chumali

You set up a false equivalence by equating monopolisation with outright coercion when in fact there are multiple types of soft and hard market power that define the degree to which a company has a monopoly in a given market (network effects for example).

Even where market power is not being overtly used to stifle competition there are strong and well established economic arguments for why the breakup of large incumbents can be net beneficial.

Regulation can also cut both ways - one of the main advantages enjoyed by large incumbents are barriers created by regulatory capture (e.g. regulations like GDPR) - small businesses simply do not have the resources to comply and remain competitive. In a sense all regulation has an element of picking winners - to dismiss it on this basis is foolish/disingenuous and completely mischaracterises the debate.

The point is to realise that corporations are private/public institutions and there is a trade-off in interests between the parties involved. Regulation is the art of balancing these interests at the socially optimal level.

> If you don't like the App store don't buy Apple products.

The main issue with the App store (in terms of antitrust) isn't one of consumer choice but rather of taking advantage of network effects to enable rent seeking behaviour. App developers face little real choice, this inhibits the development of new app markets which would otherwise create value for consumers/developers beyond the value lost by Apple shareholders. It's economics 101.

> She is doing what politicians do best, using resentment, jealousy, and more, to gain more power and money.

If these were her goals she would surely fair better with a carrot rather than a stick (tax breaks perhaps). Her current proposals would drive business owners to support her political opponents - hardly a recipe for power and money. The proposals may be somewhat symptomatic, but it is a far stretch to conclude the agenda which you outline.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about the purpose of antitrust regulation. It is not simply a matter of consumer choice or outcomes (a widely perpetrated view) - there are considerations of prices, coercion, competitive barriers and other outcomes, not only for consumers but for competitors, suppliers, workers, investors, citizens, etc.

Even when there is no evidence of a company actively exerting market power regulators still need to consider the potential that they might do so in future.

It's all well and good saying he was wrong but the principles he outlines have been largely vindicated by the market.

Many things worked fine 30 years ago and yet have been immeasurably improved since - it's a tempting argument to not fix that which isn't broken, but ultimately a weak one. Also, there is little point in comparing computers, phones and car interiors. Incorporating physical buttons on phones involves a significant trade-off that is not an issue with computers. Car interiors are a different matter entirely. A more appropriate comparison might be conventional TV remotes vs the Apple TV remote. I've found the latter to be much more user friendly and intuitive.

The question was what makes it immoral, not what makes it illegal.

This is the same argument leveled against sweatshops and it is frankly a fallacious one.

It proposes a false dichotomy where the worker has to either be in well paying and fulfilling employment (which obviously is not an option given their circumstances) or alternatively, they must be saved from the tyranny of their employer (usually through enactment of regulations which will leave them jobless).

Either way all it achieves is to deprive the worker of income, experience and the agency that comes with being able to make their own employment decisions. Your comment, despite seeming conscientious, gives little consideration to utility of the worker and the pragmatic decisions they face.

A sense of moral outrage towards a company (or individual) for perceived exploitation of their employees might be justified, but is not sufficient grounds for limiting the freedom of exchange.

I'm not convinced that more academic information will benefit anyone other than the most fastidious individuals (a minority unlikely to ever participate in recreational use). The majority of use is recreational and rarely entails the kind of detailed cost benefit analysis you imply. Reading the disclaimers on modern medicines usually leaves me feeling more confused (not helped by the fact they usually list every side-effect under the sun, often mentioning opposite effects such weight gain and weight loss together).

For the typical user, the logic is usually that marijuana enhances their mood or creativity or coping ability, and that its adverse effects are relatively benign (based on informal/anecdotal knowledge from its millennia of use as a recreational substance). Decisions are also made at the margin, meaning the user rarely considers the impact beyond the immediate costs and benefits (a strong argument for taxation).

What would be useful to the majority of users is research in to how to mitigate the harmful effects to consumption (e.g. through alternatives to smoking) and through clear standards so they know what they are getting, the strength, duration, etc.

This is effectively a restatement of Pascal's Wager and therefore suffers from the same problems as the original formulation. The promise of a blissful afterlife is an insufficient basis for a morally authentic life, and the individual adopting theistic morals on that premise is acting in bad faith.

Might be worth checking out ReviewMeta - it scans Amazon product reviews for unnatural review patterns and provides a report highlighting suspicious activity. They also offer a browser extension.

AFAIK you can still access third party app repositories such as AppValley or TweakBox on iOS without jailbreaking (you have to install/trust their configuration profiles however).

This completely ignores the fact that climate change is not local problem, as well as the difficulty that has preceded all previous attempts at multilateral action.

Good luck convincing the manfucaturing lobby that they should have to pay additional carbon taxes when their foreign competitors already enjoy significantly lower regulatory costs. All that a carbon tax would acheive is carbon leakage, with production eventually being shifted abroad. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_leakage

>But even without that, the cost of green energy is going down every year. The moment—which might be forthcoming in a few years—when owning a fossil fuel vehicle becomes an exorbitant deal, people will switch in droves.

This is one case where the market based approach simply cannot deliver. The objectives of continued growth and reduced emissions cannot be reconciled. Energy consumption is directly tied to global consumption and hence growth. [1]

The fallacy that increasing energy efficiency will somehow allow us to mitigate climate change whilst maintaining the growth rates we're accustomed to has no empirical or theoretical basis. Classical economics failed to recognise that energy is a factor of production akin to labour and land. Once we account for this growth becomes endogenous and there is no longer any reason to assume that perpetual growth is sustainable. [2] As long as economic growth remains the primary goal any efficiency gains (manifesting as lower energy prices) will simply be cannibalised through increased consumption. [3]

Simply put, we are past the point where 'sustainable growth' is a possibility; as long as growth remains paramount and economic incentives do not change then the choice between growth and sustainability has already been made. The cake is disappearing slice by slice.

[1] http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/01/wealth-and-energy-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Actually, both capital and labour shares of output have seen a relative decline at the expense of profits. [1]

Conventional theory suggests this would occur under conditions of increasing market power. Most of the symptoms of this (of which decreasing investment is one) can already be witnessed. [2]

It seems therefore that the increase in share buybacks is simply one of the symptoms of the overarching market concentration narrative. Monopolists have little need to invest/innovate due to lack of competition and are therefore free to commit resources to price manipulation or further increasing their market power.

In this context any anti-buyback campaign would prove ineffective unless carried out alongside policies designed to limit market concentration and increase competition.

[1] https://promarket.org/responsible-declining-labor-share-outp...

[2] http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/the-market-powe...

> "It means they are holding $2000 of your money. And if you send it to another bank then it means they send it to them and now the other bank is holding your $2000. Nothing hard about that."

This isn't even close to how modern fractional reserve banking systems or payment settlement processes work. The average user has no need to understand these systems, just as they will have no need to understand how the blockchain works in order to benefit from it.

It is because of nationalist propaganda such as this that the 'conflict' will never die.

Despite all the blood that has been shed in pursuit of Greater Serbia (Balkan wars, WWI, Yugoslav Wars) people like you continue to push their nationalist agenda with no regard for ethnographic or economic considerations. The region has suffered immensely from these conflicts and yet still Serbian nationalists aggressively pursue expansionism blindly and bitterly.

It speaks volumes that the Serbian president is on record advocating genocide and sympathising with war criminals yet still received overwhelming support during the last election.

From a game theory perspective the aim of the administration is going to be to make the threat of instant retaliation seem credible to any outside observer therefore preserving the effectiveness of nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

In practice however I'd certainly be surprised to learn that there were absolutely zero checks on the process as suggested in the article.

Blur by Abine offers a similar service, it includes a password manager and the ability to mask phone and card details on the premium version. Generated email addresses can be managed on the site or through the mobile app.

There is currently no legal requirement for UK ISPs to enable content filtering however all the major ISPs have agreed to voluntarily implement this. Whilst in theory users have an option to 'opt out' in practice most users are unaware of this and the process varies considerably depending on ISP.

As far as court ordered blocking, IIRC only the top 5 ISPs are currently required to implement this. Not sure what impact this has had on subscription rates for smaller providers.

If the amount you receive is inversely proportional to how much you earn then this effectively creates a marginal tax on earnings, therefore creating a disincentive to seek further employment for fear of losing existing benefits.

This is one of the main problems UBI seeks to address by not being means tested like current benefits.

If instead of phasing out the earned credit for any earnings below $25k/year it was just withdrawn above that threshold (an effective marginal tax rate of 100% beteen $25k-$50k/year) then you would get clustering of incomes at just under $25k/year with no incomes between $25k-$50k/year. Potentially you could phase it out starting at $25k as arguably the incentive effects are less pronounced at higher incomes. Obviously this could not be considered universal however.

Didn't this already happen?

https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.06230

Assuming export volumes fall - which is the likely scenario - then we should see Sterling fall relative to the Dollar. This is not considering any external pressures on Sterling however.