Reuters scoops that the Federal Trade Commission is leaning toward filing antitrust charges against Google for abusing its search monopoly to boost its own business:
The majority of top decision-makers at the Federal Trade Commission believe that an antitrust case should be brought against Google Inc, meaning the search giant could soon be headed into tough negotiations, three people familiar with the matter said.
Four of the FTC commissioners have become convinced after more than a year of investigation that Google illegally used its dominance of the search market to hurt its rivals, while one commissioner is skeptical, the sources said…
If the agency finds that Google broke the law, the FTC and Google could hammer out a settlement that resolves the issues or, if settlement negotiations fail, the matter could end up in a lengthy, expensive court fight.
Of course, this has been going on for years, and by the time the FTC finally gets around to it, unknown damage will have already been done to Google’s competitors.
— Reuters’s Chrystia Freeland, who has a new book called ““Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else,” has a must-read piece on “The Self-Destruction of the 1 Percent,” arguing that America’s second Gilded Age has us resembling medieval Venice, with its entrenched elite that sent the great city-state into centuries decline
Even as the winner-take-all economy has enriched those at the very top, their tax burden has lightened. Tolerance for high executive compensation has increased, even as the legal powers of unions have been weakened and an intellectual case against them has been relentlessly advanced by plutocrat-financed think tanks. In the 1950s, the marginal income tax rate for those at the top of the distribution soared above 90 percent, a figure that today makes even Democrats flinch. Meanwhile, of the 400 richest taxpayers in 2009, 6 paid no federal income tax at all, and 27 paid 10 percent or less. None paid more than 35 percent…
Educational attainment, which created the American middle class, is no longer rising. The super-elite lavishes unlimited resources on its children, while public schools are starved of funding…
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, earlier this year, I interviewed Ruth Simmons, then the president of Brown. She was the first African-American to lead an Ivy League university and has served on the board of Goldman Sachs. Dr. Simmons, a Harvard-trained literature scholar, worked hard to make Brown more accessible to poor students, but when I asked whether it was time to abolish legacy admissions, the Ivy League’s own Book of Gold, she shrugged me off with a laugh: “No, I have a granddaughter. It’s not time yet.”
— Also in the Sunday Review, there’s another piece you have to read, this one by Nicholas Carnes of Duke on how elite-dominated government tilts the playing field against working class interests. He asks, “Which Millionaire Are You Voting For?”
But why do so few elections feature candidates who have worked in blue-collar jobs themselves, at least for part of their lives? The working class is the backbone of our society, a majority of our labor force and 90 million people strong. Could it really be that not one former blue-collar worker is qualified to be president?…
If millionaires were a political party, that party would make up roughly 3 percent of American families, but it would have a super-majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, a majority on the Supreme Court and a man in the White House. If working-class Americans were a political party, that party would have made up more than half the country since the start of the 20th century. But legislators from that party (those who last worked in blue-collar jobs before entering politics) would never have held more than 2 percent of the seats in Congress…
The Freeland piece is mostly good, but falls apart at the end, and I'm surprised you didn't catch this. She quotes Thomas Jefferson to support the idea that early 19th-century America was one of the most egalitarian societies on the planet. Somehow, both the former president and the author forgot that he owned slaves, and, more broadly, that slave labor was certainly responsible for a large part of American prosperity. Contrary to Jefferson's letter, I'm certain the slaves would have considered themselves laborers, but they did not possess their own property, cultivate their own land, and by law were unable "to exact from the rich and competent such prices as enable them to be fed abundantly, clothed above mere decency, to labor moderately and raise their families.”
This lack of awareness has left me flabbergasted.
#1 Posted by Waciuma Maina, CJR on Mon 15 Oct 2012 at 03:54 PM
To be clear: In the quotes referenced by Ms. Freeland, Thomas Jefferson was lauding the egalitarian effects of the free-market division of labor; he was not praising egalitarianism achieved by govt intervention. In fact, for the remainder of that letter, he argued that even the poorest of the workers in America — even slaves — were better off than the majority "pauper" class that existed in Britain's highly centralized society. (And yes, he was a hypocrite because all slaves, including his, are ill-gotten property. But he was right.)
Ms. Freeland fails to note that ill-gotten gains such as Jefferson's slaves, or Ponzi scheme profits, are institutionalized by laws, regulations, subsidies, prohibitions, etc. Thus is formed the "moat" about which Ms. Freeland so ironically quotes Warren Buffett. She doesn't consider abolition, separation of bank and state, or decentralization as possible remedies.
Here is why of why "the rich get richer." (Warren Buffett is a "capitalist" alright! *smh*)
#2 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Mon 15 Oct 2012 at 07:00 PM
Thanks for the full letter. I cannot accuse Jefferson of ignoring slavery, though the way it was excerpted leads to that conclusion, and I certainly would not characterize any economy that included slavery as having a free-market division of labor, unless your irony was lost on me. (That would be dark humor indeed.) Still, the argument that America's slaves were, as a class, better off than England's paupers, is not self-evident. I don't find Jefferson's arguments very compelling, absent corroborating historical evidence; I assume a thorough look at both systems would find rare occasions of happiness among both groups, but more broadly would bear witness to massive suffering.
I would draw attention to this sentence on slavery, though: "On the contrary, there is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity." A laudable idea on its face, but I wonder what exactly Jefferson found impractical about abolition. Even if I were to assume Jefferson's account of America in 1814 was accurate, the abolition of slavery found America creating its own pauper class. These former slaves and their descendants, in addition to the rural poor, the growing immigrant populations of the cities and the impoverished laborers of the industrial revolution were in the same condition as those British Jefferson expressed such pity for.
I would not blame slavery (or pauperism for that matter) on government intervention. Rather, in any market with an inequitable division of power and wealth, those with resources will attempt to maximize their profit from those without, whether under a republican government, a monarchy, or a socialist government as seen in the USSR, the PRC, or the PRK.
#3 Posted by Waciuma Maina, CJR on Tue 16 Oct 2012 at 11:00 AM
In other news, an item which Ryan might find cute. Turns out the NFIB has new sourcing problems!
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/stock-photo-women-love-conservative-politicians
"On Tuesday afternoon, I noted that the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) had endorsed Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin while at the same time promoting its "PowHER" campaign, an effort aimed at getting women to join the conservative-aligned business group. Apparently the group really doesn't have many female members, because all the lady entrepreneurs featured on its website are from stock images."
Apparently, they had binders full of them. Bwhahahahaha!
/digression
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 17 Oct 2012 at 12:11 PM
Good points. His pauper/slave comparison draws from the manner in which he and others ostensibly treated "servants." (Unlike govt conscription, he reportedly did not separate slaves from their families against their will or violently "mistreat" them, etc.) Of course this comparison, no matter how evidence-based, is feeble in light of his hypocrisy. He owned slaves while verbally supporting abolition. (President Jefferson was a shell of private citizen Jefferson because he rarely acted in support of the wonderful ideas he espoused.) The overall comparison between the British and America is where I think Jefferson's correctness is more than anecdotal. In America, there was much greater opportunity for personal advancement (of all non-slaves), no military conscription (until 1863), etc. Govt did not own the property and lives of its citizens — it did not control their destinies — even remotely near the degree to which the British king did.
I believe that the rate at which people are able to rise above their conditions is inversely commensurate with the level of monopoly (state, namely) control of their property, their lives, and the industries in which they labor. I blame the legalization, the institutionalization, the perpetuation of slavery etc. — not the iniquities themselves — on govt intervention. In a free society, no iniquity can last without the backing of some monopoly, or absolute, force. This is not to say I want anarchy: I prefer divided sovereignty (decentralization) where very few aspects of everyday life are the domain of a central govt, and nearly every legal dispute is handled at the state, local, or private level. In Jefferson's day, I'd be considered an ant-federalist; only, I'd take anti-federalist ideals closer to their logical conclusions. (Historian Thaddeus Russell reveals some very interesting facts on all these topics in his book, A Renegade History of the United States.)
#5 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 17 Oct 2012 at 04:22 PM
Sorry, but my digression seems to have taken a life of its own:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/18/romney-to-bosses-tell-workers-how-to-vote/
"“I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections,” Romney told members of the ostensibly nonpartisan National Federation of Independent Business, an anti-union group whose endorsements tend to align with Republicans.
“And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope — I hope you pass those along to your employees,” he added. “Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well.”"
Well, that puts a spin on the 'boss is threatening to fire me if I don't vote for Romney' story.
This is crap and journalists need to shine a big bright spotlight on this before it becomes common practice.
The playing field is uneven enough, you know?
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 18 Oct 2012 at 11:06 AM
Oh yeah, those "libertarian" Koch guys. About as libertarian as Dick Cheney or Warren Buffett.
#7 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Fri 19 Oct 2012 at 05:57 PM
A monopoly on power certainly allows the wielder the opportunity to control society, but that power goes with the monopoly. It has nothing to do with the government, as the government will reflect the wishes of those that wield power. Decentralized feudal states had little social mobility even in the absence of strong government influence, because that power was instead vested in the hands of the landowners. Whatever your system of distributing power, said power will be used, and so there exists the possibility that the power will be used to further the interests of one group, or to abuse another group, unless there is a higher force that places limits on the use of power.
In your system of decentralized government, it may be that there are different groups holding power in the each of the several states, as opposed to one group reigning supreme over the whole nation, but power will be wielded in the same way. And unless the materials that allow an individual to amass power were evenly distributed before this new system was put in place, the current ruling class would only have more influence over the local governments, and would have less competition in these smaller markets. This is not an outcome one should encourage.
Two final points:
Lightly referring to slaves as "servants" shows a very strong misunderstanding of slavery in theory and in practice.
Government intervention ended slavery in America, and the global slave trade. Slavery predated organized governments. Government support for slavery was merely a function of society's acceptance of slavery, the government did not force slavery on its people.
#8 Posted by Waciuma Maina, CJR on Sat 20 Oct 2012 at 05:46 AM