The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility. Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein. The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.
Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.
The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)
Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.
Considering sending spam? Read this first.
You really ought to take stock and figure out how to survive a political, economic and social apocalypse -- like right now.
It's easy to be "positive" when the markets are near all-time highs -- and they are. When unemployment is near all-time lows -- and it is. When it appears that politics is essentially all noise, because none of it is reflecting back into the economy as a whole.
You would be making a grave mistake to do so.
First, Biden is the clear "front-runner." He is un-electable in the general election; this is a man with a 50+ year record in government who has accomplished literally nothing in that time. Leaving aside the creep factor, which is enormous and which is going to be the brunt of both memes and actual campaign ads should he be nominated there are the policy flip-flops, including on issues such as abortion. Then there's his son; that is just a mess but I can't see how it helps.
The problem with the Democratic field is that the others are ridiculously far left to the point of near-Mao status. Kamala Harris thinks she can indict President Trump after he leaves office. There's a severe problem with this sort of rhetoric: There's hard evidence that the FBI and DOJ were weaponized by Obama and the Democrats during his time in office to not only selectively prosecute but to excuse myriad other criminal offenses by those who they favored (e.g. Hillary), up to and including culpable negligence leading to manslaughter at least (e.g. "Fast-n-Furious")
Fully half the nation disagrees with the Democrat positions. I am no fan of Trump by any means but should someone like Harris, or anyone who holds those sorts of views, gain the Presidency and then execute on those "promises" they risk half the nation deciding that they've had enough of this crap and doing something about it.
Am I putting forward some sort of prospect that has come from some "far right lunatic fringe" hate group? Uh, nope.
It in fact is The Democrats, including sitting Congress people, who have said in public and on television that no person working for Trump should be able to so much as eat a meal in a restaurant with their family in peace and not one of said Democrats was either prosecuted or removed from office for what were clear terroristic threats and not only that, they were made under color of law or authority (which makes them criminal acts under 18 USC 242) given the speaker's elected positions of power.
Which side is doing the inciting here? Shunning is perfectly lawful. Assault is not.
What makes you think this won't escalate and all of a sudden security problems -- and all the inconvenience that comes with maintaining same for everyone you're close to -- becomes very real?
Do you think a little "Hatfield and McCoy" (or, maybe, quite a lot worse) would be good for markets, jobs and the economy?
Then add to this the alleged position that "tech companies are private and can do whatever the hell they want." Uh, no. Yes, they're "private" but so is a hotel and yet public accommodation laws prohibit discriminating against certain people. This hasn't stopped AirBNB from doing it only because no criminal charges have been brought, although public accommodation laws say that discrimination in such a fashion is illegal. Why hasn't AirBNB been criminally charged? Because the people they discriminate against are "unpopular" according to far-left Demonscats.
While Duke Energy (for example) is a private company it cannot turn off the electric service of a conservative or someone who professes to be Pro-Life. Why not? Because it has market power. No, the issue is not that you "can't" otherwise obtain electrical power; you can obtain electricity by, for example, buying a generator and the fuel to run it. The inability to obtain some good or service doesn't have to be absolute to implicate market power and constraints on this sort of behavior.
Youtube claims to be able to judge what is "hate speech" and then ban anyone who engages in it. Well, why can't Duke Energy shut your power off if you proclaim that white people are more intelligent than black people as a group. That happens to be true, incidentally, yet saying so is "hate speech" according to Youtube. If Youtube can terminate your account or "de-monetize" it why can't Duke Energy shut your power off?
The other problem is that Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and others are all lying -- and thereby I argue at minimum ought to be investigated on the basis of criminal securities fraud -- in stating that there is some "brand unsafe" nature associated with various speech that is all lawful and yet they declare as being "hate."
The lie and thus fraud is this: All of these platforms claim as their reason to exist that advertisers can target exactly where their ads show up based on content, channel and various other metrics of the viewer.
Therefore, if they're not lying, there is no issue with "brand un-safety" since entities that wish to advertise to those who believe white people are better than black people can do so while those brands who would like to forego advertising to those who hold views they find repugnant can do so as well. Is this not what freedom of association is?
It gets worse.
Have a look here:
When Youtube "de-monetizes" a video their claim in doing so -- again -- is that brands do not wish to be associated with such speech, and since Youtube serves multiple brands, if it's "objectionable" then the association with other channels, advertisers and Youtube is impacted.
That's a trivially-provable lie; I have now seen, which I present in evidence right here, that they are were still running ads when I wrote this. Ads which, I'm sure, are billed to the advertiser and Youtube is simply taking all the money instead of remitting part of it to the creator as originally agreed while at the same time claiming the material wasn't "monetized."
Fraud in the criminal sense is defined as:
1. An intentional deception of material fact that
2. Is intended to result in financial or personal gain at another's expense
3. #1 and #2 result in one or both of unjust gain(s) (to the deceiver(s)) or loss(es) (to the deceived.)
As you can see from this screen shot the exact video which is allegedly "de-monetized" because it is "unsafe" for brands to advertise against is in fact running an ad for Trivago; Scott Adams is getting nothing for this because Youtube "demonetized" his video. However, Youtube is obviously not going to run a Trivago ad without billing them and expecting to get paid so this means by simple deduction Youtube has to be keeping it all.
Do these tech mavens really think they can lie like this and there will never be a price to pay for it?
The record now appears to show that Zucker****er implicated himself in the firm's violation of user privacy after agreeing not to in a previous investigation. What happens when the government continues to refuse to prosecute people like him -- never mind all the medical executives who rip you off to the tune of trillions a year? Do these people -- and the government -- really think there is no amount of abuse beyond which ordinary people will decide that if the government will not bring charges, prosecute and imprison for clear violations of the law that they're going to take care of the problem themselves in ways that we consider to be downright medieval?
Good luck with believing that you can do this forever and get away with it; you may sign up for 100% 24x7 security in an attempt to stop someone who gets pissed from deciding that justice as they see it will be done now when you're President of the United States but do you think every lesser lawmaker never mind every CEO and their family will sign up for that same thing, either pay for it or be able to make the citizens do so, and will tolerate what it comes with?
Let's just take one example of the insane cognitive dissonance found in the nation today -- abortion. One side of the debate claims that a woman has a right to choose and only her choice matters. The other claims that abortion is murder.
Now here's the problem -- this issue is not black and white as is usually claimed by politicians and the media, and I can prove it.
Many people who support abortion rights do not consider that an unrestricted right. The Supreme Court certainly didn't in Roe and very few people take the position that a woman has a right to choose abortion for any reason whatsoever at the moment of delivery. That is a true fringe position, held by a tiny fraction of people in the country today.
At the same time I personally know nobody who truly takes the "all abortion is murder" position seriously either. If they did they'd kill anyone attempting to perform one or anyone who gave aid and comfort to those with that position. Think it through folks -- we're talking about hundreds of thousands of abortions a year in the United States alone. If you could have assassinated Hitler and stopped him killing Jews would you have done it? Abortion kills as many fetuses as Hitler killed every decade. On the other side of the argument if mass levels of human rights violations are at stake what's that justify? Same thing, right?
The truth is on this issue, like so many others, is that neither side really believes their bull****, save for a few nuts on both sides who have in fact executed on their beliefs.
If people really did believe what they say to any material degree, on either side, Civil War would have already happened on this issue alone.
One more, final example of the political insanity: Guns.
New Zealand, for instance. After Christchurch they passed a brand new turn in your guns law to much fanfare and applause from the left in the United States. Then the media attention disappeared. Roughly 500 people have turned in their guns; best estimates are that there are roughly 1.5 million such weapons in private hands. It's similar in New York which also passed such a ban and registration requirement; compliance with that law has been an effective zero.
So where's Cuomo who claims to support this garbage? Hiding under his desk as the wet-crap coward and hypocrite that he is. If he personally went to try and get those guns I wouldn't take odds on that working out very well -- and he knows it. The cops know the odds are good they'd be shot too which is why they haven't and won't go get the guns and everyone involved knows damn well what's at risk they try it. How many cops .vs. over one million such weapons? How many of the people who have them will answer "Hell No!"? How many does it need to be? Not fun questions and not fun answers either.
How about California? Zero compliance as a statistical matter as well: estimates are 3%. Connecticut? Same deal. Zero compliance and zero enforcement. Gee, I wonder why?
Where's the media on this? Silent, of course. Gee, I wonder why?
These people also know that not everyone is stupid and in fact there are plenty of well-trained combat veterans who were taught guerrilla warfare tactics by our own government and then set upon some foreign land to go practice them! You really want to play with those guys if you get them that mad? Many of them believe the words in the Constitution still mean something. After all, they did volunteer to do things that can and often do kill people in the name of our country.
There's no way to know who will do that and who won't but out of millions of possible people who may choose to do it there's also no chance in Hell of interdicting any material percentage of said individuals in advance.
Again this is how Civil Wars start and once they start they're a bitch to stop because exactly nobody on either side is going to "forgive and forget" that their daughter, son, wife or husband was shot dead or their house was burned to the ground with their family inside while they were out trying to go get the guns, or that the same thing happened to the victims of one of the raids by the cops trying to take the guns!
Most of the time such conflicts don't stop until either the people get tired of death or everyone on one side or the other is dead.
So go ahead folks, believe that the markets will be just fine and so will civil society. Keep believing that "big tech" can define "hate speech" to be whatever it wants while violating your privacy and ripping you off and the medical system can steal three trillion a year, or roughly $25 per person, per day in the United States. Keep believing that all this crap can go on while the US Government can't manage to fund itself without printing up more and more debt and exactly nobody is going to decide they've had enough of all of this when everyone in the political process and "big tech" is egging it on and making it worse, strutting around like little Napoleons laughing at the 99.9% of Americans who they trample underfoot economically and, it appears, increasingly on a physical basis.
Show me one leading Democrat who is doing anything other than stoking that garbage, along with all of the big tech companies. You can't. And oh, by the way, Trump and the Republicans aren't doing anything about it either!
I'm taking the bet that by the end of next year things go sideways -- at least economically and in the markets, and quite possibly in the worst sort of way imaginable.
Nobody in their right mind advocates or wishes for such an outcome but if you're not concerned about the possibility of it happening in the current political climate you need to have your head examined.
Time to stop being nice.
America, you're being raped. Flat-out raped.
15 USC Chapter 1 makes clear that price-fixing is illegal. When it comes to drugs, which are physical commodities, Robinson-Patman (15 USC Chapter 1, Section 13) also makes discriminatory pricing illegal for buyers of like kind and quantity.
(a) Price; selection of customers It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them
It is illegal for a pharmacy to charge you $10 for a drug and someone else $100. Or, for that matter, to charge one person $2.15 million and another a $100 copay.
It is illegal for a hospital to do the same thing.
Things like "GoodRX" and similar are flat out facial violations of the law.
So are "varying" co-pays for the same drug in the same quantity.
So, for that matter, are bribes on a differential basis for the same thing (Section 13 c, d and e)
So, for that matter, are inducing such practices or benefiting from same (Section 13 f)
An insurance company is never a consumer of the drug. A person is. Such practices as conspiring with pharmacies and hospitals to vary the price you pay is illegal and has been since the 1930s.
Never mind the first few Sections of 15 USC Chapter 1 which make any scheme to fix prices or lessen competition irrespective of upon whom the price injury falls, or even whether it occurs (proof of same is not required in the statute) a criminal, 10 year in prison, felony.
Drug prices in particular, since drugs are commodities, fall under Robinson-Patman. There is no exception found in the statutes for drugs.
I again remind you that the medical and insurance industries twice went all the way to the Supreme Court -- in the late 1970s and early 1980s -- in bids to claim exemptions from these laws under, among other things, McCarran-Ferguson.
THEY LOST BOTH TIMES.
If the State AGs (most States have nearly-identical laws to 15 USC Chapter 1) and Federal AG will not bring charges under 100 year old criminal law that make clear the practices in the medical and pharmaceutical system are crimes then we, the people, need to seriously consider making clear that we will not sit for this and if they will not enforce the law and stop the American People from being raped out of $3 trillion a year -- $25 per person, per day every day we will start assembling gallows and holding our own trials and contemplate including as co-conspirators the criminally corrupt politicians, cops and AGs who won't do their damned jobs, with special consideration accorded to state legislatures that shove a gun up the nose of healthy people and force them to pay for other's medications instead of their State AGs and cops arresting the conspirators that illegally gamed prices in the first place.
Oh by the way, if Kalama Harris -- who had the power to stop this in California and pointedly refused, instead literally blow-jobbing her way to the Senate -- thinks she can abuse the power of the Presidency (should she win) to point that enforcement at Trump instead -- she may well get a surprise that begins with "When in the course of human events...."
A rogue Democratic aide stole a massive trove of political data and used it to harm Republicans by “doxxing” them in what prosecutors call the “largest data theft in Senate history.”
The theft was made possible, and could have been much worse, because of myriad blunders by the Capitol Police and multiple Democratic congresswomen, they said.
Even after the computer administrator was caught in the act and arrested for spying on a senator’s office using his advanced technical skills, Capitol Police didn’t check the USB ports of nearby computers. Six different computers within steps of where he was arrested in the Senate had keylogger devices in them that continued to capture and beam private information over WiFi. They were only exposed through a confession.
Police the got a search warrant on his home, but missed critical evidence because they didn’t check the oven.
Toxic individuals were repeatedly passed among government offices apparently without anyone performing a background check or calling for job references. And despite lamentations from Democrats about the DNC hack, there was seemingly little concern about technology and data security.
I'm supposed to believe any of this?
How about this as an alternative hypothesis.
I mean, c'mon. I'm supposed to believe that The Capitol Police, responsible for security and such in Congress, cannot find their ass with both hands? That they execute a search warrant and don't check the oven? They are investigating a computer break-in and don't look to see if anything is plugged into the USB ports of nearby computers in the same office?
Incidentally the guy who got busted had a prior felony criminal record. He was hired anyway. Now granted, the felony was over drug abuse. Ok; people do drugs, sometimes they get caught, that doesn't necessarily implicate their ability to work. They can stop doing drugs and get their act together. I get that.
But -- once he came under suspicion after being fired -- which, incidentally, Hasan won't talk about why he was fired -- nobody checked anything? Then Shiela Jackson Lee gave him a position after he was fired by Hasan without a reference check -- and let him work as an "unpaid intern" after being fired?
He apparently intended to blackmail Hasan. But, he got cranked up with partisan hatred and instead doxxed a bunch of Republicans over Kavanaugh's confirmation.
And got caught, and now has been tried and sentenced.
Incidentally this "shining star" is the son of a very rich real estate developer who has ties to both Pelosi and Feinstein. You don't think there was a bit of nepotism involved in his original hiring, do you? Oh, and he worked in both of their offices as well.
While working there, I might note, reports are that he was so cranked on booze and drugs that the probation office is wondering why he wasn't dead. Oh wait -- he didn't stop doing drugs. You know, what he got busted for originally, before any of these people hired him?
And neither FeinSwine or Pelo****you got rid of him. Nor did Jackson Lee.
He couldn't get into Hassan's computers after being fired (his credentials were revoked) so he bribed another staffer for her CAC card. She, it appears, knew damn well what he was doing with it too. Now she's facing charges. Well, sort of. They're not very serious charges, despite being the enabler. Why is that again?
It gets better. A Virginia Democrat hired the confederate that helped him. Said Democrat didn't look either. Then two weeks later she left that payroll -- but nobody knows why and nobody's talking.
And now, it appears, said confederate, who helped this bastard break in, is going to be a teacher.
Where your children can be indoctrinated by someone who thinks its perfectly fine to break into computers and smear people for political purposes. This is the role model who will teach your children -- something. I'm not sure what.
Yeah, our government can find its ass with both hands. And you not only allow this, not only submit your personal information through tax filings and similar, but you sit on your ass and do nothing when this sort of outrageous corruption, nepotism and glad-handling comes to light and, in fact, now you're going to a "fine citizen" to teach your children. Exactly what they'll be taught, of course, is open to considerable question.
We, the people, deserve what's coming.
/Long KY, in size.
I think you know the truth and do I. You just don't want to face it.
Facing reality means looking at your own offspring a different way, especially if you have one or more daughters.
It means facing the facts about girls and their "value" in the modern world to certain cretins, and how the power structures in both our government and others uses and abuses them.
It means looking in your daughter's eyes and having that flash of terror that comes with recognition that among the power and moneyed elite, along with a significant part of the criminal element of the world, young girls and boys are nothing more than high-priced sex toys to be bought and sold, and that their value is highest between their young childhood through adolescence and very young adult years, quickly diminishing toward zero as they get old enough to show their first wrinkle -- or stretch mark.
Now the State of Florida has ordered the midtown Miami school to shut down immediately after New Times brought the facility to the state’s attention. Florida officials say the school was not currently licensed to operate.
"Rainbow Cultural Garden Miami is a multicultural tutoring center that has nothing to do with any cult," Pietra said through a spokesperson.
"School" eh? Cultural garden eh? Uh huh.
Now to be fair -- this is one article online in one place. And I have utterly no idea if this specific school has any involvement with anything related to sex trafficking -- of children or otherwise.
But what I do know is that in the 1990s the moment I took a public and loud stand about child exploitation and pornography and the Internet's nascent yet extraordinarily active part in same, I started getting death threats -- including some extraordinarily grotesque and graphic ones.
The authorities, and yes, I did report those threats, didn't give a flying ****.
This isn't a new focus or issue folks. It's as old as a fart in a church.
And with few exceptions when we talk about the real rich and moneyed elite -- you know, the Epsteins of the world -- the people who are involved in it go unpunished through various machinations and our refusal to insist on enforcement of the rule of law.
Oh yes, the garden variety pervert is hunted down, caught and tossed in prison. That's the cover, you see. The cops these days set up sting operations; I know someone who has worked on those task forces. They mean it, and if you're an ordinary creep eventually you'll "solicit" one of the nice boys or gals who isn't really a 12 year old girl; "she" a police officer and when you show up to do all sorts of nasty things you'll get cuffed and tossed in the hoosegow -- as it should be.
But the mavens of industry and, especially, people with enough money and political influence to be related to or actually be members of Congress, even past Presidents and those who helped put them in office? Not so much.
Those coyotes running people up from Mexico? Some of them are running sexual slaves. Some of the people behind the scenes are selling those sexual slaves. The slaves being bought and sold are young boys and girls -- just like your son or daughter. It's a world-wide thing, it's outrageous and it is inextricably tied to every bit of illegal immigration.
A 100% full-stop to illegal immigration and ejection of every single illegal immigrant won't stop it on a global basis. But it will do a great deal to stop it here in the United States. The rest, sadly, requires that we take seriously the rule of law -- the same rule of law that is ignored to rip you off for more than $3 trillion a year by the medical monopolists and now Zucker****er wants to ignore the same laws and launch a "cryptocurrency" that can and will be used not only for such trafficking but also to gain 100% accurate and intimate knowledge of everything you buy, sell and do -- which, of course, is very useful if that rat bastard or anyone in our government who allows this horse**** to come into existence wants you to shut the **** up. After all, that hooker on your last vacation..... gee, if would be very unfortunate if that wound up on the front page of the NY Times, wouldn't it?
Something to think about.
When you're an attorney and have an overwhelming case on the facts, present the facts.
When the facts don't favor you, but the other guy can be painted as a louse (or worse), attack the other side's character.
But if neither of those paths are available to you then lie -- and make the lie REALLY BIG AND LOUD too, because your only hope in that situation is that your lie is believed; if your bluff gets called you're cooked and the bigger and more audacious the lie the better the odds the other side will believe it, simply because they may think you'd have to be nuts to make something that outlandish up out of whole cloth.
However, is the application of antitrust law the best way to deal with these issues? Under more than 100 years of antitrust law, monopolies were not considered the problem. Monopolies that harmed consumers were the problem. Generally, the hallmark of an illegal monopoly has been one that uses its position to charge consumers excessive amounts for its goods and services. It is hard to make the argument under traditional antitrust law that consumers are harmed by companies like Facebook and Google, which generally do not charge consumers anything for their services, or by Amazon, which can provide greatly reduced prices.
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
That's the entire Chapter 1, Section 1. It's one paragraph. Where do you see "consumers must be charged excessive amounts" in that law?
It's not there and it isn't an element of the offense.
Further, Section 2, the very next one, reads -- again, in full:
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person,$1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Again, where is price injury or elevation of price required? It's not an element of the offense.
There is no such thing as a legal monopoly, except where a government has explicitly granted an exception, such as an exclusive franchise to sell electrical power or water and sewer services.
Yes, I'm well-aware that policy is not to prosecute monopolists -- ever. But the question as to whether such monopolies are felonious is not in dispute -- they are.
The Sherman and Clayton acts were drawn this way on purpose more than 100 years ago for a very good reason: People are crafty and identifying exactly how you suffer price injury is extraordinarily difficult to police with any sort of definitive result.
That the manifestly evil jackasses in our Federal Executive have pointedly refused to indict and imprison anyone on this basis for literal decades does not change the fact that all of these acts are facially felonious. This directly calls into question why the people fail to rise up and demand that those prosecutions take place under threat of the people deciding to hold their own trials and fashion their own punishments should the government continue to refuse to do it's damn job. Intentional and willful failure to prosecute by our government allows these organizations and individuals to screw the public out of trillions of dollars a year!
This brings us to what is called “hipster antitrust.” Hipster antitrust is the term used to describe a movement to change the interpretation of antitrust law, to go beyond the traditional standard of consumer welfare and include a broad range of socioeconomic issues.
If that sounds a bit vague, it is because it is. It is extremely subjective. Should businesses that can’t compete be protected from companies that provide better services at lower costs where consumers are not financially harmed? Cicilline said the committee would concern itself with whether Amazon had hurt small retailers. Traditionally this has not been a concern of antitrust law.
Well that's because "traditionally" **********s like you, Weisman, flat out lie regarding what the law actually says and get away with it, influencing people who read those lies to take them as truths. You know good and ******n well you're lying too, which is why you stooped to the second part of the attorney's creed -- when the facts don't support your position impugn the other person's character, in this case by calling their position "hipster."
The intent of such deception is clear in that Weisman doesn't want anyone to go read the actual statute in question, which infamously says exactly nothing about "consumer welfare" at all!
If the people in this nation did go read said laws for themselves there might be a revolution by morning and if there was it would be well-deserved. When one looks at the outrageous conduct of these "big tech" firms, never mind the health care scam that rips off roughly $25 per person, per day in America you'd think that all of this had to be legal -- that it shouldn't be, but it is, and that's why this crap continues.
You'd be dead wrong; all of this has been illegal for more than 100 years; these laws date to 1890 and have stood since without modification or exception for either big tech or medically-related firms.
This is not primarily a civil matter -- that is, something for lawsuits -- either. It's a criminal felony carrying 10 years in prison for each person so-involved along with $100 million in fines for any corporation and $1 million for each person so-involved on a personal level for each individual act that is an offense.
Robinson-Patman (Section 13 of the same Title, passed in the early 20th Century) went on to make price discrimination in physical goods between purchasers of like kind and quantity illegal if the effect is to substantially lessen competition or tend to promote a monopoly, or to injure, destroy or prevent competition. Robinson-Patman does not implicate services but it does apply to any sort of physical item and, unlike Sherman and Clayton does require a showing that competitive harm is implicated. Robinson-Patman also contains a exemption for non-profits (and does not carry criminal penalties) but neither Sherman or Clayton have any such exemption.
Indeed there are damn few exemptions found in said body of law -- amusingly, professional baseball has one of them under Section 26b.
There is no exemption for either "big tech" or medical providers of any sort.
We the people must demand that the law be enforced -- and if the federal government will not do so forthwith then it is time to consider whether the people of this nation are going to continue to consent to the infestation of Washington DC by crooked felon-enablers that, through their direct refusal to enforce 100+ year old felony criminal laws, not only leave the people's privacy violated and their rights impugned they empower the theft of over $3 trillion a year through the felony-riven medical scam system alone.