A tip of the hat and ten-tentacle salute to Cryptome for this positively exquisite post. Once in a great while, an article comes along that vindicates every drunken, paranoid midnight conversation you ever had. For some of us, this is it: How to distinguish between Capitalists and Crooks.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Consumer Benefits and Harms:
How Best to Distinguish Aggressive, Pro-Consumer Competition From Business Conduct To Attain or Maintain a Monopoly
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) will hold a series of public Hearings to explore how best to identify anticompetitive exclusionary conduct for purposes of antitrust enforcement under section 2 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2. Among other things, the Hearings will examine whether and when specific types of conduct that potentially implicate section 2 are procompetitive or benign, and when they may harm competition and consumer welfare. [ie we know it's illegal, but we're going to decide whether or not we like it anyway; suck it, bitch]… To begin, the Agencies are soliciting public comment from lawyers, economists, the business community, consumer groups, academics (including business historians), and other interested parties [ie individuals, the polar opposite of monopolies] on two general subjects:
(1)The legal and economic principles relevant to the application of section 2, including the administrability of current or potential antitrust rules for section 2, and [ie does what we have work for you?]
(2) the types of business practices that the Agencies should examine in the upcoming Hearings, including examples of real-world conduct that potentially raise issues under section 2.[you tell us what we have your permission to look at]
With respect to the Agencies' request for examples of real-world conduct, the Agencies are soliciting discussions of the business reasons for, and the actual or likely competitive effects of, such conduct, including actual or likely efficiencies and the theoretical underpinnings that inform the decision of whether the conduct had or has pro-or anticompetitive effects. The Agencies will solicit additional submissions about the topics to be covered at the individual Hearings at the time that each Hearing is announced.[provided the theory is pretty enough, we're open to much anything; at the FTC, the obscure economic theorist is king!]
The Agencies encourage submissions from business persons from a variety of unregulated and regulated markets, recognizing that market participants can offer unique insight into how competition works and that the implications of various business practices may differ
depending on the industry context and market structure. [all monopolies are equal, but some are more equal than others] The Agencies seek this practical input to provide a real-world foundation of knowledge from which to draw as the Hearings progress. Respondents are encouraged to respond on the basis of their actual experiences.[Because we don't trust our researchers to do this work; they're all goddam Democrats!]
least as far as the tech blogosphere goes. Admittedly, because blogging has been seen as something of a technical thing to do (and if it were, why would I do it? I ask yez) the tech blogosphere is a couple of years, call it two to four years, ahead of the rest of the blogosphere. Business is not far behind, because if they think there's money in it, they're on it like stink on shit. Politics? Well, they're way behind money, but they're next. And the blogs are better. It's just too bad not many politicians are blogging, because the self-destruct potential there is just mouth-watering, ain't it? After that comes self-cutting Angelina Jolie fans and sexually deprived middle-aged women: this section is called social blogging, and it's far larger and more powerful than politics and business. Then comes the traditional media; the Guardian is the best, and even that, I'm sorry, sucks donkeys. I know you want to break the stories in the regular part of the paper, but blogs are all about immediacy. There's no point blogging on Thursday about something that happened on Monday. Commentary blogs? Well, who wants to listen to pompous old windbags like Blumenthal unless you can spout off at him when he deserves it, which is always just for being such a pompous windbag. All Canadian papers appear to be ahead of all American papers, but behind all UK papers except the News of the World and the Sun; they can't blog, because they type with their prehensile toes and can't keep up or use long words.
raincoaster 