drivers

1:24:26

who otherwise wouldn't that

1:24:28

in their cars and turn on their meters

1:24:30

in effect to get in there meters injured on their

1:24:33

to kindergarten turn on a meters because it sends a signal

1:24:35

that there's the such demand that you can make more money

1:24:37

for it's and and that's how you six

1:24:40

high prices is by meeting the demand

1:24:43

and i'm just

1:24:45

again the idea that the government get

1:24:49

in the way of that process in

1:24:51

a predictable and beneficial

1:24:53

that and

1:24:54

the

1:24:56

sort

1:24:57

the disastrous and yep that's sort of were

1:25:01

democrat so i get you long

1:25:03

and i could go on number had was

1:25:05

week

1:25:06

some kind of irony

1:25:09

watch this is in particular some

1:25:11

of the politicians a group of people out

1:25:13

there using words like competition

1:25:17

if i trust in force

1:25:19

to calling for press regulation we

1:25:22

literally put people in prison for setting

1:25:25

prices that

1:25:27

the the reason we do it is cause it's bad

1:25:29

it prevents the market for

1:25:31

working so you will see like almost

1:25:33

double speak and this is the same thing the competition

1:25:36

and more regulation the

1:25:39

the people who use a language

1:25:43

the petition with frustrated with

1:25:45

monopoly because it resonates ever in american

1:25:48

ears what they are talking about

1:25:50

his as far from competition is you can

1:25:52

possibly can and i think to me

1:25:54

if there's ever an example of this it's

1:25:56

cold either seen people

1:25:59

for price for

1:26:01

which is the opposite of competition

1:26:03

so am i give you long and

1:26:08

i get why i one last point

1:26:12

broadly speaking europe fairly traditional

1:26:14

conservative the market gonna

1:26:16

guy right i mean when he , we

1:26:18

could test each other where we disagree on

1:26:20

the saturday other thing but i'm

1:26:23

he kind of alluded to how

1:26:26

you're hearing a lot of this same stuff

1:26:29

and i big tech stuff more

1:26:31

more from the right it's mostly from the left

1:26:34

but the ends are different

1:26:36

you know what they want to get out of the stuff but

1:26:40

the agree absolutely true that

1:26:42

there's this sort of results

1:26:46

oriented constitutional

1:26:48

interpretation that a june for me or crowd is

1:26:50

and do their bunch of people on the

1:26:52

sort of nationalist post

1:26:54

liberal right attacking

1:26:57

reminisced

1:26:58

start with the enlightenment and move forward

1:27:01

but ah

1:27:04

and some i'm just kind of curious

1:27:08

are you seeing

1:27:10

among people who actually

1:27:12

due

1:27:14

to actual leg work on the right

1:27:17

in terms of antitrust

1:27:20

law trade law that kind of thing

1:27:23

the that movement at

1:27:25

all present or is this a basically

1:27:28

sort of you

1:27:30

know a light show on twitter and

1:27:33

i'm in a couple law schools and that's

1:27:35

about it and are you actually seen the

1:27:38

surveys were basically making the case

1:27:40

for

1:27:41

you know

1:27:44

mean like you from and i don't want to beat up on

1:27:47

marco rubio arm but your marco

1:27:49

rubio came out in favor of the

1:27:51

have the unions against

1:27:54

the amazon because if

1:27:56

want to send a message to whoa capitalism

1:27:58

or will capital i will be

1:28:02

the federal society types or the federal society

1:28:04

adjacent types in the trenches

1:28:07

are they starting to move that direction it

1:28:09

as far as you can tell or that just not a thing

1:28:11

get or at all

1:28:13

it would be there were some who offer

1:28:15

the think

1:28:17

what a people

1:28:19

then we'll survey

1:28:21

on the right

1:28:23

later he really who served the sort

1:28:25

of look at the world and they say

1:28:28

why not use all this power to achieve er

1:28:30

up

1:28:31

the outcomes we want

1:28:36

the the trump administration the closest

1:28:39

with came to this was there was an executive

1:28:41

order about bias

1:28:43

in social media conservative

1:28:46

it could have gotten targeted at the fcc

1:28:48

there was like gives us look at rulemaking

1:28:51

about sixty two thirty with as they were

1:28:53

supposed to send us thousands of complaints they

1:28:55

never sent them so

1:28:57

the haven't

1:28:59

and

1:29:00

the theory was we would look at this as a matter of consumer

1:29:02

protection which is is also rather hard

1:29:04

to fit into a consumer protection

1:29:06

continent with the first

1:29:12

i think there are people who

1:29:14

look have the potential for regulation

1:29:16

to achieve what they view as conservative after

1:29:19

i think

1:29:21

the particulars are the families that i

1:29:24

have seen on less well developed the what

1:29:26

is the regulation have we want somebody

1:29:28

to example this is to do with legislation was in

1:29:31

a hearing in a member of congress was

1:29:33

asking me section two thirty

1:29:35

which is not our since you it's

1:29:37

you can be patient decency act

1:29:40

for communication that if there's any agency

1:29:42

that has it the bonus with the

1:29:44

fcc with fish is crucial

1:29:47

he whether we should get rid of that he

1:29:49

was concerned about companies taking down conservative

1:29:51

voices censored look

1:29:54

another expert switch or not but

1:29:56

we wrote since is that if you add liability

1:29:58

for something in this case

1:29:59

the speech the result will be

1:30:02

less speech

1:30:03

it because the point of liability as to

1:30:05

discourage the kids attacks

1:30:08

the and want to seem to be like i know you

1:30:10

would the people you want to hurt

1:30:12

that wasn't clear to me that the solve would arrive

1:30:15

the policy solution

1:30:17

actually written language

1:30:19

the particulars of what people want

1:30:21

to do

1:30:23

the what

1:30:25

then i do think there is a severe

1:30:27

undercounting

1:30:29

of a won't or negative effects of what

1:30:31

happens when we

1:30:34

why didn't the state to go into all these

1:30:36

area is but also the short term

1:30:38

effects like what do you think that

1:30:40

proposed regulation is going to

1:30:42

do

1:30:44

what effect do you think it's gonna happen again i

1:30:46

wish sense right now is

1:30:49

that being normalized in some circles

1:30:52

on the right is we want to do

1:30:54

a lot more regulation there's less of

1:30:56

a discussion of like what regulations

1:30:58

do that why

1:31:01

do you would pay for it all of that

1:31:04

particular questions that you know when we're working

1:31:06

on the auto rule thinking

1:31:09

we might band impersonating because

1:31:11

it the particulars

1:31:13

of regulation or a lot more

1:31:15

no and won't get your clicks

1:31:17

in a way that you know media

1:31:21

certain newsweek editors what

1:31:23

would prefer them to be aren't know how thank

1:31:25

you so much for doing this i really appreciate this is

1:31:27

fun thank you for having

1:31:29

me this is really fun previously okay

1:31:32

so i know selves as last he was actually recording

1:31:34

it's from

1:31:36

i assume he was his office either that or

1:31:38

you're gonna flag for the federal trade

1:31:40

commission and home or someplace else would be kind of weird

1:31:44

i enjoyed the one curry and the nursery i

1:31:46

know for a fact i'm

1:31:49

going to get complaints from some of my ftc

1:31:51

obsessed people that i didn't ask about this that or the

1:31:53

other thing i'm and there's

1:31:55

some of those things i should have asked about and

1:31:58

the price of things i think as i said

1:32:01

we got a little my ball will

1:32:03

about down on the the the

1:32:06

the rank one curry of authorities

1:32:09

if the of the various

1:32:11

in a regulatory agencies and whatnot but

1:32:14

are you know that's what some people are here for

1:32:16

so but i

1:32:18

really have a the last two thirds

1:32:20

of it was really i'm pretty interesting

1:32:22

and i could have gone on maybe

1:32:25

will do something about japan's fanning

1:32:27

of guns down the road with

1:32:30

that were recording a bunch of i guess this week

1:32:32

because i can be traveling next week and

1:32:35

we want to get him on the can and

1:32:37

i'm so some will

1:32:39

in fact be a little

1:32:41

unconnected from the news of

1:32:43

the day and i think that's just fine

1:32:47

you know that i hope everybody had a great fourth

1:32:49

of july am i will tell you

1:32:52

about the

1:32:54

read pie eating contest maybe

1:32:58

on the on friday august

1:33:00

an element of deserve a

1:33:03

phoenix or do you have this have this it