What do you think?
Rate this book
Antitrust: Taking on Monopoly Power from the Gilded Age to the Digital Age
Antitrust enforcement is one of the most pressing issues facing America today—and Amy Klobuchar, the widely respected senior senator from Minnesota, is leading the charge. This fascinating history of the antitrust movement shows us what led to the present moment and offers achievable solutions to prevent monopolies, promote business competition, and encourage innovation.
In a world where Google reportedly controls 90 percent of the search engine market and Big Pharma’s drug price hikes impact healthcare accessibility, monopolies can hurt consumers and cause marketplace stagnation. Klobuchar—the much-admired former candidate for president of the United States—argues for swift, sweeping reform in economic, legislative, social welfare, and human rights policies, and describes plans, ideas, and legislative proposals designed to strengthen antitrust laws and antitrust enforcement.
Klobuchar writes of the historic and current fights against monopolies in America, from Standard Oil and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to the Progressive Era's trust-busters; from the breakup of Ma Bell (formerly the world's biggest company and largest private telephone system) to the pricing monopoly of Big Pharma and the future of the giant tech companies like Facebook, Amazon, and Google.
She begins with the Gilded Age (1870s-1900), when builders of fortunes and rapacious robber barons such as J. P. Morgan, John Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt were reaping vast fortunes as industrialization swept across the American landscape, with the rich getting vastly richer and the poor, poorer. She discusses President Theodore Roosevelt, who, during the Progressive Era (1890s-1920), "busted" the trusts, breaking up monopolies; the Clayton Act of 1914; the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914; and the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950, which it strengthened the Clayton Act. She explores today's Big Pharma and its price-gouging; and tech, television, content, and agriculture communities and how a marketplace with few players, or one in which one company dominates distribution, can hurt consumer prices and stifle innovation.
As the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, Klobuchar provides a fascinating exploration of antitrust in America and offers a way forward to protect all Americans from the dangers of curtailed competition, and from vast information gathering, through monopolies.
In a world where Google reportedly controls 90 percent of the search engine market and Big Pharma’s drug price hikes impact healthcare accessibility, monopolies can hurt consumers and cause marketplace stagnation. Klobuchar—the much-admired former candidate for president of the United States—argues for swift, sweeping reform in economic, legislative, social welfare, and human rights policies, and describes plans, ideas, and legislative proposals designed to strengthen antitrust laws and antitrust enforcement.
Klobuchar writes of the historic and current fights against monopolies in America, from Standard Oil and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to the Progressive Era's trust-busters; from the breakup of Ma Bell (formerly the world's biggest company and largest private telephone system) to the pricing monopoly of Big Pharma and the future of the giant tech companies like Facebook, Amazon, and Google.
She begins with the Gilded Age (1870s-1900), when builders of fortunes and rapacious robber barons such as J. P. Morgan, John Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt were reaping vast fortunes as industrialization swept across the American landscape, with the rich getting vastly richer and the poor, poorer. She discusses President Theodore Roosevelt, who, during the Progressive Era (1890s-1920), "busted" the trusts, breaking up monopolies; the Clayton Act of 1914; the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914; and the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950, which it strengthened the Clayton Act. She explores today's Big Pharma and its price-gouging; and tech, television, content, and agriculture communities and how a marketplace with few players, or one in which one company dominates distribution, can hurt consumer prices and stifle innovation.
As the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, Klobuchar provides a fascinating exploration of antitrust in America and offers a way forward to protect all Americans from the dangers of curtailed competition, and from vast information gathering, through monopolies.
797 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 27, 2021
381 people are currently reading
1674 people want to read
About the author
Amy Klobuchar
14 books81 followersAmy Jean Klobuchar is the senior United States Senator from Minnesota. She is a member of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, an affiliate of the Democratic Party. She is the first woman to be elected as a senator for Minnesota and is one of twenty female senators serving in the 113th United States Congress.
She previously served as the county attorney for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the most populous county in Minnesota. She was a legal adviser to former Vice President Walter Mondale. She has been named by The New York Times as one of the seventeen women most likely to become the first female President of the United States, and by MSNBC and The New Yorker as a possible nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.
She previously served as the county attorney for Hennepin County, Minnesota, the most populous county in Minnesota. She was a legal adviser to former Vice President Walter Mondale. She has been named by The New York Times as one of the seventeen women most likely to become the first female President of the United States, and by MSNBC and The New Yorker as a possible nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews
June 23, 2021
Amy Klobuchar in this book is asking the American people to remember the brave Americans at the turn-of-the-century Progressive Era who initiated the first antitrust legislation, and she challenges us today to rise up in that same spirit and fight the "power of BIG."
One of the simpler—comprehendible to me—suggestions in this list of 25 was No. 24—Stop Using the Word "Antitrust" and Start Calling It "Competition Policy." I couldn't help but observe that this book fails to follow its own advice with its title. (In fairness to Amy, the publisher probably chose the book's title.)
This book is full of illustrations including graphs, cartoons, and photographs. I found four graphs to be particularly poignant showing trends in the USA economy which are increasingly inequitable. I have placed links to the sources for these three graphs within this
While the trusts of yesteryear are no more, they have—over time—regenerated themselves, only in different guise. In place of trusts, we now have massive, multinational corporations—including larger-than-ever tech monopolies—and widespread corporate consolidation. Instead of Rockefeller's sprawling Standard Oil Company, we now have huge horizontally and vertically integrated enterprises, from Amazon to Google. And whereas we once had figures like James J. Hill and E.H. Harriman who tried to corner the railway market by issuing trust certificates, we now have horizontal shareholding, whereby wealthy investors own stocks in multiple companies in the same industry, which is, in effect, a trust, only by a different name.This book lays out a convincingly thorough case that we do indeed have a monopoly crisis, but ironically most of the public is oblivious to its existence and there are economists and politicians who prioritize economic efficiencies over concern for monopolistic business behavior. Klobuchar acknowledges that it will require a sea change in public awareness and action.
In order to persuade Congress to change the laws, and thus to better deter anticompetitive conduct, we need to build a new, grassroots antitrust movement—call it a pro-competition agenda. Whatever we call it, that movement must involve tens of millions of people, not just a few economists, lawyers and antitrust experts. It takes political will and the expenditure of political capital to get things done, and legislative fixes to update outdated laws or to reverse out-of-touch court rulings don't just happen all by themselves. It is only when citizens get involved—and demand action (whether it's sensible gun safety measures, antitrust reform, or to address the climate crisis)—that change comes. Just as the Granger movement, antimonopoly parties, and American presidents succeeded in past decades in pushing for more action to take on the power of BIG, we can do it again. We are living in the age of Big Pharma and Amazon and Google, but we can combat the lax antitrust enforcement that has contributed to the extreme inequality of wealth that has taken such a toll on American families and working people. We cannot go back, but we can move forward with clear-eyed policies that will rein in monopolies and once again put the American people in charge of our own destiny.One of the reasons most people are not concerned about monopolies is that the problem is disguised behind what appears to be plenty of purchasing choices.
... the four largest food companies control 82 percent of soybean processing, 63 percent of soybean processing, 63 percent of pork packing, and 53 percent of chicken processing. Seventy percent of toothpaste sales go to just two companies, Crest and Colgate; another company, Mainetti, now makes practically every plastic hanger that is sold in the United States, and Luxottica controls 80 percent of the market for sunglasses. Luxottica sells them under popular brand names such as Ray-Ban, Prada, Oakley, and DKNY while simultaneously owning retail stores such as LensCrafters, Sunglass Hut, and Pearle Vision. What may appear, on the shelves or in shopping malls, as competing brands or competing stores are actually all owned by the exact same company.The final chapter of the book offers 25 policy ideas, ranging from more resources for agencies to changes to legal standards to shifts in who can sue for damages. Policy wonk readers will probably consider this part of the book to be the meat-and-potatoes section. Others will find it a bit esoteric.
One of the simpler—comprehendible to me—suggestions in this list of 25 was No. 24—Stop Using the Word "Antitrust" and Start Calling It "Competition Policy." I couldn't help but observe that this book fails to follow its own advice with its title. (In fairness to Amy, the publisher probably chose the book's title.)
This book is full of illustrations including graphs, cartoons, and photographs. I found four graphs to be particularly poignant showing trends in the USA economy which are increasingly inequitable. I have placed links to the sources for these three graphs within this
May 7, 2021
This book is a different mix from what I am used to reading on topics like antitrust.
First, its a book on antitrust by a non specialist and a non economist (although the author is an attorney). For those who have not read much antitrust, it is complicated - very complicated - so the idea of an account by a generalist is well “different” (I do not speak Minnesotan, so I do not mean that as a negative). The book is readable and engaging. Substantively, it seems very much on line with more traditional approaches to antitrust and is consistent with the research literature.
Second, the book is part memoir by an active leading politician who had aspirations (at least until recently) and shows no plans for retirement. I generally stay clear of such books but it seems to work for Senator Klobachar. You do not get the sense that you are being strongly marketed towards. Hey, she even puts in the state of the art in antitrust jokes!
Third, it is a policy program that is fairly specific and fits in well with the new administration’s economic goals. This is intriguing, especially since the prior administration lacked a compelling antitrust program and seemed to shun experts and policy advisors along the way. It is also current, in that there has been increasing discussion of antitrust in recent years and Europe is initiating action against big tech and against Apple this week.
I appreciate the somewhat wonkish focus for a book that aims at a more popular audience. There is far too little in popular political discussion about how policies can translate general economic goals into real activities that affect how people actually live. Klobuchar’s book is valuable for showing how monopoly and related bad behaviors by very big firms can harm real people and harm them in large numbers. If readers wish to follow up, there are lots of notes and easily accessible sources. What I particularly enjoyed was how the book articulated a set of challenges, some of which seemed more general than antitrust, and showed how antitrust issues fit in to these problem areas in a big way. The move from the general to the more specific to the perhaps practical is well done here.
It is worth noting that the book has a clear perspective and readers not sharing it should know that up front. The book is still worth reading even if one disagrees with the author.
First, its a book on antitrust by a non specialist and a non economist (although the author is an attorney). For those who have not read much antitrust, it is complicated - very complicated - so the idea of an account by a generalist is well “different” (I do not speak Minnesotan, so I do not mean that as a negative). The book is readable and engaging. Substantively, it seems very much on line with more traditional approaches to antitrust and is consistent with the research literature.
Second, the book is part memoir by an active leading politician who had aspirations (at least until recently) and shows no plans for retirement. I generally stay clear of such books but it seems to work for Senator Klobachar. You do not get the sense that you are being strongly marketed towards. Hey, she even puts in the state of the art in antitrust jokes!
Third, it is a policy program that is fairly specific and fits in well with the new administration’s economic goals. This is intriguing, especially since the prior administration lacked a compelling antitrust program and seemed to shun experts and policy advisors along the way. It is also current, in that there has been increasing discussion of antitrust in recent years and Europe is initiating action against big tech and against Apple this week.
I appreciate the somewhat wonkish focus for a book that aims at a more popular audience. There is far too little in popular political discussion about how policies can translate general economic goals into real activities that affect how people actually live. Klobuchar’s book is valuable for showing how monopoly and related bad behaviors by very big firms can harm real people and harm them in large numbers. If readers wish to follow up, there are lots of notes and easily accessible sources. What I particularly enjoyed was how the book articulated a set of challenges, some of which seemed more general than antitrust, and showed how antitrust issues fit in to these problem areas in a big way. The move from the general to the more specific to the perhaps practical is well done here.
It is worth noting that the book has a clear perspective and readers not sharing it should know that up front. The book is still worth reading even if one disagrees with the author.
February 20, 2023
An incredibly important book! It is written in a language, diction and voice which is easy to read and comprehend. This book is a comprehensive view of how our form of "capitalism" is threatened and often damaged by non-competitive practices. Her suggestions in the next to last chapter are likewise comprehensive, logical and well considered.
The notes are a voluminous book in their own right. They are full of interesting and useful information.
This book sure makes me think about our recent inflation; and, how the response to that inflation is not to stop anti-competition practices but to allow our government sanctioned banking monopoly to raise its prices to try to force us into a recession. So much is so wrong.
The notes are a voluminous book in their own right. They are full of interesting and useful information.
This book sure makes me think about our recent inflation; and, how the response to that inflation is not to stop anti-competition practices but to allow our government sanctioned banking monopoly to raise its prices to try to force us into a recession. So much is so wrong.
April 17, 2022
Lovely book, makes Antitrust/Competition Law with all its complexities understandable to the layperson.
Call for action is for a mass movement, harkens back to the origins of antitrust law which are well brought out. Antitrust’ originated in a movement to end ‘trusts’ where business owners pooled shares and monopolised entire industries. Think Standard Oil, JP Morgan, Railroads. The movement was to ‘bust the trusts’ from Roosevelt to Wilson.
Lots of suggestions and measures taken by the Senator-author to address challenges of Big Tech. Quite comprehensive.
Hope to publish a long form review, will share a link here when done.
Edit dt. 14 April 2022: My book review has been published in the Competition Commission of India Journal on Competition Law and Policy, accessible at http://www.ccijournal.in/index.php/cc...
Call for action is for a mass movement, harkens back to the origins of antitrust law which are well brought out. Antitrust’ originated in a movement to end ‘trusts’ where business owners pooled shares and monopolised entire industries. Think Standard Oil, JP Morgan, Railroads. The movement was to ‘bust the trusts’ from Roosevelt to Wilson.
Lots of suggestions and measures taken by the Senator-author to address challenges of Big Tech. Quite comprehensive.
Hope to publish a long form review, will share a link here when done.
Edit dt. 14 April 2022: My book review has been published in the Competition Commission of India Journal on Competition Law and Policy, accessible at http://www.ccijournal.in/index.php/cc...
July 21, 2021
(Long review alert)
I’ll admit it — I love antitrust policy. Shockingly, I don’t have many friends who share the same love or want to talk about it with me, so I was excited to hear about this book coming out. All in all, I thought it was a good read. Antitrust enforcement is a hugely pressing issue and a tough topic to write about in an accessible and nontechnical way, so I have to give her credit for that. There were more aspects of the book I liked than ones I didn’t, but I’ll go through both buckets.
Things I did not enjoy:
1. At times, it felt like marketing for bills she’s proposed. Many times she would describe an issue and then follow it with “Which is why Republican Mike Lee and I have proposed a bipartisan bill that does X”. I know that’s the nature of the job but it felt a little sales-y. A small part of the book even focused on democratic policy initiatives (ones I fully support!) that really aren’t related at all to antitrust, like immigration reform
2. It was more one-sided than I expected. Obviously the premise of the book is that we need more antitrust enforcement, which I agree with, so I wasn’t expecting a 50-50 split, but she was fairly dismissive of reasons against stricter enforcement. If the opposing approaches to antitrust partially explain why American companies fare better globally than those from the EU, we should at least discuss the tradeoffs. This is hard to study empirically but I don’t like when somebody makes an issue seem more black-and-white than it really is, and there are real advantages to having American companies be the ones power the world
3. I was hoping for a little more depth around antitrust in the digital space and how this will play out in the coming decades. There are so many fascinating questions here — for example, how should a company’s “market” be defined when they don’t produce physical products (e.g., search, social media, cloud computing)? Should YouTube and Twitter be in the same market? They both have videos, comments, recommendation algorithms, and the ability to subscribe to others’ posts, yet they still “feel” different. How should we think about the consumer welfare standard when many products are free but encroach on our privacy? Lastly, one allegation I find very troubling is Amazon using AWS to monitor web traffic/product trends and then steer the company’s investment resources accordingly. If true, this level of vertical integration seriously disadvantages Amazon’s competitors, and I was eager to see Senator Klobuchar‘s proposals to remedy them. A lot of this stems from Lina Khan’s “Antitrust Paradox” paper, which Klobuchar does discuss, but I was curious to hear more. Maybe I’m biased because I work in the technology industry.
Now, for the things I did like:
1. The decision to focus the first part on antitrust history before diving into the present challenges was a good one. It’s helpful for us to have context around why the Sherman and Clayton Acts were written in the first place
2. She is extremely sharp and well-informed on the issue. The only group I can imagine being more knowledgeable is antitrust lawyers, but I doubt they could write a book explaining everything so well to non-experts
3. I thought she made a strong case around the harms from lax antitrust enforcement. Prices in the pharmaceutical industry are one of the clearest examples
4. She gave a wide range of very specific actions different groups could take to help solve the issues raised (including new legislation and more resources for the DOJ and FTC)
5. I liked that she took a fairly wide view of potentially anti-competitive acts. For example, when we think about antitrust, we don’t usually think of forced arbitration, noncompete agreements, and horizontal shareholding, but these can also cause real harm to everyday people
I’m really glad to see antitrust getting more popular attention and I will definitely be keeping an eye on how the field evolves. In fact, I may even get involved later on in my own career, and I now feel that I better understand the landscape.
I’ll admit it — I love antitrust policy. Shockingly, I don’t have many friends who share the same love or want to talk about it with me, so I was excited to hear about this book coming out. All in all, I thought it was a good read. Antitrust enforcement is a hugely pressing issue and a tough topic to write about in an accessible and nontechnical way, so I have to give her credit for that. There were more aspects of the book I liked than ones I didn’t, but I’ll go through both buckets.
Things I did not enjoy:
1. At times, it felt like marketing for bills she’s proposed. Many times she would describe an issue and then follow it with “Which is why Republican Mike Lee and I have proposed a bipartisan bill that does X”. I know that’s the nature of the job but it felt a little sales-y. A small part of the book even focused on democratic policy initiatives (ones I fully support!) that really aren’t related at all to antitrust, like immigration reform
2. It was more one-sided than I expected. Obviously the premise of the book is that we need more antitrust enforcement, which I agree with, so I wasn’t expecting a 50-50 split, but she was fairly dismissive of reasons against stricter enforcement. If the opposing approaches to antitrust partially explain why American companies fare better globally than those from the EU, we should at least discuss the tradeoffs. This is hard to study empirically but I don’t like when somebody makes an issue seem more black-and-white than it really is, and there are real advantages to having American companies be the ones power the world
3. I was hoping for a little more depth around antitrust in the digital space and how this will play out in the coming decades. There are so many fascinating questions here — for example, how should a company’s “market” be defined when they don’t produce physical products (e.g., search, social media, cloud computing)? Should YouTube and Twitter be in the same market? They both have videos, comments, recommendation algorithms, and the ability to subscribe to others’ posts, yet they still “feel” different. How should we think about the consumer welfare standard when many products are free but encroach on our privacy? Lastly, one allegation I find very troubling is Amazon using AWS to monitor web traffic/product trends and then steer the company’s investment resources accordingly. If true, this level of vertical integration seriously disadvantages Amazon’s competitors, and I was eager to see Senator Klobuchar‘s proposals to remedy them. A lot of this stems from Lina Khan’s “Antitrust Paradox” paper, which Klobuchar does discuss, but I was curious to hear more. Maybe I’m biased because I work in the technology industry.
Now, for the things I did like:
1. The decision to focus the first part on antitrust history before diving into the present challenges was a good one. It’s helpful for us to have context around why the Sherman and Clayton Acts were written in the first place
2. She is extremely sharp and well-informed on the issue. The only group I can imagine being more knowledgeable is antitrust lawyers, but I doubt they could write a book explaining everything so well to non-experts
3. I thought she made a strong case around the harms from lax antitrust enforcement. Prices in the pharmaceutical industry are one of the clearest examples
4. She gave a wide range of very specific actions different groups could take to help solve the issues raised (including new legislation and more resources for the DOJ and FTC)
5. I liked that she took a fairly wide view of potentially anti-competitive acts. For example, when we think about antitrust, we don’t usually think of forced arbitration, noncompete agreements, and horizontal shareholding, but these can also cause real harm to everyday people
I’m really glad to see antitrust getting more popular attention and I will definitely be keeping an eye on how the field evolves. In fact, I may even get involved later on in my own career, and I now feel that I better understand the landscape.
May 6, 2021
I suppose that this is nominally addressed to Amy Klobuchar:
I rarely give a book 5 stars, although a nonfiction book is far more likely to receive five than a fiction
book, but it's still not a guarantee; in order for me to grant a book order for me to grant the highest rating, said book has to both be interesting and it has to teach me something. This book fits in both categories.
I did study one year of economics in college, but I hated it, and it didn't teach me anything. I expect that my attitude had a lot to do with it; for one thing I was interested in in mathematics and science, not social science or law. For another thing, the Econ 101 was microeconomics, and cared more about people reading graphs (which, as a mathematician, I was more than able to do), and in general the topics covered were memorization and logic. (My undergraduate was at your alma mater, University of Chicago from late 1979 through early 1983 :-) – I am more than a little disappointed that the Chicago version of antitrust was so warped! But I was an undergraduate scientist and totally disconnected from those ideas generally!) I now know more about monopolies and antitrust than I ever did, and I thank your book!
I have to admit to being more than a little biased – I am a diehard left left left wing Democrat! I believe in people, not specifically money! I grew up in lily white wealthy Naperville, Illinois, but I came from Hyde Park, Chicago in 1967. My family didn't fit in (for one thing, we're Jewish), and we had posters all over the house ranting against Nixon and the police state. Never mind that my parents have since be come rabid Republicans and diehard Trumpers (well, I'm not sure about my mom; she died in 2012, but I'm 90% sure she would've been).
Anyway, what I'm saying is that the book was full of very good information and education, and I really think that it's a wonderful choice for anyone who has any doubts about our money system or the crooks running it!
I rarely give a book 5 stars, although a nonfiction book is far more likely to receive five than a fiction
book, but it's still not a guarantee; in order for me to grant a book order for me to grant the highest rating, said book has to both be interesting and it has to teach me something. This book fits in both categories.
I did study one year of economics in college, but I hated it, and it didn't teach me anything. I expect that my attitude had a lot to do with it; for one thing I was interested in in mathematics and science, not social science or law. For another thing, the Econ 101 was microeconomics, and cared more about people reading graphs (which, as a mathematician, I was more than able to do), and in general the topics covered were memorization and logic. (My undergraduate was at your alma mater, University of Chicago from late 1979 through early 1983 :-) – I am more than a little disappointed that the Chicago version of antitrust was so warped! But I was an undergraduate scientist and totally disconnected from those ideas generally!) I now know more about monopolies and antitrust than I ever did, and I thank your book!
I have to admit to being more than a little biased – I am a diehard left left left wing Democrat! I believe in people, not specifically money! I grew up in lily white wealthy Naperville, Illinois, but I came from Hyde Park, Chicago in 1967. My family didn't fit in (for one thing, we're Jewish), and we had posters all over the house ranting against Nixon and the police state. Never mind that my parents have since be come rabid Republicans and diehard Trumpers (well, I'm not sure about my mom; she died in 2012, but I'm 90% sure she would've been).
Anyway, what I'm saying is that the book was full of very good information and education, and I really think that it's a wonderful choice for anyone who has any doubts about our money system or the crooks running it!
July 4, 2021
This may be the most important work of non-fiction published this year.
Amy Klobuchar writes with passion and intensity about antitrust laws and policy in the U.S., emphasizing that we should stop using the word "antitrust" and generally substitute it with "competition policy." She knows her subject very well, adeptly showing her strong background in antitrust law (she represented MCI in the 1980s). She writes in plain English, even as she summarizes critical and arguably complex Supreme Court decisions, and offers real suggestions and solutions. On the very day I bought this book (from Amazon, sad to say, as I really wanted to order and read the book quickly, once I started thinking seriously about the subject), a U.S. District Court judge dismissed antitrust cases brought by the FTC and many states against Facebook. But more to come on those actions...
I highly recommend this book!
Amy Klobuchar writes with passion and intensity about antitrust laws and policy in the U.S., emphasizing that we should stop using the word "antitrust" and generally substitute it with "competition policy." She knows her subject very well, adeptly showing her strong background in antitrust law (she represented MCI in the 1980s). She writes in plain English, even as she summarizes critical and arguably complex Supreme Court decisions, and offers real suggestions and solutions. On the very day I bought this book (from Amazon, sad to say, as I really wanted to order and read the book quickly, once I started thinking seriously about the subject), a U.S. District Court judge dismissed antitrust cases brought by the FTC and many states against Facebook. But more to come on those actions...
I highly recommend this book!
June 14, 2021
Klobuchar is certainly an expert on this subject and the book was very thorough. I think it was a little verbose, and at times the writing was boring and dry.
One thing that I found distracting was that some of the writing sounded a lot like a campaign stump speech. I lost count of the times "That's why in 2014, I introduced the 'Monopolies Are Bad' Act" or "I support taking on big tech" was said, but it was easy to tell the book was written by a currently-serving politician.
That said, it was still an interesting read. 3/5 stars.
One thing that I found distracting was that some of the writing sounded a lot like a campaign stump speech. I lost count of the times "That's why in 2014, I introduced the 'Monopolies Are Bad' Act" or "I support taking on big tech" was said, but it was easy to tell the book was written by a currently-serving politician.
That said, it was still an interesting read. 3/5 stars.
October 23, 2021
Good overview of antitrust and monopolistic case law since post Civil War times thru 2020. Precise thinking on the most pressing issues surrounding monopolies and monopsonies. Little has been done since the Reagan years to battle the bigness of business and its affects on consumer choice. 75% of all industries are in the hands of 3 or 4 companies in each market.
We need muckrakers and trust busters like never before!
We need muckrakers and trust busters like never before!
April 27, 2021
Clearly US needs to revive this agenda. Well documented--
August 7, 2025
Nonfiction>politics, law
I listened to this and enjoyed it more than I expected to. Full disclosure, I read a lot of nonfiction and have read and enjoyed some PRETTY dry stuff. I found this material to be relevant, fascinating, and informative. I am not necessarily politically aligned with Klobuchar, so there are times she has little jabs or asides (or even primary points LOL) that I cringe at a little and don't agree with. OVERALL, the idea of very large companies not being ideal for the average American consumer should resonate with everyone, though (well, except maybe Bezos and Gates :) ).
As a reader I have been worried that the mammoth that is Amazon will destroy the hobby I love so much. As a consumer, I am alarmed that I struggle to find needed items in person in the store and employees are sometimes outright suggesting I just order it on Amazon. Enough about Amazon because there is SO MUCH more to it.
Prior to reading this book I was made aware of how few brands there actually are in the American grocery story. PepsiCo owns (obviously Pepsi) Quaker Oats, Tostitos, FritoLay, Bubly, Doritos, Brisk, Aquafina, Rice a Roni, Sunchips, Sabra, Gatorade and more. The points made by Klobuchar about large companies' advantages are worrisome. Airlines, banks, dog food, tech devices, healthcare facilities, healthcare insurance, --it goes on and on.
I do agree that we need a less negative word to talk about 'antitrust' and Competition Policy seems a good choice that is also descriptive of what it is.
The author admits that the topic is pretty dry, but I think she did a great job of making the material engaging and easy to absorb. I would recommend this to anyone who is able to handle an enlightening but serious and, at times, heavy read. This is not for the anti-nonfiction people, but it is for anyone open to nonfiction who spends any money with any company and wants to know they are getting fair prices. If you are ultra-conservative, be ready to just nod along and let this Democrat from the midwest have her few jabs--I assure you she will get back on point soon enough.
I listened to this and enjoyed it more than I expected to. Full disclosure, I read a lot of nonfiction and have read and enjoyed some PRETTY dry stuff. I found this material to be relevant, fascinating, and informative. I am not necessarily politically aligned with Klobuchar, so there are times she has little jabs or asides (or even primary points LOL) that I cringe at a little and don't agree with. OVERALL, the idea of very large companies not being ideal for the average American consumer should resonate with everyone, though (well, except maybe Bezos and Gates :) ).
As a reader I have been worried that the mammoth that is Amazon will destroy the hobby I love so much. As a consumer, I am alarmed that I struggle to find needed items in person in the store and employees are sometimes outright suggesting I just order it on Amazon. Enough about Amazon because there is SO MUCH more to it.
Prior to reading this book I was made aware of how few brands there actually are in the American grocery story. PepsiCo owns (obviously Pepsi) Quaker Oats, Tostitos, FritoLay, Bubly, Doritos, Brisk, Aquafina, Rice a Roni, Sunchips, Sabra, Gatorade and more. The points made by Klobuchar about large companies' advantages are worrisome. Airlines, banks, dog food, tech devices, healthcare facilities, healthcare insurance, --it goes on and on.
I do agree that we need a less negative word to talk about 'antitrust' and Competition Policy seems a good choice that is also descriptive of what it is.
The author admits that the topic is pretty dry, but I think she did a great job of making the material engaging and easy to absorb. I would recommend this to anyone who is able to handle an enlightening but serious and, at times, heavy read. This is not for the anti-nonfiction people, but it is for anyone open to nonfiction who spends any money with any company and wants to know they are getting fair prices. If you are ultra-conservative, be ready to just nod along and let this Democrat from the midwest have her few jabs--I assure you she will get back on point soon enough.
July 22, 2021
Amy wrote this book while she was working in the Senate, running for re-election, AND running for president, so while it's a disturbing treatise on what is basically our failed system (surprise, surprise) that favors bazillionaires (surprise, surprise again), it also reads like someone running three campaigns, one to get re-elected Senator, one for President, and one based off just sheer passion. It is the passion that overwhelms the other two categories at the expense of some brevity because the point is repeated over and over but you understand this is a person who cares deeply about the simple concept of fairness, the one thread that binds all Americans together. We may not agree on much but there is one thing Americans demand and expect—we want things to be fair.
For whatever bizarre reason, the song, “the old gray mare just ain't what she used to be” went through my mind while reading this book in response to Amy's detailed explanation how antiquated our anti-trust laws and regulations are, Amy even recommending abandonment of the term “anti-trust” in favor of the more accurate and inclusive “competition policy”. The horse is still alive, but barely. We need a new horse, a fast, sleek, intelligent steed that stays out ahead of these multi-zillion dollar corporations, consolidations, mergers, equity funding monsters (per the multiple cartoons showing thus).
It's going to take a lot to ramp this up especially the tech sector which made me wonder if we should not distinguish between material products ('third dimension') and cyber-based ('second dimension') products. What's it take to consolidate/buy three apps (say when Facebook ate Instagram)?Some code and time. What's it take to consolidate say two shoe companies? It requires physically consolidating the stores, moving shoes, hiring staff to do so. What happened is the anti-trust laws/regs could not keep up with how FAST a tech company can “acquire” another one because there is no physical product, no need to retool a factory, or manufacturing, or sewing/millinery. I argue there needs to be a different set of anti-competition regulations and laws for businesses that offer real material products and ones that offer only cyber/virtual “products” or services. Otherwise, I don't see how the Federal government can keep up. I realize the FTC offers some protections but as far as anti-competition policy, after reading this book (and of course, now I am an “expert”), it's obvious we two different sets of policies.
Amy bemoans the loss of small businesses but leaves a huge hole in this discussion. Many small business owners I know, former community college students of mine, their goal was to create a product (a game or app) AND sell out to a larger firm, “retire early” and all that. Not sure Amy understands how far down the rails things have gone on this front, case in point, Ben and Jerry's ice cream. People who run small businesses get tired. They don't want to do it anymore or more importantly, they live in a state that is NOT small business friendly (California for one). This is critical! Do you have support on the local, state, and federal levels for your small business because it's already damn hard! If you don't, you are even more liable to close down and/or sell out. Yes, many shutter and shut down but many WANT to get bought out. In fact, I see more of this than I ever did. Start-up, thrive, sell-out, retire early. How many articles, webinars, etc. on this? Thousands. If you want small businesses to start, you want them to thrive, stay alive, you HAVE to support them and help them stay in business. She does not discuss this at all, the fact that maybe the small businesses are folding because they lack the local, state, and federal support and well, they get tired and just don't want to do it anymore.
Amazon
Remember the movie “You Got Mail” staring Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks? Meg owns the Independent bookstore and she sells out in the end? Who knew how prophetic this would be...maybe Jeff Bezos.
As a proud IA (Indie Author, and well Arthur), my anger about Amazon only grew after reading this book. I know damn well that Amazon relentlessly hawks it's own books and rates it's own authors higher over those who have the audacity to use a different publishing/distribution service. I know damn well requiring purchase of “Amazon products” to the tune of $50/year to post a review of ANY product you purchase off the site is the typical Bezo's style extortion. (Note you have buy official AMAZON products, not any of the other vendor's products which means the other vendors are not getting reviews of THEIR products...you see the extortion here?). I know Amazon writes and constantly changes the rules of the game in favor of itself but to see it confirmed in hard data really blew my fuse. Once a regular customer, I will do everything I can now NOT to buy from Amazon anymore (so sorry “third-party sellers” or as Amazon's internal documents show, “internal competitors”).
“The platform has monopoly power over many small-and medium-sized businesses that do not have a viable alternative for reaching online customers. Amazon has 2.3 million active their-party sellers on its marketplace worldwide, and a recent survey estimates that about 37% of them—about 850,000 sellers—rely on Amazon as their sole source of income. As the House (of Representatives) report found of Amazon's inherent conflict of interest I operating an online marketplace and hosting third-party sellers when Amazon itself is a seller, “Amazon has engaged in extensive anti-competitive conduct in its treatment of third-party sellers. Publicly, Amazon describes third-party sellers as 'partners'. But internal documents show that behind closed doors, the company refers to them as 'internal competitors'.”
“A system of vertical integration , such as Amazon already has in the book business (creating conflicts of interest and an incentive for Amazon to preference the sales of its own authors over those of other publishers), gives companies considerable market power and clout. That's why I have vigorously questioned the wisdom of allowing vertical integration of industries and opposed vertical mergers, such as the AT&T-Time Warner merger.”
(Is it lost on anyone that I am posting my review—on Goodreads now owned by Amazon? They even ate Goodreads. I see more and more groups on Goodreads “dedicated” to Kindle Books and Amazon Publishing. An accident? No. Speaking of competition, in keeping with the tenor of the book, many TRULY independent authors welcome competition to Goodreads now! Go for it! Please!).
Disturbing too is that the merger analysis/review process by the government now depends on filing fees by the requesting company. As Amy discusses, this inherently creates a conflict of interest. If I am the company that wants the merger, and I am essentially paying for your services (your job?), it's in all of our best interests if you just approve the merger and keep your job. This was concerning. Yes, we need more allocation from Congress.
“Right now, the acquiring party to a merger is required to pay just $280,000 for a deal valued at $899.8 million or more. And even deals a hundred times that size—which require so many more resources to review and parse through in terms of the required economic and legal analysis—incur the same fees...The filing fees, in fact, don't come close to covering the actual costs of evaluation the proposed mergers.”
Regarding examples (most egregious), there was little or no discussion about Enron, the petro-energy sector, gasoline pricing perhaps because this in and of itself would constitute a whole book but I would have liked to see more about this. And while she takes her punches at Big Pharma (much deserved) she left out mention of the opioid crisis and how lack of enforcement of the consolidation/anti-trust laws/regs exacerbated it.
Consolidation is our modern day Wizard of Oz—who's behind that curtain and you better look and prepare yourself because when you do, it will blow your mind. You will walk into labyrinth from which you may never escape because it goes on and on, deeper and deeper. Alice in Wonderland, the American capitalist version.
“Seventy percent of the stock market is now controlled by institutional investors (for example, banks and hedge funds)--the very same investors who are frequently the largest shareholders in multiple companies that compete (is that supposed to be “compete”? My comment.) against one another. Cross-ownership coupled with industry consolidation and highly concentrated industries represents a real issue that needs to be addressed.”
I have so many examples just from my life. Not too long ago, I was offered some temp work by a well-known “consulting” firm. It was very strange because I was asked to use my (old) car to go to the field site. (They didn't have any vehicles for me to use but having known about this company for decades, I remember seeing their trucks all over the place). They said nothing about per Diem. The “human resources department” was sloppy and unresponsive. The “safety” video had nothing at all to do with our profession. I asked around. It turned out the “consulting firm” who had kept their old name, had been bought out by an equity firm out of Chicago that had 17 “holdings”. In other words, the “consulting firm” didn't exist anymore--when this equity firm bought it, they kept it in name only. I passed on the “opportunity”.
Then there is the topic of my “cable” company. Let's just say it's Suddenlink. Now let's look up “Suddenlink”. Oh gosh, me oh my, Suddenlink is now Altice. Well, let's look up Altice.
“Courtesy of Altice
Altice USA, formed from the acquisition of cable operators Cablevision Systems and Suddenlink Communications, has filed for an initial public offering.
In the SEC filing Tuesday, Altice USA indicated that it plans to raise up to $100 million — however, it said that figure was “estimated solely for the purpose of calculating the amount of the registration fee.” Altice USA said it has not determined the number of shares to be offered or the price range for the IPO.
The company is the U.S. subsidiary of French telecom conglomerate Altice N.V. Altice USA comprises the assets of New York-area cable operator Cablevision, which Altice bought in a deal worth $17.7 billion; and Suddenlink, acquired for $9.1 billion in 2015. The combination made it the fourth-largest U.S. cable operator behind Comcast, Charter Communications and Cox Communications.
Altice USA said that net proceeds from the offering will be used for “general corporate purposes.” That could include potential future mergers and acquisitions of other cable operators in the U.S., with Cox among the possible targets.
Altice USA reported $9.15 billion in pro-forma revenue for 2016, up 2% from the year prior, with a net loss of $656 million (versus a net loss of $1.1 billion for 2015).
The Bethpage, N.Y.-based company provides residential and business services to more than 4.6 million customers across 20 states. The group is headed by Dexter Goei, chairman and CEO of Altice USA and president of the board for Altice N.V. He worked as an investment banker at JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley before joining Altice in 2009.
As of Dec. 31, 2016, the company had approximately 16,000 employees, of which 227 were represented by a labor union. On March 10, 2017, an additional 100 employees became represented by a union.
For the proposed offering, J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Goldman, Sachs & Co. are serving as joint book-running managers.”
Now let's look at Altice (sorry, not done yet). Click below please.
https://www.alticeusa.com/brands
This is unbelievable. UNBELIEVABLE. So you don't even know who the hell you are dealing with. You don't even know what the “real” company is maybe because there ISN'T one! THIS to me is the most infuriating. At the most basic level, companies MUST be required to tell us WHO THEY ARE REALLY OWNED BY. I knew something was up when I called for cable service and a CONTRACTOR from an hour away showed up. He told me me “Suddenlink Cable” (now a fake name) does not even really exist anymore and they don't even employ their own technicians anymore. So what these companies are doing is essentially lying to us--wearing the costume but the 'party' ended a long time ago. This is deceptive as hell and something DOES need to change on this front for consumers.
On Big Tech: I seem to recall in one of the hearings Mark Zuckerberg called for more regulation of the tech industry. Isn't' this something Big Tech said they welcome? Or was that all just bullsht?
Regulations: Amy discusses the lack of regulatory followup, something I know very well having been a regulatory biologist in the natural resources sector. This is a glaring problem with all regulatory programs, from local to federal. I would spend hours reviewing a development project, issue project recommendations to reduce impacts with the permit issuance, then no one EVER went out to check if they ever actually did any of it! In fact, my boss would not allow this because our in-coming project load was so high and we were, of course, short staffed (at one point, I had 53 projects to review, many large and complex). One of my co-workers faced disciplinary action when he snuck out to look at a vernal pool mitigation project—on a Saturday—on his own time and dime. My boss threatened to write him up!
Yes the burden of proof must be on the companies requesting the review/approvals, be it a merger or a project requesting a Section 7 permit under the Endangered Species Act. This is an excellent point.
This whole approach is catty wampus and needs to change from a front-end to a back-end approach meaning when the project comes in, it is not burdened by the paperwork. It starts a back and forth discussion, review, in my profession, meaning meeting the project proponent out in the field to insure the project is planned to “avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate” (the mantra) impacts. No, you can't put the parking lot there, put it over there where there is ALREADY a parking lot (not kidding: I had so many projects where they wanted to do NEW resource damage versus using an existing impact area which from their perspective, makes NO sense, since new impacts costs more $ in review and permits but who I am to try and read the mind of a developer). The reviewing agency/regulatory agency creates a checklist of actions the proponent must do. They are on-site during construction (called construction monitoring), they are on site at the end. While this part may happen sometimes (again, like Amy points out, depending on WHO is in charge or WHO the management is, another HUGE problem) the project is not closed-out for five years after and the follow-up IS MANDATORY. They way it is now, they close out the project much of the time with issuance of the permits and nobody ever goes out to see what really happened during/after the project. (And they project proponents also know it won't be done by the way). So the issue of follow-up with regulations is universal. It's often not done and because it is not done, it makes a mockery of the whole process and—wastes taxpayer's dollars.
The point Amy made about major digital players exploiting original journalism was excellent and 'thought-provoking' (“holy sht, good point”):
“Facebook does not employ reporters. Google does not send people to state capitals to uncover corruption. Neither dispatches correspondents to conflict zones. Yet those websites make towering piles of money while using the work of another industry that IS in a death spiral.” (Syracuse.com)
Re: Citizen's United/Net Neutrality. Agree, strongly. We can't deal with competition policy, make it fair and just, until we upend Citizen's United and restore net neutrality.
Presidential Campaign Funding. Yes, I know it costs a gazillion now to run for president but stop asking the general public to fund presidential elections when we can barely make our mortgages!
Go to someone else on this! Impose a large lobby TAX on all lobbyists to fund it. (We all know money is being exchanged by all of them anyway. Why not just make it transparent and official). Whatever, but stop asking us.
Regarding other aspects of the book, it includes a fascinating drill down on what really happened/happens, speaking of politics:
The history of the Monopoly game is fascinating and of course, the credit goes to the woman (Elizabeth Magie) who was, of course, gypped out of the profits when the white guys showed up ($$$$$$$$)...
Detailed history of President Kennedy's role in of all things, the NFL and CBS, and a merger between the AFL and NFL was interesting. (Who knew?)
Vice President Kamala Harris and Katie Porter, among others, saved thousands of people from losing their homes and therefore, essentially, their lives. There is justice. I would have loved some discussion of this and the Keep Your Home California program. (Thank you all!).
One major criticism of the book I have is Amy calls for more citizen involvement and barely even mentions the vigorous Occupy Wall Street protests. This is a huge omission. It really bothers me when politicians forget or write off citizen protest movements, especially her barely mentioning it in the book. The 99% protests were MAJOR. I also thought it reeked of blaming the victim. While she bemoans how hard the common working slob has it in America, out of the other side of her mouth/pen/keyboard, she says we need to get “revved” up about this issue. We were/are revved up but in light of YOUR BOOK, it's pretty obvious we have no to limited power. I really took issue with this since I was involved with that movement. I DID participate. I still do what I can. Again, this is an inexcusable omission from her book and the reason I gave the book four stars.
https://scholars.org/contribution/pro...
General comments about book itself:
There are no numbered footnotes in the main text so it's profoundly tedious to look one up. Did they forget to put them in the book?
She used the term “white collar crime” once in whole book. Why only once? This what we always called it.
She repeats herself throughout, makes her case constantly which becomes a bit tiresome and draws from the book but on the other hand, I understand her passion and the importance of the issue. Still, the book could probably have been shorter if some of this was omitted.
If all the cartoons from 'the past' are still applicable to today...not a good sign.
Overall, an important read recommended for all Americans (including aspiring attorneys/judges!).
For whatever bizarre reason, the song, “the old gray mare just ain't what she used to be” went through my mind while reading this book in response to Amy's detailed explanation how antiquated our anti-trust laws and regulations are, Amy even recommending abandonment of the term “anti-trust” in favor of the more accurate and inclusive “competition policy”. The horse is still alive, but barely. We need a new horse, a fast, sleek, intelligent steed that stays out ahead of these multi-zillion dollar corporations, consolidations, mergers, equity funding monsters (per the multiple cartoons showing thus).
It's going to take a lot to ramp this up especially the tech sector which made me wonder if we should not distinguish between material products ('third dimension') and cyber-based ('second dimension') products. What's it take to consolidate/buy three apps (say when Facebook ate Instagram)?Some code and time. What's it take to consolidate say two shoe companies? It requires physically consolidating the stores, moving shoes, hiring staff to do so. What happened is the anti-trust laws/regs could not keep up with how FAST a tech company can “acquire” another one because there is no physical product, no need to retool a factory, or manufacturing, or sewing/millinery. I argue there needs to be a different set of anti-competition regulations and laws for businesses that offer real material products and ones that offer only cyber/virtual “products” or services. Otherwise, I don't see how the Federal government can keep up. I realize the FTC offers some protections but as far as anti-competition policy, after reading this book (and of course, now I am an “expert”), it's obvious we two different sets of policies.
Amy bemoans the loss of small businesses but leaves a huge hole in this discussion. Many small business owners I know, former community college students of mine, their goal was to create a product (a game or app) AND sell out to a larger firm, “retire early” and all that. Not sure Amy understands how far down the rails things have gone on this front, case in point, Ben and Jerry's ice cream. People who run small businesses get tired. They don't want to do it anymore or more importantly, they live in a state that is NOT small business friendly (California for one). This is critical! Do you have support on the local, state, and federal levels for your small business because it's already damn hard! If you don't, you are even more liable to close down and/or sell out. Yes, many shutter and shut down but many WANT to get bought out. In fact, I see more of this than I ever did. Start-up, thrive, sell-out, retire early. How many articles, webinars, etc. on this? Thousands. If you want small businesses to start, you want them to thrive, stay alive, you HAVE to support them and help them stay in business. She does not discuss this at all, the fact that maybe the small businesses are folding because they lack the local, state, and federal support and well, they get tired and just don't want to do it anymore.
Amazon
Remember the movie “You Got Mail” staring Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks? Meg owns the Independent bookstore and she sells out in the end? Who knew how prophetic this would be...maybe Jeff Bezos.
As a proud IA (Indie Author, and well Arthur), my anger about Amazon only grew after reading this book. I know damn well that Amazon relentlessly hawks it's own books and rates it's own authors higher over those who have the audacity to use a different publishing/distribution service. I know damn well requiring purchase of “Amazon products” to the tune of $50/year to post a review of ANY product you purchase off the site is the typical Bezo's style extortion. (Note you have buy official AMAZON products, not any of the other vendor's products which means the other vendors are not getting reviews of THEIR products...you see the extortion here?). I know Amazon writes and constantly changes the rules of the game in favor of itself but to see it confirmed in hard data really blew my fuse. Once a regular customer, I will do everything I can now NOT to buy from Amazon anymore (so sorry “third-party sellers” or as Amazon's internal documents show, “internal competitors”).
“The platform has monopoly power over many small-and medium-sized businesses that do not have a viable alternative for reaching online customers. Amazon has 2.3 million active their-party sellers on its marketplace worldwide, and a recent survey estimates that about 37% of them—about 850,000 sellers—rely on Amazon as their sole source of income. As the House (of Representatives) report found of Amazon's inherent conflict of interest I operating an online marketplace and hosting third-party sellers when Amazon itself is a seller, “Amazon has engaged in extensive anti-competitive conduct in its treatment of third-party sellers. Publicly, Amazon describes third-party sellers as 'partners'. But internal documents show that behind closed doors, the company refers to them as 'internal competitors'.”
“A system of vertical integration , such as Amazon already has in the book business (creating conflicts of interest and an incentive for Amazon to preference the sales of its own authors over those of other publishers), gives companies considerable market power and clout. That's why I have vigorously questioned the wisdom of allowing vertical integration of industries and opposed vertical mergers, such as the AT&T-Time Warner merger.”
(Is it lost on anyone that I am posting my review—on Goodreads now owned by Amazon? They even ate Goodreads. I see more and more groups on Goodreads “dedicated” to Kindle Books and Amazon Publishing. An accident? No. Speaking of competition, in keeping with the tenor of the book, many TRULY independent authors welcome competition to Goodreads now! Go for it! Please!).
Disturbing too is that the merger analysis/review process by the government now depends on filing fees by the requesting company. As Amy discusses, this inherently creates a conflict of interest. If I am the company that wants the merger, and I am essentially paying for your services (your job?), it's in all of our best interests if you just approve the merger and keep your job. This was concerning. Yes, we need more allocation from Congress.
“Right now, the acquiring party to a merger is required to pay just $280,000 for a deal valued at $899.8 million or more. And even deals a hundred times that size—which require so many more resources to review and parse through in terms of the required economic and legal analysis—incur the same fees...The filing fees, in fact, don't come close to covering the actual costs of evaluation the proposed mergers.”
Regarding examples (most egregious), there was little or no discussion about Enron, the petro-energy sector, gasoline pricing perhaps because this in and of itself would constitute a whole book but I would have liked to see more about this. And while she takes her punches at Big Pharma (much deserved) she left out mention of the opioid crisis and how lack of enforcement of the consolidation/anti-trust laws/regs exacerbated it.
Consolidation is our modern day Wizard of Oz—who's behind that curtain and you better look and prepare yourself because when you do, it will blow your mind. You will walk into labyrinth from which you may never escape because it goes on and on, deeper and deeper. Alice in Wonderland, the American capitalist version.
“Seventy percent of the stock market is now controlled by institutional investors (for example, banks and hedge funds)--the very same investors who are frequently the largest shareholders in multiple companies that compete (is that supposed to be “compete”? My comment.) against one another. Cross-ownership coupled with industry consolidation and highly concentrated industries represents a real issue that needs to be addressed.”
I have so many examples just from my life. Not too long ago, I was offered some temp work by a well-known “consulting” firm. It was very strange because I was asked to use my (old) car to go to the field site. (They didn't have any vehicles for me to use but having known about this company for decades, I remember seeing their trucks all over the place). They said nothing about per Diem. The “human resources department” was sloppy and unresponsive. The “safety” video had nothing at all to do with our profession. I asked around. It turned out the “consulting firm” who had kept their old name, had been bought out by an equity firm out of Chicago that had 17 “holdings”. In other words, the “consulting firm” didn't exist anymore--when this equity firm bought it, they kept it in name only. I passed on the “opportunity”.
Then there is the topic of my “cable” company. Let's just say it's Suddenlink. Now let's look up “Suddenlink”. Oh gosh, me oh my, Suddenlink is now Altice. Well, let's look up Altice.
“Courtesy of Altice
Altice USA, formed from the acquisition of cable operators Cablevision Systems and Suddenlink Communications, has filed for an initial public offering.
In the SEC filing Tuesday, Altice USA indicated that it plans to raise up to $100 million — however, it said that figure was “estimated solely for the purpose of calculating the amount of the registration fee.” Altice USA said it has not determined the number of shares to be offered or the price range for the IPO.
The company is the U.S. subsidiary of French telecom conglomerate Altice N.V. Altice USA comprises the assets of New York-area cable operator Cablevision, which Altice bought in a deal worth $17.7 billion; and Suddenlink, acquired for $9.1 billion in 2015. The combination made it the fourth-largest U.S. cable operator behind Comcast, Charter Communications and Cox Communications.
Altice USA said that net proceeds from the offering will be used for “general corporate purposes.” That could include potential future mergers and acquisitions of other cable operators in the U.S., with Cox among the possible targets.
Altice USA reported $9.15 billion in pro-forma revenue for 2016, up 2% from the year prior, with a net loss of $656 million (versus a net loss of $1.1 billion for 2015).
The Bethpage, N.Y.-based company provides residential and business services to more than 4.6 million customers across 20 states. The group is headed by Dexter Goei, chairman and CEO of Altice USA and president of the board for Altice N.V. He worked as an investment banker at JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley before joining Altice in 2009.
As of Dec. 31, 2016, the company had approximately 16,000 employees, of which 227 were represented by a labor union. On March 10, 2017, an additional 100 employees became represented by a union.
For the proposed offering, J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Goldman, Sachs & Co. are serving as joint book-running managers.”
Now let's look at Altice (sorry, not done yet). Click below please.
https://www.alticeusa.com/brands
This is unbelievable. UNBELIEVABLE. So you don't even know who the hell you are dealing with. You don't even know what the “real” company is maybe because there ISN'T one! THIS to me is the most infuriating. At the most basic level, companies MUST be required to tell us WHO THEY ARE REALLY OWNED BY. I knew something was up when I called for cable service and a CONTRACTOR from an hour away showed up. He told me me “Suddenlink Cable” (now a fake name) does not even really exist anymore and they don't even employ their own technicians anymore. So what these companies are doing is essentially lying to us--wearing the costume but the 'party' ended a long time ago. This is deceptive as hell and something DOES need to change on this front for consumers.
On Big Tech: I seem to recall in one of the hearings Mark Zuckerberg called for more regulation of the tech industry. Isn't' this something Big Tech said they welcome? Or was that all just bullsht?
Regulations: Amy discusses the lack of regulatory followup, something I know very well having been a regulatory biologist in the natural resources sector. This is a glaring problem with all regulatory programs, from local to federal. I would spend hours reviewing a development project, issue project recommendations to reduce impacts with the permit issuance, then no one EVER went out to check if they ever actually did any of it! In fact, my boss would not allow this because our in-coming project load was so high and we were, of course, short staffed (at one point, I had 53 projects to review, many large and complex). One of my co-workers faced disciplinary action when he snuck out to look at a vernal pool mitigation project—on a Saturday—on his own time and dime. My boss threatened to write him up!
Yes the burden of proof must be on the companies requesting the review/approvals, be it a merger or a project requesting a Section 7 permit under the Endangered Species Act. This is an excellent point.
This whole approach is catty wampus and needs to change from a front-end to a back-end approach meaning when the project comes in, it is not burdened by the paperwork. It starts a back and forth discussion, review, in my profession, meaning meeting the project proponent out in the field to insure the project is planned to “avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate” (the mantra) impacts. No, you can't put the parking lot there, put it over there where there is ALREADY a parking lot (not kidding: I had so many projects where they wanted to do NEW resource damage versus using an existing impact area which from their perspective, makes NO sense, since new impacts costs more $ in review and permits but who I am to try and read the mind of a developer). The reviewing agency/regulatory agency creates a checklist of actions the proponent must do. They are on-site during construction (called construction monitoring), they are on site at the end. While this part may happen sometimes (again, like Amy points out, depending on WHO is in charge or WHO the management is, another HUGE problem) the project is not closed-out for five years after and the follow-up IS MANDATORY. They way it is now, they close out the project much of the time with issuance of the permits and nobody ever goes out to see what really happened during/after the project. (And they project proponents also know it won't be done by the way). So the issue of follow-up with regulations is universal. It's often not done and because it is not done, it makes a mockery of the whole process and—wastes taxpayer's dollars.
The point Amy made about major digital players exploiting original journalism was excellent and 'thought-provoking' (“holy sht, good point”):
“Facebook does not employ reporters. Google does not send people to state capitals to uncover corruption. Neither dispatches correspondents to conflict zones. Yet those websites make towering piles of money while using the work of another industry that IS in a death spiral.” (Syracuse.com)
Re: Citizen's United/Net Neutrality. Agree, strongly. We can't deal with competition policy, make it fair and just, until we upend Citizen's United and restore net neutrality.
Presidential Campaign Funding. Yes, I know it costs a gazillion now to run for president but stop asking the general public to fund presidential elections when we can barely make our mortgages!
Go to someone else on this! Impose a large lobby TAX on all lobbyists to fund it. (We all know money is being exchanged by all of them anyway. Why not just make it transparent and official). Whatever, but stop asking us.
Regarding other aspects of the book, it includes a fascinating drill down on what really happened/happens, speaking of politics:
The history of the Monopoly game is fascinating and of course, the credit goes to the woman (Elizabeth Magie) who was, of course, gypped out of the profits when the white guys showed up ($$$$$$$$)...
Detailed history of President Kennedy's role in of all things, the NFL and CBS, and a merger between the AFL and NFL was interesting. (Who knew?)
Vice President Kamala Harris and Katie Porter, among others, saved thousands of people from losing their homes and therefore, essentially, their lives. There is justice. I would have loved some discussion of this and the Keep Your Home California program. (Thank you all!).
One major criticism of the book I have is Amy calls for more citizen involvement and barely even mentions the vigorous Occupy Wall Street protests. This is a huge omission. It really bothers me when politicians forget or write off citizen protest movements, especially her barely mentioning it in the book. The 99% protests were MAJOR. I also thought it reeked of blaming the victim. While she bemoans how hard the common working slob has it in America, out of the other side of her mouth/pen/keyboard, she says we need to get “revved” up about this issue. We were/are revved up but in light of YOUR BOOK, it's pretty obvious we have no to limited power. I really took issue with this since I was involved with that movement. I DID participate. I still do what I can. Again, this is an inexcusable omission from her book and the reason I gave the book four stars.
https://scholars.org/contribution/pro...
General comments about book itself:
There are no numbered footnotes in the main text so it's profoundly tedious to look one up. Did they forget to put them in the book?
She used the term “white collar crime” once in whole book. Why only once? This what we always called it.
She repeats herself throughout, makes her case constantly which becomes a bit tiresome and draws from the book but on the other hand, I understand her passion and the importance of the issue. Still, the book could probably have been shorter if some of this was omitted.
If all the cartoons from 'the past' are still applicable to today...not a good sign.
Overall, an important read recommended for all Americans (including aspiring attorneys/judges!).
May 15, 2021
I started reading this book, in part, to check a box on a reading challenge - the one that says to read a book you're intimidated by.
While this is a way more detailed book than I usually read, I found it timely and informative. Were parts difficult to get through? Yes, and that is why I did not follow an economics or legal path in my education. Side benefit, there may be a couple Jeopardy answers that I could nail now. A well written and well documented nonfic book on a fairly heavy subject.
While this is a way more detailed book than I usually read, I found it timely and informative. Were parts difficult to get through? Yes, and that is why I did not follow an economics or legal path in my education. Side benefit, there may be a couple Jeopardy answers that I could nail now. A well written and well documented nonfic book on a fairly heavy subject.
July 22, 2021
For a book about why antitrust law matters and why it needs to be reinvigorated, I'd recommend Tim Wu's "The Curse of Bigness" over this book, but this is a very important book that everyone should read. It is written in an accessible style by a major politcal figure, and though it is in many ways an advocacy piece and a bit of self promotion by a person who has ambitions for the presidency, it is still very good. You don't need a law degree to understand it, and it will reach a much broader audience than Mr. Wu's book can hope for.
Antitrust is a concept that should appeal to both left and right. People on the left don't like big corporations. People on the right love to promote free enterprise. Big corporations are mostly about wealth and privilege for the few, not economic efficiency. And even if they are not broken up, they need to be restrained from anticompetitve practices. Unfortunately, the false Robert Bork theory of antitrust law has held sway in the Justice Department and the courts for forty years now, and it's time for a change. There are certainly some things in antitrust law that don't bear up under economic analysis, like the Robinson-Patman Act restriction on resale price controls, but the basic theory behind the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act is sound, and there is no intellectually honest basis for gutting them as we have seen happen in both Republican and Democratic admnisitrations since Reagan.
I'm not in full agreement with every point of Ms. Klobuchar's program, but I applaud her for having a program and for pushing for action in this important, but sometimes arcane area of the law. If she goes a bit too far in some of her suggestions, that's OK, because even with a tidal wave of support which she will never muster up and given the unaccountable hostility of conservative judges to antitrust, less than half of what she advocates will ever be enacted. But we should still try. Go Amy!!!
Antitrust is a concept that should appeal to both left and right. People on the left don't like big corporations. People on the right love to promote free enterprise. Big corporations are mostly about wealth and privilege for the few, not economic efficiency. And even if they are not broken up, they need to be restrained from anticompetitve practices. Unfortunately, the false Robert Bork theory of antitrust law has held sway in the Justice Department and the courts for forty years now, and it's time for a change. There are certainly some things in antitrust law that don't bear up under economic analysis, like the Robinson-Patman Act restriction on resale price controls, but the basic theory behind the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act is sound, and there is no intellectually honest basis for gutting them as we have seen happen in both Republican and Democratic admnisitrations since Reagan.
I'm not in full agreement with every point of Ms. Klobuchar's program, but I applaud her for having a program and for pushing for action in this important, but sometimes arcane area of the law. If she goes a bit too far in some of her suggestions, that's OK, because even with a tidal wave of support which she will never muster up and given the unaccountable hostility of conservative judges to antitrust, less than half of what she advocates will ever be enacted. But we should still try. Go Amy!!!
October 23, 2021
Trusts and monopolies are anti-competition. They not only remove choice from consumers and increase the price of their products, they limit innovation and prevent alternative solutions by absorbing or harming competitors. Monopolies became so big in the 19th century that their power facilitated social unrest. Antitrust laws were made to break up monopolies, which were effective when used, but were rarely used due to political power of the monopolies, or the laws ineffectiveness. What is needed is to update the antitrust laws for the new and different versions of monopoly power. Antitrust laws give businesses and citizens more leverage. Bringing with it competition, and overall better customer and social experience.
Trusts are a legal term for various companies transferring their shares to a single holding company. The shareholders of the holding company receive a part of the earnings. Trusts were used to eliminate competitors, use strategic pricing to make it hard to compete with, force products on consumers, and have more control over working conditions. The elimination of competition by mergers gives the monopolists power.
Monopolies have a lot of power, so much that they could intimidate legislature. With politicians self-censoring from fear of the monopolists. As monopolies grow, so does their power. Inability to check the increased power came about by being unprepared or inept, but also from arrangements being made between the monopolists and the politicians.
Going against monopolies has been a foundational tenant of America, as in the USA was founded by going against the monopoly of British power on colonial American decisions. The American anti-monopolist agenda was in opposition to how British monopolies controlled what could be bought, from whom, and at what price. Many of the monopolies came about through corruption and influence rather than merit. Colonialist who tried to compete with the British monopolies, were fined or imprisoned. When the economy got tough, rather than provide relief, the British government demand more profit to be sent their way. The monopoly that precipitated the American Revolution was the British East India Company, which had come about from the Tax Act (later known as Tea Act). The company would effectively prevent the colonists from buying tea from the Dutch, including the prevention of illegal tea smuggling.
During the 19th century, as the abuses from monopolies mounted, there were governors and legislatures that did try to rectify the situation, but the bills that passed Congress were watered down to prevent any effective change. The more powerful and bigger the monopolies got, the greedier they became. The public became so angry that they started to rebel against the monopolists. It was local politicians who started to go against monopoly powers because it was their local small business and workers who were being hurt. The politicians job depended on doing something against monopoly power.
When antitrust laws were put in, such as the Sherman Act, many courts favored the monopolist’s business interests than the social interests. It was during the Roosevelt era that antitrust laws took effect. Roosevelt’s socioeconomic background allowed him to understand what trusts meant for the various classes. Roosevelt recognized that trusts damaged business and government interests as they resulted in riots and social upheaval. Business and governments would have social trust built by reducing the power of those who had too much, because it would reduce the risk of riots and strikes. There was mixed efficacy of antitrust during the Roosevelt and Taft administration. The industries targeted by them were selective. Favored industries received favored interests, which left many powerful industrialists with a lot of power. Nixon would use antitrust legislature to attack political enemies, rather than on merits.
What caused antitrust laws to be less effective was the situation during the times, as other social factors took precedence. Ideology about the laws also reduced its effectiveness. The way in which the antitrust laws such as Sherman Act and Clayton Act are written do not make it easy to facilitate antitrust decisions.
Large and powerful companies are too big to succeed as they threaten innovation and harm consumer choice. What is needed is to update antitrust laws, as they are the leverage that business and citizens would be able to use. Citizens would get lower prices and more choice. Businesses would not be squeezed out.
The initial third of the book is a wonderful account of the impact of antitrust laws and monopoly power. During that part of the book, the author writes in a manner that explains how the laws help everyone, and the threats monopoly power has. Brings with it various perspectives from seemingly different political backgrounds and creates a shared understanding of the problem. After that, the book because very political. More about political attacks than the merits of the decisions. References how the opposing political party has done a lot of damage to competition by not seeing antitrust laws favorably, but does not mention all the policies that the author’s political party has done to stop competition. Rather than wanting competition on its own merits, the book is more about a politically favorable competition. In terms of economics, although the author does provide a little bit about why some monopoly practices might be favorable, there is no discussion about why government sometimes support oligopolies and monopolies for the benefits they provide. Benefits not to the shareholders, but for the communities and citizens they support. The only trusts and monopolies that are discussed are those which have done a lot of harm to the interest of the citizens and competitors, but not about the basic economic reasons in which size can be more efficacious.
Trusts are a legal term for various companies transferring their shares to a single holding company. The shareholders of the holding company receive a part of the earnings. Trusts were used to eliminate competitors, use strategic pricing to make it hard to compete with, force products on consumers, and have more control over working conditions. The elimination of competition by mergers gives the monopolists power.
Monopolies have a lot of power, so much that they could intimidate legislature. With politicians self-censoring from fear of the monopolists. As monopolies grow, so does their power. Inability to check the increased power came about by being unprepared or inept, but also from arrangements being made between the monopolists and the politicians.
Going against monopolies has been a foundational tenant of America, as in the USA was founded by going against the monopoly of British power on colonial American decisions. The American anti-monopolist agenda was in opposition to how British monopolies controlled what could be bought, from whom, and at what price. Many of the monopolies came about through corruption and influence rather than merit. Colonialist who tried to compete with the British monopolies, were fined or imprisoned. When the economy got tough, rather than provide relief, the British government demand more profit to be sent their way. The monopoly that precipitated the American Revolution was the British East India Company, which had come about from the Tax Act (later known as Tea Act). The company would effectively prevent the colonists from buying tea from the Dutch, including the prevention of illegal tea smuggling.
During the 19th century, as the abuses from monopolies mounted, there were governors and legislatures that did try to rectify the situation, but the bills that passed Congress were watered down to prevent any effective change. The more powerful and bigger the monopolies got, the greedier they became. The public became so angry that they started to rebel against the monopolists. It was local politicians who started to go against monopoly powers because it was their local small business and workers who were being hurt. The politicians job depended on doing something against monopoly power.
When antitrust laws were put in, such as the Sherman Act, many courts favored the monopolist’s business interests than the social interests. It was during the Roosevelt era that antitrust laws took effect. Roosevelt’s socioeconomic background allowed him to understand what trusts meant for the various classes. Roosevelt recognized that trusts damaged business and government interests as they resulted in riots and social upheaval. Business and governments would have social trust built by reducing the power of those who had too much, because it would reduce the risk of riots and strikes. There was mixed efficacy of antitrust during the Roosevelt and Taft administration. The industries targeted by them were selective. Favored industries received favored interests, which left many powerful industrialists with a lot of power. Nixon would use antitrust legislature to attack political enemies, rather than on merits.
What caused antitrust laws to be less effective was the situation during the times, as other social factors took precedence. Ideology about the laws also reduced its effectiveness. The way in which the antitrust laws such as Sherman Act and Clayton Act are written do not make it easy to facilitate antitrust decisions.
Large and powerful companies are too big to succeed as they threaten innovation and harm consumer choice. What is needed is to update antitrust laws, as they are the leverage that business and citizens would be able to use. Citizens would get lower prices and more choice. Businesses would not be squeezed out.
The initial third of the book is a wonderful account of the impact of antitrust laws and monopoly power. During that part of the book, the author writes in a manner that explains how the laws help everyone, and the threats monopoly power has. Brings with it various perspectives from seemingly different political backgrounds and creates a shared understanding of the problem. After that, the book because very political. More about political attacks than the merits of the decisions. References how the opposing political party has done a lot of damage to competition by not seeing antitrust laws favorably, but does not mention all the policies that the author’s political party has done to stop competition. Rather than wanting competition on its own merits, the book is more about a politically favorable competition. In terms of economics, although the author does provide a little bit about why some monopoly practices might be favorable, there is no discussion about why government sometimes support oligopolies and monopolies for the benefits they provide. Benefits not to the shareholders, but for the communities and citizens they support. The only trusts and monopolies that are discussed are those which have done a lot of harm to the interest of the citizens and competitors, but not about the basic economic reasons in which size can be more efficacious.
February 14, 2023
Really expected this to be a typical campaign book, but it was kinda all over the place and definitely not that.
It’s super dense and not very approachable but has well structured arguments and details that it is super informative. It definitely reads like a lawyer wrote it, and the first 1/3 is pretty painful to get through (feels like it’s just a Wikipedia copy paste) but it gets better after that.
It’s super dense and not very approachable but has well structured arguments and details that it is super informative. It definitely reads like a lawyer wrote it, and the first 1/3 is pretty painful to get through (feels like it’s just a Wikipedia copy paste) but it gets better after that.
October 6, 2021
Antitrust
By Amy Klobuchar
- [ ] It starts with the heart care industry
- [ ] I need to take plenty of notes
Monopolies
- [ ] American colonists rebelled against British monopolies. The Boston Tea party was about monopolies
- [ ] Adam Smith was against monopolies. He believed that is suppressed the invisible hand. George Washington was against monopolies. George Mason and Thomas Jefferson tried to put a clause in the constitution to check monopoly power
- [ ] The history of the game monopoly is an anti monopoly game, is there a second set of rules that was played differently and distributed wealth. The game was in long trade mark disputes and the original creator really did not get the credit or sales from it
- [ ] Throughout American history Presidents particularly in the 19th century have fought against monopoly power
- [ ] The Boston Tea party was a revolt against a monopoly on tea
Trusts
- [ ] Unions, violence of strikes
- [ ] Workers push against tyrannical corporations
- [ ] McKinley started the trust busting area in 1898 when he appointed the US Industrial Commission
- [ ] Antitrust is a term used for anticompetitive practices
- [ ] Definition of a trust: ‘Corporate trusts came into use as legal devices to consolidate power in large American corporate enterprises.[3] In January 1882, Samuel C. T. Dodd, Standard Oil's General Solicitor, conceived of the corporate trust to help John D. Rockefeller consolidate his control over the many acquisitions of Standard Oil, which was already the largest corporation in the world.[3][failed verification][4] The Standard Oil Trust formed pursuant to a "trust agreement" in which the individual shareholders of many separate corporations agreed to convey their shares to the trust; it ended up entirely owning 14 corporations and also exercised majority control over 26 others.[3] Nine individuals held trust certificates and acted as the trust's board of trustees.[3] One of those trustees, Rockefeller himself, held 41% of the trust certificates; the next most powerful trustee held only about 12%’ - Wikipedia
- [ ] The Sherman Antitrust Act, 1890: ‘broadly prohibits 1) anticompetitive agreements and 2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses’ - Wikipedia
- [ ] The courts have since built a frame work around the Sherman Antitrust Act
- [ ] The Clayton Act of 1914: expanded upon the Sherman Act and has become one of the foundations of antitrust law in the US.
- [ ] price discrimination between different purchasers if such a discrimination substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce (Act Section 2, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 13);
- [ ] sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or lessee not deal with the competitors of the seller or lessor ("exclusive dealings") or (B) the buyer also purchase another different product ("tying") but only when these acts substantially lessen competition (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 14);
- [ ] mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition (Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18) or where the voting securities and assets threshold is met (Act Section 7a, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18a);
- [ ] any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations, if those corporations would violate the antitrust criteria by merging (Act Section 8; codified 1200 at 15 U.S.C. § 19).
- [ ] It added specific provisions to protect unions. Because the Sherman Act was enforced against unions, it stated ‘that the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce, and permit[ting] labor organizations to carry out their legitimate objective.’ Implying that unions were an essential part of fighting against monopolies, they had to be protected
- [ ] The creation of the Federal Trade Commission in 1914 was another pillar towards the structure of antitrust and consumer protection
- [ ] More about the FTC:
- [ ] William Jennings Brian - ran on antitrust
- [ ] Anti trust and populism in the Midwest. The antitrust movement started in the Midwest
- [ ] Teddy Roosevelt and his war against trusts. He was not popular amongst trusts, he and his DOJ actively prosecuted over 40 trusts. Many of these were resolved by the courts after he left office
- [ ] Lincoln opposed trusts
- [ ] The Sherman act was not enforced for the first 10 years, in fact it was used against unions. Courts just choose to ignore it
I need to be taking more notes
- [ ] The break up of Standard Oil and Taft
- [ ] The break up of American Tobacco
- [ ] Rosevelt was not impartial, he went after some trusts and not the ones that supported him, the JP Morgan backed trusts
- [ ] By 1904 there were over 300 trusts that accounted for x billion dollars?
- [ ] The 17th amendment was passed because senators were representing corporations instead of the people. Senators were representing families and corporate trusts. The progressives were fighting against corruption and this corruption of the senate. It sounds a lot like today
- [ ] By 1910 most of the major trusts had been broken up
- [ ] Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson - the progressive era
- [ ] The progressive area ended after Wilson and started with WWI. Presidents gave antitrust less attention, there was less public pressure to break up trusts, and WWI lead to some companies have monopolies on certain sectors - Dupont over gun powder
- [ ] In the last hundred years antitrust has moved to the role of courts, academics, and politicians. During the progressive area there was support amongst the public to bust trusts, Taft, Teddy, and Wilson all ran on it - it was the basis of the 1912 campaign. In the past hundred years there has been less popular support
- [ ] The other laws that support anti trust enforcement
- [ ] There are many exemptions and loopholes that make enforcement challenging
- [ ] MLB is not antitrust but the NFL is
- [ ] Business can not get together to control prices
The courts
- [ ] The U Chicago school v Harvard school. Yes the same U Chicago of the 60’/70’s economics department
- [ ] Robert Bork argued vociferously against anti trust and laid the ground work for conservative arguments
- [ ] He asked a crucial question, what is the purpose of antitrust law? Chicago sided with it stifling legitimate competition and Harvard argued that is protected consumers
- [ ] Shoot there is so much more in this chapter
- [ ] Antitrust enforcement had basically evaporated by the Reagan administration
- [ ] AT&T breakup was controversial but beneficial to innovation and consumers. It was big win for antitrust
- [ ] The pro business Reagan administration promoted mergers and ignored antitrust. It all but eliminated the antitrust infrastructure and prompted trickle down economics. It was said that the lawyers in the antitrust division answered to the economists
- [ ] The emergence of Microsoft, Apple, and other tech companies
- [ ] Antitrust enforcement improved under Clinton
- [ ] The cases against Microsoft,
- [ ] Had to do with internet explorer?
- [ ] It was so bad that even Bork thought that Microsoft should be broken up
- [ ] It was a higher court that found Microsoft guilty but did not deem them to be broken up. Finally it was the W Bush administration that ended the long case
- [ ] W Bush administration was lax while Obama administration was middle - 5/10
- [ ] Through its time the Sherman Act has wavered in its enforcement
- [ ] Tech, health care, Facebook, AT&T/Time Warner and other mergers during Obama
- [ ] Trump was mixed on antitrust. He appointed judges that had strong views on antitrust- Kavanaugh and Gorisch are extremely weak on antitrust. His actions tended to be more personal than genuine actions towards antitrust
- [ ] More mergers and consolidations in the past 20 years
- [ ] An antitrust case has not made it to SCOUTUS in decades. Antitrust has become increasingly hard to enforce
We the people, why antitrust matters to the people and our democracy
- [ ] The online discount travel search engine industry is dominate by two companies that represent, Orbitz, Hotels.com, Travelocity, Priceline, etc. it is market dominance. What seems like diversity and competition is not. A small handful of companies own the majority of brands. The same company owns Oakley, Raybans, and most sun glasses. Two companies own all of those travel search engines
- [ ] She sponsored the constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United
- [ ] Mergers and consolidations are happening in almost every industry, health care, tech, telecommunications, beer, cat food, sun glasses, tooth paste etc
- [ ] Income inequality, raising the corporate tax rate, increasing the minimum wage, progressive reforms
- [ ] The importance of unions
- [ ] Suppressed wages from non compete clauses and fewer employers
- [ ] National Labor Relations Board:
Media consolidation
- [ ] Depressed speech and leads to misinformation
- [ ] Media consolidation is a threat to our democracy
- [ ] The telecommunications act
- [ ] Net Neutrality
- [ ] Net neutrality must be restored and fiercely defended
- [ ] We need a diversity of media outlets, access to information for all people
- [ ] A powerful section about diversity in media
- [ ] The threat of social media news, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon
- [ ] Dark money in politics, dialing for dollars
- [ ] Publicly funded elections, end gerrymandering, reinstate the VRA, end Citizens United, make it easier for people to vote
Modern day antitrust challenges: consolidations, conservative courts, congressional inertia
- [ ] 12 categories
- [ ] Crushing local businesses
- [ ] Pharmacies and publishing - hugely damaging to pharmacies, authors, and book stores
- [ ] Antitrust fights discrimination, it puts diversity in the market, it does not allow one ideology to dominate the market. Minority owned business flourished in the progressive era, antitrust fought against red lining, and it promotes equality
- [ ] The DOJ antitrust division has lacked funding and it’s importance diminished
- [ ] This is most pro business SCOTUS since the 1930’s
SCOTUS
- [ ] An antitrust case has not come to SCOTUS in decades and the court has not ruled in favor in longer
- [ ] This is most pro business SCOTUS since the 1930’s
- [ ] Simply being a monopoly is not a violation of the Sherman Act, it is knowingly stifling competition, conspiracy, or violating laws that is illegal
- [ ] It is extremely hard to prove actual conspiracy or violations
- [ ] Many companies argue that their merger will improve competition; IE competing with Amazon
- [ ] She suggests changing the burden of proof
- [ ] Vertical integration
Horizontal integration
- [ ] Shareholders, stocks, Wall Street, boards, mutual funds owning large percentages of multiple companies in the same sector
- [ ] Anticompetitive practices
- [ ] It is not a sexy issue, there is not a popular movement for it
The way forward
Congress:
- [ ] Increase funding for antitrust divisions
- [ ] End monopsonies. She spends significant time on monopsonies
- [ ] Monopsony: ‘is a market structure in which a single buyer substantially controls the market as the major purchaser of goods and services offered by many would-be sellers. The microeconomic theory of monopsony assumes a single entity to have market power over all sellers as the only purchaser of a good or service. This is a similar power to that of a monopolist which can influence the price for its buyers in a monopoly, where multiple buyers have only one seller of a good or service available to purchase from.’ - Wikipedia
- [ ] Change the burden of proof
- [ ] Make it easier to prosecute antitrust
- [ ] Take on the tech and pharmaceutical industries
- [ ] Pay to delay - pharmaceutical companies pay competitors to not release certain drugs, so they can have more of a foothold on the market
It’s hard to keep notes on everything. Antitrust is deeply important but it can still be rather drab
I need to go through a physical copy
Executive:
Judicial:
- [ ] Cartels - business definition
- [ ] End OPEC, interesting
You:
- [ ] Write, call, protest, be involved
- [ ] Green new day, unions, raise the minimum wage, progressive politics
- [ ] This was an awesome book but it can be dense. I still find this incredibly important and hope more people know/learn about. I need to go back and review the details
By Amy Klobuchar
- [ ] It starts with the heart care industry
- [ ] I need to take plenty of notes
Monopolies
- [ ] American colonists rebelled against British monopolies. The Boston Tea party was about monopolies
- [ ] Adam Smith was against monopolies. He believed that is suppressed the invisible hand. George Washington was against monopolies. George Mason and Thomas Jefferson tried to put a clause in the constitution to check monopoly power
- [ ] The history of the game monopoly is an anti monopoly game, is there a second set of rules that was played differently and distributed wealth. The game was in long trade mark disputes and the original creator really did not get the credit or sales from it
- [ ] Throughout American history Presidents particularly in the 19th century have fought against monopoly power
- [ ] The Boston Tea party was a revolt against a monopoly on tea
Trusts
- [ ] Unions, violence of strikes
- [ ] Workers push against tyrannical corporations
- [ ] McKinley started the trust busting area in 1898 when he appointed the US Industrial Commission
- [ ] Antitrust is a term used for anticompetitive practices
- [ ] Definition of a trust: ‘Corporate trusts came into use as legal devices to consolidate power in large American corporate enterprises.[3] In January 1882, Samuel C. T. Dodd, Standard Oil's General Solicitor, conceived of the corporate trust to help John D. Rockefeller consolidate his control over the many acquisitions of Standard Oil, which was already the largest corporation in the world.[3][failed verification][4] The Standard Oil Trust formed pursuant to a "trust agreement" in which the individual shareholders of many separate corporations agreed to convey their shares to the trust; it ended up entirely owning 14 corporations and also exercised majority control over 26 others.[3] Nine individuals held trust certificates and acted as the trust's board of trustees.[3] One of those trustees, Rockefeller himself, held 41% of the trust certificates; the next most powerful trustee held only about 12%’ - Wikipedia
- [ ] The Sherman Antitrust Act, 1890: ‘broadly prohibits 1) anticompetitive agreements and 2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses’ - Wikipedia
- [ ] The courts have since built a frame work around the Sherman Antitrust Act
- [ ] The Clayton Act of 1914: expanded upon the Sherman Act and has become one of the foundations of antitrust law in the US.
- [ ] price discrimination between different purchasers if such a discrimination substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce (Act Section 2, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 13);
- [ ] sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or lessee not deal with the competitors of the seller or lessor ("exclusive dealings") or (B) the buyer also purchase another different product ("tying") but only when these acts substantially lessen competition (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 14);
- [ ] mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition (Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18) or where the voting securities and assets threshold is met (Act Section 7a, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18a);
- [ ] any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations, if those corporations would violate the antitrust criteria by merging (Act Section 8; codified 1200 at 15 U.S.C. § 19).
- [ ] It added specific provisions to protect unions. Because the Sherman Act was enforced against unions, it stated ‘that the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce, and permit[ting] labor organizations to carry out their legitimate objective.’ Implying that unions were an essential part of fighting against monopolies, they had to be protected
- [ ] The creation of the Federal Trade Commission in 1914 was another pillar towards the structure of antitrust and consumer protection
- [ ] More about the FTC:
- [ ] William Jennings Brian - ran on antitrust
- [ ] Anti trust and populism in the Midwest. The antitrust movement started in the Midwest
- [ ] Teddy Roosevelt and his war against trusts. He was not popular amongst trusts, he and his DOJ actively prosecuted over 40 trusts. Many of these were resolved by the courts after he left office
- [ ] Lincoln opposed trusts
- [ ] The Sherman act was not enforced for the first 10 years, in fact it was used against unions. Courts just choose to ignore it
I need to be taking more notes
- [ ] The break up of Standard Oil and Taft
- [ ] The break up of American Tobacco
- [ ] Rosevelt was not impartial, he went after some trusts and not the ones that supported him, the JP Morgan backed trusts
- [ ] By 1904 there were over 300 trusts that accounted for x billion dollars?
- [ ] The 17th amendment was passed because senators were representing corporations instead of the people. Senators were representing families and corporate trusts. The progressives were fighting against corruption and this corruption of the senate. It sounds a lot like today
- [ ] By 1910 most of the major trusts had been broken up
- [ ] Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson - the progressive era
- [ ] The progressive area ended after Wilson and started with WWI. Presidents gave antitrust less attention, there was less public pressure to break up trusts, and WWI lead to some companies have monopolies on certain sectors - Dupont over gun powder
- [ ] In the last hundred years antitrust has moved to the role of courts, academics, and politicians. During the progressive area there was support amongst the public to bust trusts, Taft, Teddy, and Wilson all ran on it - it was the basis of the 1912 campaign. In the past hundred years there has been less popular support
- [ ] The other laws that support anti trust enforcement
- [ ] There are many exemptions and loopholes that make enforcement challenging
- [ ] MLB is not antitrust but the NFL is
- [ ] Business can not get together to control prices
The courts
- [ ] The U Chicago school v Harvard school. Yes the same U Chicago of the 60’/70’s economics department
- [ ] Robert Bork argued vociferously against anti trust and laid the ground work for conservative arguments
- [ ] He asked a crucial question, what is the purpose of antitrust law? Chicago sided with it stifling legitimate competition and Harvard argued that is protected consumers
- [ ] Shoot there is so much more in this chapter
- [ ] Antitrust enforcement had basically evaporated by the Reagan administration
- [ ] AT&T breakup was controversial but beneficial to innovation and consumers. It was big win for antitrust
- [ ] The pro business Reagan administration promoted mergers and ignored antitrust. It all but eliminated the antitrust infrastructure and prompted trickle down economics. It was said that the lawyers in the antitrust division answered to the economists
- [ ] The emergence of Microsoft, Apple, and other tech companies
- [ ] Antitrust enforcement improved under Clinton
- [ ] The cases against Microsoft,
- [ ] Had to do with internet explorer?
- [ ] It was so bad that even Bork thought that Microsoft should be broken up
- [ ] It was a higher court that found Microsoft guilty but did not deem them to be broken up. Finally it was the W Bush administration that ended the long case
- [ ] W Bush administration was lax while Obama administration was middle - 5/10
- [ ] Through its time the Sherman Act has wavered in its enforcement
- [ ] Tech, health care, Facebook, AT&T/Time Warner and other mergers during Obama
- [ ] Trump was mixed on antitrust. He appointed judges that had strong views on antitrust- Kavanaugh and Gorisch are extremely weak on antitrust. His actions tended to be more personal than genuine actions towards antitrust
- [ ] More mergers and consolidations in the past 20 years
- [ ] An antitrust case has not made it to SCOUTUS in decades. Antitrust has become increasingly hard to enforce
We the people, why antitrust matters to the people and our democracy
- [ ] The online discount travel search engine industry is dominate by two companies that represent, Orbitz, Hotels.com, Travelocity, Priceline, etc. it is market dominance. What seems like diversity and competition is not. A small handful of companies own the majority of brands. The same company owns Oakley, Raybans, and most sun glasses. Two companies own all of those travel search engines
- [ ] She sponsored the constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United
- [ ] Mergers and consolidations are happening in almost every industry, health care, tech, telecommunications, beer, cat food, sun glasses, tooth paste etc
- [ ] Income inequality, raising the corporate tax rate, increasing the minimum wage, progressive reforms
- [ ] The importance of unions
- [ ] Suppressed wages from non compete clauses and fewer employers
- [ ] National Labor Relations Board:
Media consolidation
- [ ] Depressed speech and leads to misinformation
- [ ] Media consolidation is a threat to our democracy
- [ ] The telecommunications act
- [ ] Net Neutrality
- [ ] Net neutrality must be restored and fiercely defended
- [ ] We need a diversity of media outlets, access to information for all people
- [ ] A powerful section about diversity in media
- [ ] The threat of social media news, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon
- [ ] Dark money in politics, dialing for dollars
- [ ] Publicly funded elections, end gerrymandering, reinstate the VRA, end Citizens United, make it easier for people to vote
Modern day antitrust challenges: consolidations, conservative courts, congressional inertia
- [ ] 12 categories
- [ ] Crushing local businesses
- [ ] Pharmacies and publishing - hugely damaging to pharmacies, authors, and book stores
- [ ] Antitrust fights discrimination, it puts diversity in the market, it does not allow one ideology to dominate the market. Minority owned business flourished in the progressive era, antitrust fought against red lining, and it promotes equality
- [ ] The DOJ antitrust division has lacked funding and it’s importance diminished
- [ ] This is most pro business SCOTUS since the 1930’s
SCOTUS
- [ ] An antitrust case has not come to SCOTUS in decades and the court has not ruled in favor in longer
- [ ] This is most pro business SCOTUS since the 1930’s
- [ ] Simply being a monopoly is not a violation of the Sherman Act, it is knowingly stifling competition, conspiracy, or violating laws that is illegal
- [ ] It is extremely hard to prove actual conspiracy or violations
- [ ] Many companies argue that their merger will improve competition; IE competing with Amazon
- [ ] She suggests changing the burden of proof
- [ ] Vertical integration
Horizontal integration
- [ ] Shareholders, stocks, Wall Street, boards, mutual funds owning large percentages of multiple companies in the same sector
- [ ] Anticompetitive practices
- [ ] It is not a sexy issue, there is not a popular movement for it
The way forward
Congress:
- [ ] Increase funding for antitrust divisions
- [ ] End monopsonies. She spends significant time on monopsonies
- [ ] Monopsony: ‘is a market structure in which a single buyer substantially controls the market as the major purchaser of goods and services offered by many would-be sellers. The microeconomic theory of monopsony assumes a single entity to have market power over all sellers as the only purchaser of a good or service. This is a similar power to that of a monopolist which can influence the price for its buyers in a monopoly, where multiple buyers have only one seller of a good or service available to purchase from.’ - Wikipedia
- [ ] Change the burden of proof
- [ ] Make it easier to prosecute antitrust
- [ ] Take on the tech and pharmaceutical industries
- [ ] Pay to delay - pharmaceutical companies pay competitors to not release certain drugs, so they can have more of a foothold on the market
It’s hard to keep notes on everything. Antitrust is deeply important but it can still be rather drab
I need to go through a physical copy
Executive:
Judicial:
- [ ] Cartels - business definition
- [ ] End OPEC, interesting
You:
- [ ] Write, call, protest, be involved
- [ ] Green new day, unions, raise the minimum wage, progressive politics
- [ ] This was an awesome book but it can be dense. I still find this incredibly important and hope more people know/learn about. I need to go back and review the details
March 14, 2023
Amy Klobuchar is a U.S. senator from Minnesota. She used to be a lawyer and was involved in the antitrust case of MCI vs. AT&T. As a senator, she has been advocating stronger antitrust legislation and enforcement. The book “Antitrust,” published in 2021 at the dawn of the Biden administration, is Klobuchar’s manifesto in this area. The book has comprehensive coverage of the antitrust issue. However, it has a limited perspective and poor delivery.
The book starts by reviewing the history of monopoly and antitrust from the beginning of the industrial revolution. After an extensive recount of how the Reagan administration and subsequent Republican lawmakers weakened antitrust regulations and nominated pro-business judges, the book lists and elaborates on the numerous antitrust challenges today and ends by proposing a list of 25 solutions for Congress, the administration, and the public. The book shares, to a large extent, both contents and weaknesses of “The Myth of Capitalism” by Jonathan Tepper, 2019. I will not repeat my summary and thoughts in my other book review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.... This review contains only additional comments.
“Antitrust” is valuable because it presents an insider’s view of Government antitrust operations. Klobuchar recounted how monopoly has become rampant due to antiquated antitrust laws, dwindling enforcement resources, and pro-business judges. The author also described current congressional efforts in countering the antitrust deterioration. With the author’s name recognition (she is a long-time senator and 2020 Democrat presidential candidate), this book raises public awareness about the increasing monopoly in most sectors of the U.S. economy.
On the other hand, from the economics point of view, this book has a very limited perspective, which may weaken and damage the message.
The author views the antitrust issue primarily from a moral perspective. She opens the book with an emotional story of skyrocketing medicine prices threatening the well-being of a newborn, a theme she keeps returning to and ends the book with. In her history review, she invokes the Boston Tea Party and the founding fathers and argues antitrust is ingrained in American values. Next, the author keeps tying monopoly with economic inequality. This relation seems logical: monopoly may give cooperation power to lower wages and raise product prices, hitting the “normal people” twice and enriching the capitalists. However, the author did not provide evidence that monopoly is an important factor in economic inequality. The gilded age, which the author keeps referring to, is an example. Monopoly and economic inequality did grow precipitously in that era. However, many other things happened, such as inter-state commerce, industrial technology advances, and the emergence of modern finance and modern industrial management. The end of the gilded age included many Government policies in addition to antitrust laws, such as worker safety standards, redistribution, and spending programs.
Furthermore, monopoly is a common enemy of the American public, although visions of the solution may differ among political camps. On the other hand, economic inequality entails a variety of emotional and rational responses from all walks of society. Presenting antitrust as a silver bullet to contain economic inequality and casting different camps on the issue as morally superior and inferior are misleading, divisive, and counterproductive.
In addition to projecting the problem of monopoly onto the single dimension of economic equality, “Antitrust” also engages in gross oversimplification. First, it conflates different types of monopolies with varying effects on the economy and society. The book mentioned government-sponsored monopolies that give the government additional power (such as the East Indian Company that ignited the American Revolution), market monopolies that raise product prices (such as the pharmaceuticals), regional-dominant employers (strictly speaking a monopsony) able to suppress wages (such as those in the gilded age), and monopolies in functionalities with oversized control over user behaviors (the big tech companies). These monopolies have different root causes, behave differently in the market (for example, regional-dominant employers usually do not prevent others from entering the labor market), and require different solutions. Lumping them together makes the book confusing and unrealistic to sophisticated readers and misleading to the rest.
The book also oversimplifies the political dynamics of the antitrust movement in America. When describing the last several decades, the author paints a very plain picture: Republicans and their appointed judges are pro-business and pro-monopoly. They water down federal antitrust agencies, set legal standards favoring big businesses, and relax government regulations. The author mentioned the “Chicago School” of economics as the conservatives’ rational foundation but did not explain how that works. On the other hand, progressives such as the author herself are pro-people, fighting against big business. And the only metric for antitrust success is the numbers: the number of antitrust cases won by both sides, the number of acquisitions not overturned, etc. The author did not discuss the merits of any cases, any court opinions, or any government policies. Antitrust should be a common goal for both conservative (for free and efficient market functions) and progressive (for equality and containing corporate power). By pitching one party against another on the issue, the book is divisive and weakens the antitrust cause.
As “The Myth of Capitalism,” “Antitrust” also views government interventions as the only solution to monopoly. The author lists strengthened legislation and Congressional investigations, beefing up antitrust agencies, and getting more anti-business judges appointed as key options in her antitrust crusade. This view, again, is oversimplified because it ignores the Government side effects and other market forces.
The real lesson of the story of the Boston Tea Party from the book is that monopoly can be sponsored or sanctioned by a government, which is the most dangerous and insuperable type. By combining government authority and monetary influence, monopolistic companies can wield enormous power and crush anyone in their way. Today, the government still creates monopolies. One way is through regulations that erect entry barriers. Take the pharmaceutical industry that the author was passionate about. Besides patent protections, the government restricts drug importation and causes delays in generic drug approval. Investment bankers also benefit from the heavy regulations for their monopolistic positions. Government funding is another way to create and maintain monopolies. The defense industry has a severe monopoly because it is extremely challenging for newcomers to obtain substantial government contracts. The extreme cases of Government-funded monopolies include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who enjoyed implicit Government guarantees for their risky investment that played prominent roles in the 2008 financial crisis. Government is often the problem, not the solution.
One can always hope that government practices can be improved and government resources can be used to support competition instead of a monopoly. However, history has proved otherwise. The reason is simple. As long as big companies exert oversized influence over government through lobbying, political contributions, and public relations campaigns, the latter can hardly behave otherwise. And the problem of big business influence is far more intractable than antitrust. As long as we have politics as usual, the only alternative is restricting government power. While I agree with the author that the government should enhance its antitrust practices, we must proceed cautiously and not give the government too much power. We should also add regulation reduction and government funding scaleback as a part of the solution.
In this discussion of monopoly and antitrust, the book also ignored a vital ally: market forces. True, businesses have the incentive to create and maintain monopolies, as the author contends. However, businesses are also motivated to enter monopolized sectors and create competition. MCI, the company that the author represented decades ago, tried to eat into AT&T’s business starting from the 1960s and was instrumental in defeating AT&T’s long-held monopoly. Moreover, two interesting things happened after AT&T was broken up in the 1980s, and the market of long-distance phone calls was opened up for competition, where MCI was the second largest player. First, MCI was acquired by WorldCom in 1997, about 10 years after it triumphed over AT&T. The combined company filed bankruptcy in 2002 and was acquired in 2006 by Verizon, a spinoff from the earlier AT&T breakup. Second, AT&T’s Bell Labs lost its innovative steam after the breakup. Bell Labs was the world’s largest and most productive industrial research lab. Up to the 1980s, almost all technological advances in telecommunications are credited to Bell Labs, which also made critically important contributions to other fields, including the transistor, the laser, the UNIX operating system, and the C programming language. Bell Labs started its decline since the AT&T break up and now practically disappeared as it changed hands to Lucent (an AT&T spinoff in 1996) and Alcatel and Nokia, who subsequently bought Lucent and Lucent-Alcatel. Today, Bell Labs is a shadow of its former self, and no telecommunication equipment manufacturers remain in the United States. The AT&T breakup did bring down long-distance phone costs for consumers, but it also contributed significantly to the disappearance of the U.S.’s lead in telecommunication technologies.
Even the long-distance price drop benefit was short-lived. New technologies of voice over IP (the 2000s) and voice and video apps (the 2010s) relegated long-distance phone calls to a niche market; per-minute phone bills became history. A similar technological advance happened in the Internet Service Provider (ISP) market. ISP provides services to connect home to the Internet. In the mid-1990s, state regulators required their monopolist local telephone companies to open their local exchange facility to competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC), who provided ISP services using the existing telephone lines between the local exchange and customer premises (businesses and homes). These orders broke the monopoly of the ISP market and allowed competition in the then-emerging technology markets, such as the digital subscriber line (DSL), which provides data services up to several megabits per second. However, DSL was only a transitional technology, replaced by fiber optics and cable in the 2000s, which offers much higher data rates and reliability. Today, fiber and cable face new competition from fixed wireless access integrated into cellular systems. Technology advances naturally break up monopolies and open up opportunities for new competitors. In addition to enforcing antitrust laws and regulations, the government should do its best to foster innovation, empower new technologies and new businesses, and create fertile ground for diversified technical and business experiments.
The book also painted a black-and-white picture of corperates: big business, bad; acquisition, suspicious. But the reality is far more complicated. MCI, the “antitrust hero” that the author represted in the AT&T case, achieved fast growth through a series of merge and acquisition and finally became a telecommunication giant Worldcomm. On the other hand, the author’s monopoly villain Google is the only force stopping Apply monopoly in smart phone market. To understand companies’ roles on market and support competition, we need a sophisticated understanding of how company and market works instead of simplified labels.
The book “antitrust” has a narrow perspective of government legislation and enforcement as the solution to the growing monopoly. It disregarded the danger of government-sponsored monopoly, the chilling effect of government regulations on competition, and the opportunities for the government to unlock technology innovation that breaks monopolies. Furthermore, the book is poor in delivery.
“Antitrust” is built on extensive experience and research. However, the author did a poor job organizing the information. First, the book lacks a clear storyline. Although the book is explicitly divided into three parts, the same material was recycled repeatedly. In each section, the author would like to cite as much material as possible to beef up the claims regardless of relevancy. Second, the supporting materials have variable credibility, ranging from published research to quotes from people with apparent vested interests. And the author does not present any conversation between different views. Third, the author presented more than ten “challenges” and more than twenty “solutions” in the book's last two chapters. Some challenges and solutions are mentioned for the first time and not supported by the early part of the book, which reviews the historical evolution and current status of the antitrust efforts. It is difficult for a reader to make sense of this web of arguments, deliberations, and recommendations. Also, the book has a mixture of watered-down and emotionally charged statements and highly technical terms. It is not clear what the intended audience is.
Overall, “antitrust” addresses an important economic issue, albeit incompletely and ineffectively. It is rich in information but short in insight and recommendation, and it is a political book that promotes the authors more than benefits the audience.
The book starts by reviewing the history of monopoly and antitrust from the beginning of the industrial revolution. After an extensive recount of how the Reagan administration and subsequent Republican lawmakers weakened antitrust regulations and nominated pro-business judges, the book lists and elaborates on the numerous antitrust challenges today and ends by proposing a list of 25 solutions for Congress, the administration, and the public. The book shares, to a large extent, both contents and weaknesses of “The Myth of Capitalism” by Jonathan Tepper, 2019. I will not repeat my summary and thoughts in my other book review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show.... This review contains only additional comments.
“Antitrust” is valuable because it presents an insider’s view of Government antitrust operations. Klobuchar recounted how monopoly has become rampant due to antiquated antitrust laws, dwindling enforcement resources, and pro-business judges. The author also described current congressional efforts in countering the antitrust deterioration. With the author’s name recognition (she is a long-time senator and 2020 Democrat presidential candidate), this book raises public awareness about the increasing monopoly in most sectors of the U.S. economy.
On the other hand, from the economics point of view, this book has a very limited perspective, which may weaken and damage the message.
The author views the antitrust issue primarily from a moral perspective. She opens the book with an emotional story of skyrocketing medicine prices threatening the well-being of a newborn, a theme she keeps returning to and ends the book with. In her history review, she invokes the Boston Tea Party and the founding fathers and argues antitrust is ingrained in American values. Next, the author keeps tying monopoly with economic inequality. This relation seems logical: monopoly may give cooperation power to lower wages and raise product prices, hitting the “normal people” twice and enriching the capitalists. However, the author did not provide evidence that monopoly is an important factor in economic inequality. The gilded age, which the author keeps referring to, is an example. Monopoly and economic inequality did grow precipitously in that era. However, many other things happened, such as inter-state commerce, industrial technology advances, and the emergence of modern finance and modern industrial management. The end of the gilded age included many Government policies in addition to antitrust laws, such as worker safety standards, redistribution, and spending programs.
Furthermore, monopoly is a common enemy of the American public, although visions of the solution may differ among political camps. On the other hand, economic inequality entails a variety of emotional and rational responses from all walks of society. Presenting antitrust as a silver bullet to contain economic inequality and casting different camps on the issue as morally superior and inferior are misleading, divisive, and counterproductive.
In addition to projecting the problem of monopoly onto the single dimension of economic equality, “Antitrust” also engages in gross oversimplification. First, it conflates different types of monopolies with varying effects on the economy and society. The book mentioned government-sponsored monopolies that give the government additional power (such as the East Indian Company that ignited the American Revolution), market monopolies that raise product prices (such as the pharmaceuticals), regional-dominant employers (strictly speaking a monopsony) able to suppress wages (such as those in the gilded age), and monopolies in functionalities with oversized control over user behaviors (the big tech companies). These monopolies have different root causes, behave differently in the market (for example, regional-dominant employers usually do not prevent others from entering the labor market), and require different solutions. Lumping them together makes the book confusing and unrealistic to sophisticated readers and misleading to the rest.
The book also oversimplifies the political dynamics of the antitrust movement in America. When describing the last several decades, the author paints a very plain picture: Republicans and their appointed judges are pro-business and pro-monopoly. They water down federal antitrust agencies, set legal standards favoring big businesses, and relax government regulations. The author mentioned the “Chicago School” of economics as the conservatives’ rational foundation but did not explain how that works. On the other hand, progressives such as the author herself are pro-people, fighting against big business. And the only metric for antitrust success is the numbers: the number of antitrust cases won by both sides, the number of acquisitions not overturned, etc. The author did not discuss the merits of any cases, any court opinions, or any government policies. Antitrust should be a common goal for both conservative (for free and efficient market functions) and progressive (for equality and containing corporate power). By pitching one party against another on the issue, the book is divisive and weakens the antitrust cause.
As “The Myth of Capitalism,” “Antitrust” also views government interventions as the only solution to monopoly. The author lists strengthened legislation and Congressional investigations, beefing up antitrust agencies, and getting more anti-business judges appointed as key options in her antitrust crusade. This view, again, is oversimplified because it ignores the Government side effects and other market forces.
The real lesson of the story of the Boston Tea Party from the book is that monopoly can be sponsored or sanctioned by a government, which is the most dangerous and insuperable type. By combining government authority and monetary influence, monopolistic companies can wield enormous power and crush anyone in their way. Today, the government still creates monopolies. One way is through regulations that erect entry barriers. Take the pharmaceutical industry that the author was passionate about. Besides patent protections, the government restricts drug importation and causes delays in generic drug approval. Investment bankers also benefit from the heavy regulations for their monopolistic positions. Government funding is another way to create and maintain monopolies. The defense industry has a severe monopoly because it is extremely challenging for newcomers to obtain substantial government contracts. The extreme cases of Government-funded monopolies include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who enjoyed implicit Government guarantees for their risky investment that played prominent roles in the 2008 financial crisis. Government is often the problem, not the solution.
One can always hope that government practices can be improved and government resources can be used to support competition instead of a monopoly. However, history has proved otherwise. The reason is simple. As long as big companies exert oversized influence over government through lobbying, political contributions, and public relations campaigns, the latter can hardly behave otherwise. And the problem of big business influence is far more intractable than antitrust. As long as we have politics as usual, the only alternative is restricting government power. While I agree with the author that the government should enhance its antitrust practices, we must proceed cautiously and not give the government too much power. We should also add regulation reduction and government funding scaleback as a part of the solution.
In this discussion of monopoly and antitrust, the book also ignored a vital ally: market forces. True, businesses have the incentive to create and maintain monopolies, as the author contends. However, businesses are also motivated to enter monopolized sectors and create competition. MCI, the company that the author represented decades ago, tried to eat into AT&T’s business starting from the 1960s and was instrumental in defeating AT&T’s long-held monopoly. Moreover, two interesting things happened after AT&T was broken up in the 1980s, and the market of long-distance phone calls was opened up for competition, where MCI was the second largest player. First, MCI was acquired by WorldCom in 1997, about 10 years after it triumphed over AT&T. The combined company filed bankruptcy in 2002 and was acquired in 2006 by Verizon, a spinoff from the earlier AT&T breakup. Second, AT&T’s Bell Labs lost its innovative steam after the breakup. Bell Labs was the world’s largest and most productive industrial research lab. Up to the 1980s, almost all technological advances in telecommunications are credited to Bell Labs, which also made critically important contributions to other fields, including the transistor, the laser, the UNIX operating system, and the C programming language. Bell Labs started its decline since the AT&T break up and now practically disappeared as it changed hands to Lucent (an AT&T spinoff in 1996) and Alcatel and Nokia, who subsequently bought Lucent and Lucent-Alcatel. Today, Bell Labs is a shadow of its former self, and no telecommunication equipment manufacturers remain in the United States. The AT&T breakup did bring down long-distance phone costs for consumers, but it also contributed significantly to the disappearance of the U.S.’s lead in telecommunication technologies.
Even the long-distance price drop benefit was short-lived. New technologies of voice over IP (the 2000s) and voice and video apps (the 2010s) relegated long-distance phone calls to a niche market; per-minute phone bills became history. A similar technological advance happened in the Internet Service Provider (ISP) market. ISP provides services to connect home to the Internet. In the mid-1990s, state regulators required their monopolist local telephone companies to open their local exchange facility to competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC), who provided ISP services using the existing telephone lines between the local exchange and customer premises (businesses and homes). These orders broke the monopoly of the ISP market and allowed competition in the then-emerging technology markets, such as the digital subscriber line (DSL), which provides data services up to several megabits per second. However, DSL was only a transitional technology, replaced by fiber optics and cable in the 2000s, which offers much higher data rates and reliability. Today, fiber and cable face new competition from fixed wireless access integrated into cellular systems. Technology advances naturally break up monopolies and open up opportunities for new competitors. In addition to enforcing antitrust laws and regulations, the government should do its best to foster innovation, empower new technologies and new businesses, and create fertile ground for diversified technical and business experiments.
The book also painted a black-and-white picture of corperates: big business, bad; acquisition, suspicious. But the reality is far more complicated. MCI, the “antitrust hero” that the author represted in the AT&T case, achieved fast growth through a series of merge and acquisition and finally became a telecommunication giant Worldcomm. On the other hand, the author’s monopoly villain Google is the only force stopping Apply monopoly in smart phone market. To understand companies’ roles on market and support competition, we need a sophisticated understanding of how company and market works instead of simplified labels.
The book “antitrust” has a narrow perspective of government legislation and enforcement as the solution to the growing monopoly. It disregarded the danger of government-sponsored monopoly, the chilling effect of government regulations on competition, and the opportunities for the government to unlock technology innovation that breaks monopolies. Furthermore, the book is poor in delivery.
“Antitrust” is built on extensive experience and research. However, the author did a poor job organizing the information. First, the book lacks a clear storyline. Although the book is explicitly divided into three parts, the same material was recycled repeatedly. In each section, the author would like to cite as much material as possible to beef up the claims regardless of relevancy. Second, the supporting materials have variable credibility, ranging from published research to quotes from people with apparent vested interests. And the author does not present any conversation between different views. Third, the author presented more than ten “challenges” and more than twenty “solutions” in the book's last two chapters. Some challenges and solutions are mentioned for the first time and not supported by the early part of the book, which reviews the historical evolution and current status of the antitrust efforts. It is difficult for a reader to make sense of this web of arguments, deliberations, and recommendations. Also, the book has a mixture of watered-down and emotionally charged statements and highly technical terms. It is not clear what the intended audience is.
Overall, “antitrust” addresses an important economic issue, albeit incompletely and ineffectively. It is rich in information but short in insight and recommendation, and it is a political book that promotes the authors more than benefits the audience.
May 10, 2021
Fantastic survey of the history of anti-trust in America, and the lengths to which successful companies go to tilt all playing fields in their favor. A thoroughly non-compelling litany of "solutions," which reads more as campaign talking points than a focused prescription for competitive parity. Klobuchar has boundless confidence in the power of regulation to control behavior, and in the power of the Federal government to own anti-trust. Looking for nuance!
August 26, 2022
Well researched and easy to read (despite antitrust being a dense and complicated subject). I'm biased because I'm interested in practicing antitrust (plaintiff side of course!), but there is a clear vision on how to reform and fix issues that affect all consumers that makes it worth the read for anyone.
April 27, 2025
Perhaps the joke is on me for reading a book “written” by a politician, but this was somehow worse than anticipated.
July 7, 2021
I enjoyed this and definitely learned more about antitrust law than I previously knew — which was not much. But Amy klobuchar goes through the history of antitrust and argues that more big companies are getting away with antitrust/monopoly like behavior, which is not good. She says the Supreme Court has been packed with justices who are not good with antitrust cases. klobuchar argues that the antitrust laws need to be amended by congress to tackle 21st century problems and they should call the laws anticompetitive laws instead of antitrust laws, to modernize them and make it more relevant to laymen like myself. This was a bit wonky but enjoyable.
June 22, 2021
Reads like a boomer wrote it and is just trying to show off history knowledge
June 30, 2021
If you are looking for a stupendous challenge, try writing an engaging book about the history and consequences of Antitrust Law from inception to our current year. If you have no heartfelt interest in this subject, feel free to stop reading now. If you are sincerely interested, know that Amy has done a bang up job of pulling most all of the pieces together for you. It's a very wonky book. For example, it's just over 600 pages in length, with just over 200 of those pages devoted to unusually imformative footnotes. But as Amy suggests, this is a subjects that impacts all of us in very important ways, whether we care to think about it or not.
August 5, 2021
The subject of antitrust is not sexy. It would be awesome if there was some way to make it more exciting because this information is soooo important! Senator Klobuchar does a good job of explaining. Corporations ARE tooooo big and they buy up all the competition and regular people pay the cost with fewer options, higher prices, lower wages and difficult employment opportunities. (Looking at you Amazon)
May 26, 2021
Decent look back on History but way too vague when it comes to HOW to break up Big Tech.
Too much redundant, empty left-leaning political speak.
Too much redundant, empty left-leaning political speak.
October 17, 2023
I don't typically read books by politicians, even by ones I like, but I found a used copy and decided it is an important enough topic to give it a read. As far as I could tell, it was written by her (and her husband, as it turns out) and not a ghost writer. While there is a certain amount of expected self-congratulation and collegial back-slappinng, the arguments are made clearly and compellingly and with appropriate gravitas.
In the age of big tech, big pharma, big ag, etc., these issues of monopolies, price gouging, stamping out of competition, and privacy concerns should be front of center of many of our conversations. The legal and financial jargon made for a slow-going read at times, but ultimately, I appreciated the info and her drawing attention to these issues.
And, frankly, given the politics of our time, I'm grateful there are still some smart, boring policy wonks out there.
In the age of big tech, big pharma, big ag, etc., these issues of monopolies, price gouging, stamping out of competition, and privacy concerns should be front of center of many of our conversations. The legal and financial jargon made for a slow-going read at times, but ultimately, I appreciated the info and her drawing attention to these issues.
And, frankly, given the politics of our time, I'm grateful there are still some smart, boring policy wonks out there.
August 20, 2021
Klobuchar does a phenomenal job tracing the history of anticompetitive practices from America's founding to the present. Unlike other books, she provides both the extent of the problems we face with competition and practical solutions that can be implemented by government and the populace. I also appreciated the nice touch of pertinent and often funny comics that accompanied the text, along with relevant anecdotes from her life. I would highly recommend this book to any who wish to learn more about the history of anticompetitive practices in America and reasonable ways to ameliorate them to produce a more economically fair country.
August 13, 2021
This a terribly important book that it took me forever to slog through. I think that it could have been edited down to a much slimmer volume that might have been more readable. Klobuchar is a wonk of the best kind, and she builds a powerful case for her positions. However, while reading the book I felt mostly despair. Our system is extremely out of whack, but with the GOP performing maximum obstruction, I’m not sure that any of these excellent initiatives will pass at the point where they could still do some good. I am worried about the health and longevity of our republic.
August 17, 2021
Fully half of the pages in this book is footnotes. It is informative but dense. Many of the suggestions revolve around bills the author has sponsored or co-sponsored. The issue is significant and requires attention. She notes bills to solve the problems and references across the aisle attempts to legislate, particularly a high number with Chuck Grassley. There are problems. They need solutions. This book attempts to make us aware.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 126 reviews