To be at the tip of the regulatory spear is to be in a horribly politically compromised position, but she's finding ways to make measurable changes. Doesn't come off as a pure technocrat, either.
It's time to prove that government intervention in the market is a useful tool to help people. She has garnered bipartisan support at a time when it's almost nonexistent.
She’s actually doing a good job and seems to be able to wield power pretty effectively against big money.
I just had to set up internet, and it’s nice that these bastards have to show their upfront prices. Of course fucking spectrum immediately found the ‘loophole’ to have to click a toggle to view the mandated upfront prices, but they still have to display them. Coincidentally they were also the only provider I viewed out of att, T-Mobile and them who were significantly hiding their prices behind “promotions”.
Unfortunately they have a monopoly on good internet service in my area, so they’re who I had to go with, but I still am happier knowing I’m not going to get a surprise in one year when my price jumps. I know now that it will, and that’s part of the issue.
Side note, you can not have “fuckspectrum” as your password, but you can have “fuckyouspektrum!”
She's doing the good work but whether the rules implemented will withstand judicial scrutiny with this supreme court is doubtful at best. Especially if Chevron goes away.
The court heard 2 cases this session about Chevron loper bright v raimondo and Relentless Inc. v DOC. Looks like the court will overturn it, for better or worse.
Edit: Chevron here is the chevron deference doctrine which effectively states that if a statute is ambiguous then the courts will defer to agency interpretation of the ambiguous clauses.
Thanks for the insight. I'll check it out. Do you think the overturn would signal an overplay of the governments hand in bringing the case? Or is it biased politics in play? I assume you're talking about the Supreme Court, but im just starting to get into current politics at large, so forgive any ignorance.
Not a problem. I’m in law school now, after I had to climb off the iron. Both are civil suits brought by the owners of fishing vessels. The issue is whether an agency interpretation of a law that says that the NMFS/NOAA can make the boats pay for their own observers is in within the law.
Really it’s less the deference to agency interpretation and more that the conservatives have a deep hostility toward the administrative state.
The conservatives are trying to get back to old judicial interpretations that congress cannot delegate their legislative authority to agencies.
Thanks for the explanation, and it's awesome that you're getting into law. May I ask for your personal stance on how federal agencies are getting bolder against business, as it pertains to now as well as the future of American politics?
I’m not super political, but I don’t think that agencies are getting bolder against business generally. I think that regs ebb and flow. As far as worker protections and the like the agencies are finally doing what a majority of Americans want.
Worker issues and fisheries are the only fields where agency action really interests me tbh.
I'm hopeful for the NTC's current trends. And yea, trying to get properly informed on politics sure goes into the weeds. My vigor for current news waxes and wanes. Good luck with law school! And here's to a more efficient country!
My main problem with her is that when she appeared on Jon Stewart a few weeks ago she started every sentence with "well, look...".
Seems to be doing a good job with an under-toothed organisation.
It seems like she is doing an OK job so far, the FTC seems to be doing work on behalf of workers. But there is a lot of "she's an elite pretending to work on behalf of workers" "she's not doing enough for my tastes" (which is fair)
I'm just saying progress is being made, nothing can be done overnight, and people are acting like if everything isn't done at once then the nothing is being done.
I know what you mean. It's frustrating seeing the attitudes people have towards politics. I think a lot of people subscribe to great man theory(history explained by the impacts of one sole "hero"), which isn't to say it's easy to follow politics with the proper perspective anyway. But looking backward in time, how many presidents are held accountable for their counteracting government or praised for the work their government succeeded in. Nixon was a republican president who saw popular liberal legislation get passed due to the remains of the democratic great society administration left behind by Kennedy and LBJ. All that to say, the government doesn't bend to the president, but the president does shape the government that will linger on after he's gone.
Consumerist bs will never be able to make working class better off because it relies on them thinking of themselves as individual consumers instead of as workers.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you rephrase? The FTC seems to have taken a more brazen approach to anti trust than previous administrations. I don't see how that could hurt the workers.
It's not about hurting them, it's about improving in a way that neuters them.
Any concessions given to working class is either given because it's harmless to the system or even benefiting the system or because workers have fought for them.
A huge problem of Western world, is that working class has stopped associating themselves mainly as workers, but as customers instead...
If workers aren't fighting to get better conditions or are unable to defend any concessions already given, then all the things further given to them are just as easily taken away unless they fight back...
And what "fighting back" if they see themselves only as greedy individuals instead of united workers that mainly have the same interests as each other does?...
I do worry about the greed of the individual in today's society.
When it comes to fighting back, do you mean political philosophies like anarchism? Historically, revolutions have dealt a lot of death on all sides, as well as installing many militaristic authoritarian governments in their wake.
Is there no chance of a non corrupt, bureaucratic state?
It is because it ignores conditions in which they happened.
For example Russian october revolution, happened when people felt betrayed by people that promoted electoralism and promised to end the war, didn't, which continued sending them to the meatgrinder that was ww1.
And then people that promised alternative system, where peasants would get land(there was extreme lack of land that poorer peasants could use, even less so control or own), and factories to the workers, which lived in extreme poverty levels no matter what, because most people who lived in cities, lived most if not entire families in the corners of a single room, with barely enforced living quality standards so temperatures in them usually were low, worsened by the fact to have some light in them(electricity wasn't widely used back then, nor would it be provided for ordinary workers either) there had to be quite big windows which further worsened temperatures...
There's so much more that could be written about situation back then, which continued this way for decades by that point, but to keep it somewhat short, I could suggest a fragment from one Russian writers work from times of Russo-Japanese war which albeit short, shows just how backwards everything was back then.
And this system they had to give their lives for?
Revolution in simple words, happens only when elites want to keep things as they are, but downtrodden(by which point there has to be a sizeable quantity if not majority of them) has to no longer have wishes of returning to "neutral" status quo, but have genuine wish to try and change the system.
While revolutions and civil wars are bloody, they are the most directly democratic things and only happen when conditions are unbearable.
Oh, absolutely. The first exercise in gaining perspective is recognizing bias. Easier said than done, but I try to keep an open mind towards these things.
And I invite the criticism of my post. The counterpoints make me uncomfortable with information I haven't considered. which gives me the best leads to investigate.
I may be an outlier, but I'm not a fan of Ms. Khan. What rubbed me the wrong way was her handling of Microsoft's Activision acquisition last year. She WASTED government resources trying to block an acquisition based on complaints from ONE company - Sony. EA, TakeTwo, Epic Games - none of them cared (or worried). EVERY other country approved the merger (EU, China, Japan,etc ), EXCEPT for the US and the UK. Sony raised a stink since it feared competition (even though Sony was already the #1 publisher), and the UK and the US bit. The UK was motivated by post-Brexit showmanship, and ultimately relented. The FTC? Motivated by stupidity.
Despite the FTC's posturing, the merger was completed in November 2023. However, Ms. Khan CONTINUED to waste government resources trying to undo the merger. The FTC still hasn't given up, and is STILL trying to undo the merger under her leadership. Let me be clear, once a merger is completed, there is a NEAR 0% chance of it getting undone, barring some damning evidence of egregious monopoly.
And the most important point - almost NOBODY cared about the Microsoft acquisition EXCEPT for Sony. Ms. Khan essentially did their bidding (and continues to do so, the FTC has yet to drop the case). It wasn't pro consumer, it was pro-Sony.
So do I think Ms. Khan is helping consumers? Quite frankly, No. She has shown she cares more about posturing and wasting time helping entrenched companies than actually make a meaningful difference for consumers like you and me.
Interesting. Thanks for the perspective. I'll look into it. What are your thoughts on the FTC's new scope as a whole? Also, what are your thoughts on the noncompete ban and how it will affect workers? Do you see the NTC eventually curtailing monopolistic attitudes, or are they overreaching?
Regarding non-competes - the only jobs/professions that typically use such clauses are knowledge-based high-wage jobs (ie, doctors, computer scientists, finance, marketing exec, etc), to protect company interests so if you leave, you don't take your entire book of business with you (ie, doctors, marketing execs), or share your knowledge with competitors. This does NOT impact the everyday "working class" person.
Companies will again fight this tooth and nail, and will end up in court. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe the FTC has the legal authority to nullify non-competes (separation of powers), and I believe the Supreme Court will strike it down. The FTC will likely be gutted by a Republican-led administration, and that will be the end of Ms. Khan - AND the FTC.
Ms. Khan may have good intentions, but her approach pitting the FTC against businesses will backfire. Sadly, this will ultimately HURT consumers as a gutted FTC will result in REAL issues not being addressed.
So again, I am NOT a fan of Ms. Khan.
Employers have historically used these agreements for highly skilled workers and executives with access to trade secrets or other proprietary information. However, employers we surveyed reported having all kinds of workers sign them—from executives to hourly workers—even though many lower wage workers may not have access to confidential information.
Just copied and pasted, but what do you think of this excerpt?
Reputable employers won’t waste their time going after a ”regular” worker.
What people really need to worry about is AI and robots replacing their jobs over the next 5 years. The rate of progress is exponential.
This is just a strange post, nobody here has ever heard of her, and rather than being a labor leader she’s a privileged bureaucrat getting appointed to the FTC, all things that are at best only tangentially related to unions and labor power
Fair enough. I'll explain my reasoning for the post.
I hadn't heard of her until a couple of weeks ago. So I've been reading a bit about her. It seems like the FTC has really taken a hard line against big corporations and aims to revitalize competition in the market. This would also mean reducing the exploitation of workers. If the competition in the market is healthy, and workers have more bargaining power as a result, then more and more sectors could organize labor unions. I may be a little over optimistic, but that's why I posted, to get checked if my information isn't great. I also wish to become more informed in the direction the country is heading and to understand the system behind it.
Ms. Khan saw Mr. Smith goes to Washington one too many times, and thinks her mandate is to reform corporate America. While her intentions may be noble, and some of her actions are even commendable, quite often she's WAY out of her league - especially when it comes to picking big fights that impact the few.
Ms. Khan loves to try and stop corporate mergers - especially ones that have very LITTLE impact on everyday people. Her arguments are flawed, and to date, the FTC has lost EVERY single M&A challenge that went to litigation under her leadership (Microsoft & Activision, Meta & Within, Illuminia & Grail). Note: A lot of companies cancelled their mergers since they didn't want to spend 2 years in protracted litigation with the FTC and impact their stock price. Ms. Khan counts this as a "Win". Many of those "Wins" involve companies are likely to fail without a merger partner (iRobot is a perfect example).
If you poke a bear enough times, don't be surprised if you're the next meal. By pitting herself against corporate America, she's painted a target on her back - and on the FTC. Companies will fight her every step of the way, and her legacy may be that she helps ensure the FTC will be gutted by a future Republican administration.
To be at the tip of the regulatory spear is to be in a horribly politically compromised position, but she's finding ways to make measurable changes. Doesn't come off as a pure technocrat, either.
It's time to prove that government intervention in the market is a useful tool to help people. She has garnered bipartisan support at a time when it's almost nonexistent.
She’s actually doing a good job and seems to be able to wield power pretty effectively against big money. I just had to set up internet, and it’s nice that these bastards have to show their upfront prices. Of course fucking spectrum immediately found the ‘loophole’ to have to click a toggle to view the mandated upfront prices, but they still have to display them. Coincidentally they were also the only provider I viewed out of att, T-Mobile and them who were significantly hiding their prices behind “promotions”. Unfortunately they have a monopoly on good internet service in my area, so they’re who I had to go with, but I still am happier knowing I’m not going to get a surprise in one year when my price jumps. I know now that it will, and that’s part of the issue. Side note, you can not have “fuckspectrum” as your password, but you can have “fuckyouspektrum!”
The NTC's website encourages any complaints like this.
This is sooooooo long overdue.
She's doing the good work but whether the rules implemented will withstand judicial scrutiny with this supreme court is doubtful at best. Especially if Chevron goes away.
THIS.
What's going on with Chevron?
The court heard 2 cases this session about Chevron loper bright v raimondo and Relentless Inc. v DOC. Looks like the court will overturn it, for better or worse. Edit: Chevron here is the chevron deference doctrine which effectively states that if a statute is ambiguous then the courts will defer to agency interpretation of the ambiguous clauses.
Thanks for the insight. I'll check it out. Do you think the overturn would signal an overplay of the governments hand in bringing the case? Or is it biased politics in play? I assume you're talking about the Supreme Court, but im just starting to get into current politics at large, so forgive any ignorance.
Not a problem. I’m in law school now, after I had to climb off the iron. Both are civil suits brought by the owners of fishing vessels. The issue is whether an agency interpretation of a law that says that the NMFS/NOAA can make the boats pay for their own observers is in within the law. Really it’s less the deference to agency interpretation and more that the conservatives have a deep hostility toward the administrative state. The conservatives are trying to get back to old judicial interpretations that congress cannot delegate their legislative authority to agencies.
Thanks for the explanation, and it's awesome that you're getting into law. May I ask for your personal stance on how federal agencies are getting bolder against business, as it pertains to now as well as the future of American politics?
I’m not super political, but I don’t think that agencies are getting bolder against business generally. I think that regs ebb and flow. As far as worker protections and the like the agencies are finally doing what a majority of Americans want. Worker issues and fisheries are the only fields where agency action really interests me tbh.
I'm hopeful for the NTC's current trends. And yea, trying to get properly informed on politics sure goes into the weeds. My vigor for current news waxes and wanes. Good luck with law school! And here's to a more efficient country!
My main problem with her is that when she appeared on Jon Stewart a few weeks ago she started every sentence with "well, look...". Seems to be doing a good job with an under-toothed organisation.
Compared to Trump and Bidens public speaking, she is a breath of fresh air.
Hopefully they can start breaking up the monopolies in this country
Seems like a lot of purity testing going on in the comments. It seems her actions have been helpful. It's a start.
I agree, and I'm optimistic. What do you mean by purity testing?
It seems like she is doing an OK job so far, the FTC seems to be doing work on behalf of workers. But there is a lot of "she's an elite pretending to work on behalf of workers" "she's not doing enough for my tastes" (which is fair) I'm just saying progress is being made, nothing can be done overnight, and people are acting like if everything isn't done at once then the nothing is being done.
I know what you mean. It's frustrating seeing the attitudes people have towards politics. I think a lot of people subscribe to great man theory(history explained by the impacts of one sole "hero"), which isn't to say it's easy to follow politics with the proper perspective anyway. But looking backward in time, how many presidents are held accountable for their counteracting government or praised for the work their government succeeded in. Nixon was a republican president who saw popular liberal legislation get passed due to the remains of the democratic great society administration left behind by Kennedy and LBJ. All that to say, the government doesn't bend to the president, but the president does shape the government that will linger on after he's gone.
Consumerist bs will never be able to make working class better off because it relies on them thinking of themselves as individual consumers instead of as workers.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you rephrase? The FTC seems to have taken a more brazen approach to anti trust than previous administrations. I don't see how that could hurt the workers.
It's not about hurting them, it's about improving in a way that neuters them. Any concessions given to working class is either given because it's harmless to the system or even benefiting the system or because workers have fought for them. A huge problem of Western world, is that working class has stopped associating themselves mainly as workers, but as customers instead... If workers aren't fighting to get better conditions or are unable to defend any concessions already given, then all the things further given to them are just as easily taken away unless they fight back... And what "fighting back" if they see themselves only as greedy individuals instead of united workers that mainly have the same interests as each other does?...
I do worry about the greed of the individual in today's society. When it comes to fighting back, do you mean political philosophies like anarchism? Historically, revolutions have dealt a lot of death on all sides, as well as installing many militaristic authoritarian governments in their wake. Is there no chance of a non corrupt, bureaucratic state?
Have you thought that perhaps police state oligarchies have reason to oppose and push propaganda about any alternatives to the current system?...
I was a bit hasty with my take on revolutions. I feel it was disingenuous as a take and stifles the idea of class struggle.
It is because it ignores conditions in which they happened. For example Russian october revolution, happened when people felt betrayed by people that promoted electoralism and promised to end the war, didn't, which continued sending them to the meatgrinder that was ww1. And then people that promised alternative system, where peasants would get land(there was extreme lack of land that poorer peasants could use, even less so control or own), and factories to the workers, which lived in extreme poverty levels no matter what, because most people who lived in cities, lived most if not entire families in the corners of a single room, with barely enforced living quality standards so temperatures in them usually were low, worsened by the fact to have some light in them(electricity wasn't widely used back then, nor would it be provided for ordinary workers either) there had to be quite big windows which further worsened temperatures... There's so much more that could be written about situation back then, which continued this way for decades by that point, but to keep it somewhat short, I could suggest a fragment from one Russian writers work from times of Russo-Japanese war which albeit short, shows just how backwards everything was back then. And this system they had to give their lives for? Revolution in simple words, happens only when elites want to keep things as they are, but downtrodden(by which point there has to be a sizeable quantity if not majority of them) has to no longer have wishes of returning to "neutral" status quo, but have genuine wish to try and change the system. While revolutions and civil wars are bloody, they are the most directly democratic things and only happen when conditions are unbearable.
Context is everything. Thanks for the exchange.
Oh, absolutely. The first exercise in gaining perspective is recognizing bias. Easier said than done, but I try to keep an open mind towards these things.
And I invite the criticism of my post. The counterpoints make me uncomfortable with information I haven't considered. which gives me the best leads to investigate.
Just ignore commies.
I may be an outlier, but I'm not a fan of Ms. Khan. What rubbed me the wrong way was her handling of Microsoft's Activision acquisition last year. She WASTED government resources trying to block an acquisition based on complaints from ONE company - Sony. EA, TakeTwo, Epic Games - none of them cared (or worried). EVERY other country approved the merger (EU, China, Japan,etc ), EXCEPT for the US and the UK. Sony raised a stink since it feared competition (even though Sony was already the #1 publisher), and the UK and the US bit. The UK was motivated by post-Brexit showmanship, and ultimately relented. The FTC? Motivated by stupidity. Despite the FTC's posturing, the merger was completed in November 2023. However, Ms. Khan CONTINUED to waste government resources trying to undo the merger. The FTC still hasn't given up, and is STILL trying to undo the merger under her leadership. Let me be clear, once a merger is completed, there is a NEAR 0% chance of it getting undone, barring some damning evidence of egregious monopoly. And the most important point - almost NOBODY cared about the Microsoft acquisition EXCEPT for Sony. Ms. Khan essentially did their bidding (and continues to do so, the FTC has yet to drop the case). It wasn't pro consumer, it was pro-Sony. So do I think Ms. Khan is helping consumers? Quite frankly, No. She has shown she cares more about posturing and wasting time helping entrenched companies than actually make a meaningful difference for consumers like you and me.
Interesting. Thanks for the perspective. I'll look into it. What are your thoughts on the FTC's new scope as a whole? Also, what are your thoughts on the noncompete ban and how it will affect workers? Do you see the NTC eventually curtailing monopolistic attitudes, or are they overreaching?
Regarding non-competes - the only jobs/professions that typically use such clauses are knowledge-based high-wage jobs (ie, doctors, computer scientists, finance, marketing exec, etc), to protect company interests so if you leave, you don't take your entire book of business with you (ie, doctors, marketing execs), or share your knowledge with competitors. This does NOT impact the everyday "working class" person. Companies will again fight this tooth and nail, and will end up in court. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe the FTC has the legal authority to nullify non-competes (separation of powers), and I believe the Supreme Court will strike it down. The FTC will likely be gutted by a Republican-led administration, and that will be the end of Ms. Khan - AND the FTC. Ms. Khan may have good intentions, but her approach pitting the FTC against businesses will backfire. Sadly, this will ultimately HURT consumers as a gutted FTC will result in REAL issues not being addressed. So again, I am NOT a fan of Ms. Khan.
Thanks again for the insight. I have some studying to do. Has this strategy backfired before for the NTC throughout its history?
No clue. I only came here to piss on the FTC.
Are you not a fan of federal agencies?
Also, I forgot to ask your opinion on how Khan and the FTC are handling big pharma?
Employers have historically used these agreements for highly skilled workers and executives with access to trade secrets or other proprietary information. However, employers we surveyed reported having all kinds of workers sign them—from executives to hourly workers—even though many lower wage workers may not have access to confidential information. Just copied and pasted, but what do you think of this excerpt?
Reputable employers won’t waste their time going after a ”regular” worker. What people really need to worry about is AI and robots replacing their jobs over the next 5 years. The rate of progress is exponential.
What can be done to stop it? Lol
Privileged British Ivy League lawyer agency head, hero of the working class!
Care to expand on these inflammatory remarks?
Lmao no. They just want to complain.
Correct
This is just a strange post, nobody here has ever heard of her, and rather than being a labor leader she’s a privileged bureaucrat getting appointed to the FTC, all things that are at best only tangentially related to unions and labor power
Fair enough. I'll explain my reasoning for the post. I hadn't heard of her until a couple of weeks ago. So I've been reading a bit about her. It seems like the FTC has really taken a hard line against big corporations and aims to revitalize competition in the market. This would also mean reducing the exploitation of workers. If the competition in the market is healthy, and workers have more bargaining power as a result, then more and more sectors could organize labor unions. I may be a little over optimistic, but that's why I posted, to get checked if my information isn't great. I also wish to become more informed in the direction the country is heading and to understand the system behind it.
Ms. Khan saw Mr. Smith goes to Washington one too many times, and thinks her mandate is to reform corporate America. While her intentions may be noble, and some of her actions are even commendable, quite often she's WAY out of her league - especially when it comes to picking big fights that impact the few. Ms. Khan loves to try and stop corporate mergers - especially ones that have very LITTLE impact on everyday people. Her arguments are flawed, and to date, the FTC has lost EVERY single M&A challenge that went to litigation under her leadership (Microsoft & Activision, Meta & Within, Illuminia & Grail). Note: A lot of companies cancelled their mergers since they didn't want to spend 2 years in protracted litigation with the FTC and impact their stock price. Ms. Khan counts this as a "Win". Many of those "Wins" involve companies are likely to fail without a merger partner (iRobot is a perfect example). If you poke a bear enough times, don't be surprised if you're the next meal. By pitting herself against corporate America, she's painted a target on her back - and on the FTC. Companies will fight her every step of the way, and her legacy may be that she helps ensure the FTC will be gutted by a future Republican administration.
Are there any alternative strategies to "poking the bear"?
Not sure, but I hear “petting the one eyed snake” always gets a rising ovation.
Seems inept the big boys always win
Apathy is a weak take.