Originally published at Discourse. 

​Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments on the legality of banning the social media platform TikTok. The debate over whether TikTok should be able to keep operating in the United States brings the issue of government control over digital platforms to the forefront. It’s the latest frontier in the age-old battle between freedom and security, and there are certainly vociferous defenders on both sides.

Given that it is partially owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, TikTok has long been at the center of national security concerns. Some lawmakers argue that the app's data collection practices pose a risk, as Chinese laws could force ByteDance to share sensitive information with the country’s government. Casey Blackburn, assistant director of national intelligence, noted in an affidavit in the case that the Chinese government could attempt to “coerce ByteDance or TikTok to covertly manipulate the information received by the millions of Americans that use the TikTok application every day, through censorship or manipulation of TikTok’s algorithm, in ways that benefit the PRC and harm the United States.”

TikTok users should understand that using the platform comes with risks and decide, based on those risks, whether to continue using it or not. However, a U.S. government ban on TikTok would set a dangerous precedent, infringing on free speech, economic freedom and the future of innovation.

Lawmakers Are Concerned, Americans Less So
Certainly, the primary justification for a TikTok ban is that the platform puts our national security at risk. Lawmakers fear that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, could be compelled by Chinese laws to share data such as users' locations and personal details with the Chinese government. 

Additionally, concerns have been raised that TikTok could be used to deliver misinformation by controlling the content seen by its American users, especially during politically sensitive times like the U.S. presidential election or the Israel-Hamas conflict. This is a growing worry, given that over half of American adults report that they get at least some of their news from social media. Platforms can easily pick favorites by adjusting their algorithms, content and sources to be shown to users.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has called TikTok “China’s digital Trojan Horse,” claiming the app poses an unprecedented risk due to the potential for data misuse. These fears have propelled many lawmakers to back efforts to ban TikTok, believing that the Chinese government could use the platform for surveillance or to sway American public opinion. According to the American intelligence community’s annual report, “TikTok accounts run by a PRC propaganda arm reportedly targeted candidates from both political parties during the U.S. midterm election cycle in 2022.”

Meanwhile, average Americans don’t seem to share many lawmakers’ worries. Pew Research Center polling from the summer found that 42% of Republicans and right-leaning independents supported the ban, while only 24% of Democratic and left-leaning independent voters felt the same. And this support has fallen over time: While 32% of Americans support a TikTok ban today, 50% did in March 2023. 

Concerns have also done nothing to curb the platform's popularity globally and in the U.S. TikTok boasts 1.5 billion monthly active users and is now the fifth-most-popular social media platform in the world. Most of its users come from the U.S., with 148 million monthly unique users in this country. If Americans are concerned about the security risks posed by TikTok’s connection with China, they’re not letting it affect their behavior.

A Dangerous Precedent
While lawmakers’ concerns may be legitimate, they’re shortsighted. Focusing solely on TikTok’s risks overlooks the broader issue of how all tech companies—not just those owned by foreign entities—handle user data and are influenced by government officials. While other social media outlets don’t have the same connection with their ownership as those operating in an adversarial foreign country, the influence that the U.S. federal government has on some platforms is concerning. In fact, Facebook came under fire this summer when CEO Mark Zuckerberg publicly stated that during the pandemic the Biden administration pressured the company to censor content related to COVID-19.

Facebook, Google and Instagram collect similarly vast amounts of data, yet they have not faced the same scrutiny. Singling out TikTok with legislation is likely more about political optics and national security concerns than creating meaningful data security reforms. Meanwhile, there has yet to be credible, publicly available evidence of Chinese government actions that would warrant a ban on TikTok in the U.S. Jennifer Huddleston of the Cato Institute argues that banning TikTok could lead to government overreach, setting a precedent for further restrictions on technology under the guise of national security.

A ban would also undermine America’s role as a defender of free speech and openness. If the government starts dictating which platforms Americans can use based on political calculations, it sets the stage for future administrations to limit access to other platforms, potentially leading to broader censorship and reduced competition in the tech ecosystem. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul highlighted these concerns, noting, “The Supreme Court will ultimately rule it unconstitutional because it would violate the First Amendment rights of over 100 million Americans who use TikTok to express themselves.”

Free Speech and Economic Liberty at Risk
The First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to free expression, and social media platforms like TikTok have become vital tools for communication. Millions of users rely on these platforms to share ideas, create content and engage in discussions. The proposed ban would curb individual choice, as people would no longer be free to decide which platforms to use. Instead of trusting individuals to make informed decisions, the government would be a gatekeeper for what platforms Americans can access.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, an architect of the ban, has said, “This is not an effort to take your voice away. … This is not a ban of a service you appreciate. … At the end of the day, they've not seen what Congress has seen.” While Warner’s concerns about data privacy are valid, addressing them by removing individual freedom to choose digital platforms is a imprudent solution that overlooks the broader implications for free speech and innovation.

Banning TikTok would also severely disrupt the economic opportunities it provides for businesses, especially small businesses. TikTok has become an invaluable tool for many entrepreneurs and content creators who rely on the platform to reach new audiences and grow their customer base. Since the pandemic, TikTok has allowed businesses to market their products in creative ways that larger platforms, like Facebook or Instagram, have struggled to match. TikTok’s launch of TikTok Shop in 2023, for example, has attracted more than 500,000 U.S. sellers who use the platform as a key component of their e-commerce strategy. Shutting down TikTok stateside would disproportionately harm these small businesses, removing a vital marketing and sales tools. Such a ban would stifle innovation and damage the dynamic competitive spirit that fuels economic growth.

The potential TikTok ban also raises concerns about market distortion. TikTok operates in a crowded social media space alongside competitors like Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube. Despite their extensive data collection practices, none of these companies are facing bans. If TikTok were banned, it would grant these other platforms an unfair advantage, not through innovation or better service, but because of government intervention.

Companies should rise or fall in a free market based on their ability to innovate, provide value to consumers and compete on a level playing field. When the government intervenes by banning one company, it creates artificial winners and losers. The tech industry thrives on competition, and government overreach in the form of platform bans undermines this competition. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden has raised similar concerns: “Banning TikTok opens the door for future censorship of apps and technologies deemed politically inconvenient.”

Unleashing the Future … and the Free Market
Social media, artificial intelligence and data-driven technologies are driving a real global transformation. Government bans, however, risk stifling this growth. Instead of restricting platforms and technologies out of fear, we should encourage innovation and competition to allow new technologies to flourish.

By banning TikTok, the U.S. would send a message that government action can stifle innovation. Entrepreneurs may hesitate to invest in new technologies because of concern that their platforms could be shut down based on political whims rather than market forces. If the U.S. wants to maintain its position as a global leader in technology, it must foster an environment that promotes innovation and technological advancement, not one that restricts it.

In a free market, individuals—not the government—should decide which platforms they use. The federal government can certainly provide information for transparency about potential risks, but it should be up to consumers to assess those risks and decide what is best for them. The TikTok ban represents a paternalistic approach to governance, where the government dictates what is safe or unsafe for people, limiting their freedom to make informed choices.

We must recognize that nothing is without risk. Every decision we make involves weighing costs and benefits, and it is not the government’s role to eliminate all potential risks by controlling our choices. Individuals should be trusted to decide whether to use TikTok—or any platform—rather than having the government impose blanket bans.

The question of a TikTok ban represents more than just a national security debate—it raises fundamental questions about the role of government in regulating technology, free speech and market competition. While national security and data privacy are important concerns, banning TikTok is not the answer. Such a ban sets a dangerous precedent that threatens individual liberty, economic freedom and innovation.

As Milton Friedman once said, “A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” The same is true for technology. We must allow the market to work, letting individuals decide how they engage with digital platforms. Banning TikTok risks not only the stifling of innovation but also the erosion of the freedoms that make America’s economy dynamic and competitive.

​Last session, despite a $32.7 billion surplus, new property tax relief was limited to just $12.7 billion. And the state budget increased by a record 32% in state funds from GAA appropriations to appropriations

Originally published at Sen. Rand Paul's office website.

​WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, joined by Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (R-WY) and Congressman Dan Bishop (R-NC-08), introduced the Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act. This bill will prohibit federal employees and contractors from using their positions to direct online platforms to censor First Amendment protected speech, reinforcing our collective commitment to safeguarding the constitutional rights of all American citizens. The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act is a streamlined iteration of the Free Speech Protection Act, tailored to address the standing issues highlighted in Murthy v. Missouri.

“Americans are a free people, and we do not take infringements upon our liberties lightly. Our Founding Fathers enshrined the First Amendment to protect our God-given right to free expression, recognizing its fundamental importance to a free society,” said Dr. Paul. “With the Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act, we will strip away the barriers preventing judicial review of coercive government tactics that silence dissenting voices and ensure that no government official or contractor can undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans. We must confront and dismantle this censorship apparatus to protect our fundamental right to free speech.”

“I have repeatedly said that the government cannot do by proxy what it is prohibited from doing directly. This is exactly what happened with the Biden Administration pressuring social media companies to suppress the free speech of American citizens. The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act will not only ensure future litigants would have standing, but also would also apply to the plaintiffs in Murthy,” said Rep. Hageman. “Our forefathers ratified the First Amendment recognizing that government actors would always seek to control public discourse in order to protect their own power structure. No one has a monopoly on truth, and the Biden administration and federal agencies are not entitled to declare that American’s speech is ‘mis-information,’ ‘dis-information,’ or ‘mal-information’ and silence the message, especially when you consider how much accurate and truthful information was squelched during Covid-19 and the 2020 election. We will continue to fight to protect our First Amendment rights.” 

“Americans have a God-given right to free expression, and the constant attacks on the First Amendment from government bureaucrats make safeguarding that right all the more important. Malicious actors within government should never be allowed to silence and censor Americans, and Americans targeted by the Censorship Industrial Complex deserve their day in court. This legislation will ensure just that by removing barriers for judicial review and cracking down on those who aim to trample on the First Amendment,” said Rep. Bishop.

The bill would:

1. Empower individuals to sue government officials who coerce online platforms into censoring constitutionally protected speech.
2. Apply to past First Amendment violations and establish a presumption of liability for any government official attempting to pressure platforms into censorship, thereby overcoming the causality issue identified by the Supreme Court in Murthy.
3. Provide a vital mechanism for all Americans to protect their constitutional rights and challenge government overreach. It ensures that government officials are held accountable for any attempts to infringe upon our fundamental right to free speech.

Additional support:
“In the covid era, the federal government systematically suppressed legal online speech that contradicted its policy priorities, including criticism of covid misinformation spread by the government on topics like immunity, school closures, mask and covid vaccine effectiveness, vaccine injuries, and vaccine mandates. Given the recent failure of the Supreme Court to protect Americans against this threat to free speech rights, it is vital for Congress to act to secure the First Amendment. I am pleased that Sen. Paul has authored such a bill which will prohibit Federal employees and contractors from censoring legal speech. I encourage all law makers to support the bill,” said Jay Bhatthacharya MD, PhD., Stanford University and plaintiff in Murthy v. Missouri.

“Rights that cannot be vindicated in court are not rights at all. By closing the courthouse doors to Americans who are victimized by government censorship campaigns, Murthy invites the government to violate First Amendment rights at will—so long as it does so indirectly, utilizing numerous government agencies, rather than directly or through a single agency. Murthy essentially gives the government a blueprint on how to censor American citizens. This legislation says, ‘not so fast’,” said Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder, Institute for Free Speech.

“As we inch closer to a crucial election in November, Congress should act swiftly to stop government censorship by proxy and protect Americans’ access to information. By restricting federal employees and contractors from encouraging platforms to suppress speech directly or indirectly, this bill is an important step in the right direction. Heritage Action applauds Sen. Paul for fighting government overreach and the weaponization of censorship on Big Tech platforms,” said Ryan Walker, Executive Vice President, Heritage Action.

“Let the people sue government officials who are working on the taxpayer dime to censor everyday Americans. Senator Paul is valiantly defending our Constitutional free speech rights. This bill is a no-brainer,” said L. Brent Bozell III, Founder and President, Media Research Center.

“Senator Rand Paul has introduced legislation allowing citizens to sue the federal government for censoring their speech, protecting First Amendment rights. For too long, federal entities have violated free speech using government power and funds. This bill ensures courts cannot dismiss these cases on standing grounds, preventing constitutional abuses. Senator Paul’s initiative is a crucial step in safeguarding free speech, a cornerstone of our free society,” said George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

“The Supreme Court’s failure to decide the Murthy v. Missouri case on the grounds that Missouri did not have standing in their attempt to protect their citizens against unconstitutional government censorship was a travesty. Senator Rand Paul’s introduction of legislation to provide states standing to sue on censorship cases would provide perhaps the only vehicle for broadly protecting free speech rights from the federal government coercing and suggesting censorship via corporate social media proxies. Americans for Limited Government proudly supports the Rand Paul legislation,” said Richard Manning, President, Americans for Limited Government.
​
“Senator Rand Paul has long been a champion of free speech and individual liberty, and this is on full display today with his legislation that will help preserve our freedoms that some in the federal government too often are trying to destroy,” said Vance Ginn, President of Ginn Economic Consulting and Former Chief Economist of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

“As social media has grown to allow Americans more free and unfettered speech online, there have been highly motivated efforts by government officials to limit speech online using both direct and indirect forms of coercion. This is a direct challenge to the spirit and future strength of the First Amendment. The Consumer Choice Center strongly supports Sen. Paul’s “Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act” as a vehicle to end unconstitutional jawboning and hold public officials accountable when they aim to suppress public discourse and free expression online,” said Yael Ossowski, Deputy Director, Consumer Choice Center.

“The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act is a necessary corrective to the Supreme Court ruling that current law does not provide standing to victims of government-directed censorship to get their day in court. Congress should pass it quickly to allow citizens to appropriately defend their First Amendment rights,” said Phil Kerpen, President, American Commitment.

“No government should have the ability to control American free speech online or censor us from speaking. NetChoice applauds Sen. Paul for taking this important step to defend the First Amendment from government officials that abuse their power by trying to suppress open and free dialogue online. Sen. Paul’s bill makes it clear that Americans have the right to challenge the government for jawboning in court. NetChoice looks forward to working with Sen. Paul and the U.S. Senate to get this issue right so that Americans and businesses are protected from government interference when exercising their constitutionally-protected speech,” said Carl Szabo,Vice President & General Counsel, NetChoice.

“The recent decision in Murthy v. Missouri seemed to give government officials free rein to push social media companies to censor speech they dislike. Sen. Paul is stepping up to fix this by ensuring citizens have standing to sue when they do this. Free speech makes a comeback,” said Jim Hanson, Executive Director, America Matters.

Background:
On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Murthy v. Missouri, a landmark First Amendment case, that the plaintiffs did not have standing to seek an injunction against government officials who attempted to pressure platforms into censoring speech related to COVID-19. The court’s decision hinged on the plaintiffs seeking an injunction against future censorship, rather than compensation for past violations of their First Amendment rights. However, the plaintiffs would not have been able to seek compensation, even if they wanted to, as the Supreme Court has consistently refused to acknowledge a cause of action allowing individuals to seek compensation from federal officials for past First Amendment violations.

Like countless other Americans, Dr. Paul was also targeted by the pervasive censorship regime during the pandemic. In 2021, Dr. Paul posted a video on YouTube to educate the public about the potentially harmful consequences of relying on ineffective cloth masks to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. YouTube took down his video and suspended his account for a week. This blatant suppression of dissenting views led him to announce that he was quitting the platform and would henceforth post his content on Rumble.com. 

You can read the bill HERE. 

Organized by R Street Institute. 

“Parents know best for their kids. Not politicians, bureaucrats, CEOs, or anyone else. Sure, many parenting don’t make the ‘correct’ choices, as I make many mistakes, but government one-size-fits-none policies will make the situation much worse.”
—Vance Ginn, former Chief Economist for the White House Office of Management & Budget under President Donald Trump.

Originally published at James Madison Institute.

​America’s Antitrust laws have been essential to the legal landscape for over a century. They were designed to protect competition and consumer welfare. However, the Biden administration’s onslaught on competition through flawed antitrust efforts has threatened consumer welfare and profitability. This is especially true for “Big Tech” companies that generate substantial consumer welfare and billions of dollars in economic activity. 

While these efforts are purportedly aimed at safeguarding the interests of consumers, they pose a major threat to free-market capitalism and, thereby, the nation’s prosperity. Understanding the origins of antitrust laws illuminates why current antitrust accusations are far from their original purpose. 

Antitrust laws trace back to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act’s enactment in 1890. The landmark legislation was aimed to curb anticompetitive practices. Section 1 prohibits contracts in restraint of trade, regardless of the size of the firms participating. Section 2 prohibits monopolization or the abuse of monopoly power by firms with substantial market shares. Further reinforcement came with the Clayton Act in 1914, which focused on preventing mergers that could substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.

However, applying antitrust laws lacked consistency and often yielded ambiguous results, especially during the mid-20th century. 

Fast forward to the 1970s, legal scholars proposed a paradigm shift. Figures like Aaron Director, Robert Bork, and others delved into the legislative history of the Sherman Act, concluding that its primary purpose was to protect consumers from the harm caused by cartels without undermining economic efficiency.

This approach laid the foundation for what we now call the consumer welfare standard, a critical development in antitrust enforcement. 

In the late 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized this standard in several cases, asserting that business conduct raising antitrust concerns must be evaluated based on demonstrable economic effects. This standard has since guided antitrust law, emphasizing a simple question: does the conduct make consumers better or worse off? If the conduct improves or does not harm consumers, the conduct is allowed; otherwise, the government can intervene. 

The consumer welfare standard is a seemingly straightforward approach that has been a guiding light to antitrust cases. But it has failed to hold those currently at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice accountable for their excessive efforts.

In recent years, calls to wield antitrust laws to address the conduct of prominent technology companies like Amazon and Google, which some pejoratively call “Big Tech,” have gained momentum. However, these movements are misguided and pose significant risks to the principles of free-market capitalism. 

Expanding the enforcement powers of antitrust agencies, as advocated by some on the left and right, revives an old “big is bad” approach reminiscent of a bygone era when antitrust enforcement was highly politicized. Instead of fostering competition, such a progressive approach undermines the competitive market process. This destroys the instrumental activity that provides innovation, affordable prices, and high-quality goods and services, all critical for human flourishing.

This lawsuit purports to challenge Amazon’s management of its online marketplace, alleging that sellers are forced to charge high prices and lose profit by using Amazon’s add-on services and advertisements. The FTC contends that these choices are obligatory and accuses Amazon of operating as a monopoly, leading to higher prices for lower-quality products.

Numerous surveys and studies reveal that consumers are pleased with Amazon’s services, so this attack against the consumer welfare standard does not appear to be about what is best for customers despite the claims of progressive antitrust enforcers. Moreover, consumers have the agency to take their dollars elsewhere, as Amazon is hardly the only online seller. 

The principles that drive capitalism are rooted in competition; when competition is stifled, consumers and entrepreneurs lose.

Another example of abusing antitrust is the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit against Google. 

The suit contends that Google has dominated the market as the default browser on popular devices through monopolistic means and must be stopped. However, Google is the default browser via legal marketing tactics, which the consumer can easily change, as numerous search engine options can be implemented on any device. 

Therefore, the case fails to meet the standard of a solid antitrust law violation of making consumers worse off. Consumers still have many options when selecting a default browser, but most choose Google because they like it best. 

This lawsuit is emblematic of a broader issue – applying antitrust laws to preserve competition. Antitrust laws should protect consumers by evaluating whether they are better or worse off due to a company’s actions. It should not be a mechanism to stifle competition to level the playing field. Enforcing such laws without considering the diverse preferences of consumers is a disservice to the very principles on which capitalism–and antitrust laws–were founded.

If we’re going to have antitrust laws rather than just letting market forces work, the consumer welfare standard is an essential framework for evaluating antitrust cases. 

It ensures that the focus remains on improving people’s lives rather than manipulating the market based on antitrust enforcers’ interests or political persuasions. This standard can help keep regulators from blocking innovation and economic growth by limiting their ability to pick winners and losers.

While concerns about the size of large tech companies and their censorship practices may be warranted, granting more power and discretion to government bureaucrats is not the solution. Expanding antitrust laws and enforcement powers will lead to politicized enforcement, often aimed at serving the interests of big government, with a disregard for the effects on consumers and the broader economy. 

Such a big-government approach would curtail entrepreneurship, freedom of speech, job creation, investment, and economic prosperity.

Proposals to create new antitrust laws are unlikely to address concerns related to censorship and bias in tech companies. Instead, they will usher in uncertainty as legal standards evolve, causing companies to settle such cases to avoid costly legal battles. Such settlements may not necessarily benefit consumers or the economy and will drive up entry costs, creating a high barrier for startups.

At a time of elevated inflation, the labor market faces challenges, and the economy is in turmoil. Pursuing lawsuits against successful companies diverts resources from critical issues and misuses taxpayer money.

The time is now to refocus on what genuinely matters, acknowledge the limitations of government intervention in regulating markets, and allow the principles of free-market capitalism to flourish. This approach should recognize that dispersed, decentralized information through people in markets is much better than through central planning. 

Free-market capitalism is not the enemy but the best path to prosperity and freedom. We would be wise to have more of it, not destruction by the radical Biden administration.

​Thank you for tuning into the FINAL Let People Prosper podcast episode 76 of 2023! Today, I have a brief but informative podcast for you, recapping the highlights of the economy and my business, Ginn Economic Consulting, LLC.

As a Christmas gift, I am giving away a complimentary subscription to the paid version of my newsletter and a copy of Lexi Hudson’s fantastic book, “The Soul of Civility: Timeless Principles to Heal Society and Ourselves.” To enter this giveaway, simply fill out the information at the link and rate my podcast on either Apple Podcasts or Spotify.
Is there anyone whom you would like for me to interview in 2024? Leave them in the comments. 

​Today, I cover:

1. Economic highs and lows of 2023 and outlook for 2024;
   
2. Greatest hits of my podcast and business; and
   
3. My mission and vision for Let People Prosper.
   

Originally published at Econlib.

After a year dominated by historically high inflation and soaring home loan rates, 2023 is carving another negative as the annum of antitrust accusations. From lawsuits targeting Amazon and Google to the emergence of concerns over trading card and sandwich shop monopolies,  the growing antitrust frenzy poses a threat to what these laws were originally crafted to safeguard: consumers.

Actions of antitrust’s biggest modern advocates, like the Federal Trade Commission’s Chair Lina Kahn and U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, reveal their misunderstanding of these competition laws. To maintain their protected freedoms to buy, sell, and trade, consumers and businesses must know the truth enshrined in these laws and not be duped by misrepresentation. 

Antitrust laws were enacted with a noble purpose—to protect consumers and promote fair competition. These laws were designed to ensure consumer access to various choices across the marketplace and prohibit businesses from engaging in anti-competitive practices. If those parameters seem vague, that’s because they are. That is, without antitrust’s crucial cornerstone, “the consumer welfare standard” established in the 1970s to help narrow the law’s scope.  

A principle that assesses whether consumers are better or worse off due to a company’s actions, the consumer welfare standard is mathematically defined as “the value consumers get from the product less the price they paid.” The addition of this language shifted antitrust’s emphasis from preserving competitors to competition. But perceived value varies between individuals.

Concerns about monopolies can be legitimate when there is concern about diminished value from a product or service because of a company’s actions. Such monopolistic behavior may result in higher prices and lower quality. These tactics are most likely to prevail when outside competition is intentionally stifled by the government through regulations, spending, and corporate welfare.

However, having a large or growing market share alone does not violate antitrust laws, as progressives like Warren would lead people to believe. In a healthy competitive market, companies naturally strive to develop and acquire other businesses to expand their offerings and meet consumer demands.

Roark Capital’s acquisition of Subway, adding the sandwich chain to its portfolio, and major sports leagues signing contracts with trading card company Fanatics may seem like consolidation of power, but these changes do not inherently harm consumers or competition. In fact, if permitted to expand via purchasing and agreements with other companies or leagues, not just these but all businesses can improve consumer welfare and profitability. 

To the chagrin of its Italian competitor, the NFL, MLB, and NBA making agreements with the sports trading card company Fanatics was a voluntary decision executed because increased, not diminished, consumer welfare was perceived. While Panini SpA points the antitrust finger at Fanatics, it has three other fingers pointing back at itself, as the company has its own agreements with the NFL and NBA. 

Rather than viewing the new competition as an opportunity to improve its company and become the first choice, Panini SpA would rather waste time and resources trying to punish its competitor. This is what the FTC will try to do with Subway, the European Union wants to do with Amazon, and the DOJ has tried to do with Google. 

This knowledge is critical because consumers are being swayed to favor legal action that does not serve their best interest, more than likely because of widespread misinformation. 

For instance, a recent poll showed that 60% of Americans believe Google is too big and hurts businesses and consumers. However, conflicting data reveal that, overwhelmingly, Google users and employees derive immense value from its service. At the same time, other search engines continue to increase in popularity alongside Google, with Safari recently reaching more than one billion users. So, if the majority of Google users are happy with the service and other search engine options exist, the welfare of its consumers is far from threatened. But that hasn’t stopped the FTC from trying to take them down.

So-called “big tech giants” and “trading card monopolies” aren’t the true titans threatening consumer welfare; it’s the rent-seeking politicians, government bureaucrats, and corporate rent-seekers wielding an insatiable appetite for control that are consumers’ actual adversaries. ​

​Thank you for tuning into the 74th episode of the Let People Prosper Show podcast.

Today, I’m joined by Jennifer Huddleston, a technology policy research fellow at The Cato Institute.

Today, we discuss:
1) What is the proper role of government in regulating or adapting to technological advancements;
2) Pros and cons of restricting AI, and why antitrust accusations are on the rise, specifically targeting “big tech,” and;
3) What you should know about government regulation on social media for minors, and how parents can be empowered to facilitate social media use at home.

A recent survey found that 25 out of 100 Americans buy items on Amazon at least once per week. But the Biden administration’s Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) decision to sue Amazon in federal court for supposedly violating antitrust law last week could change that for consumers.   

Specifically, the FTC claims that “Amazon’s ongoing pattern of illegal conduct blocks competition, allowing it to wield monopoly power to inflate prices, degrade quality, and stifle innovation for consumers and businesses.” 

This federal case will waste a lot of time and taxpayer money as it has no basis.  

In the Pelican Institute’s recent research, we highlighted the radicalism by those looking to make political points regarding antitrust enforcement instead of following the half-century, objective consumer welfare standard.  

As history has proven, empowering people in the marketplace rather than bureaucrats in government results in more efficient and effective outcomes and better supports liberty and prosperity. 

The FTC’s Chair, Lina Khan, and Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Department of Justice’s antitrust division, have been doubling down on the administration’s aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement. This is the latest example, and they haven’t had a good track record. 

Antitrust laws were designed to protect consumers and promote fair competition but rarely achieve these goals. Inevitably, businesses become the antitrust enforcement targets, resulting in less economic growth, innovation, and job creation, leading to higher prices and hindered prosperity. 

In short, consumers and employers are hurt by antitrust overreach, which will result from this sham case against Amazon by the FTC. And it will mean other companies must increase their legal team because they may be next.  

Protecting consumer welfare, which refers to the value consumers receive above the price they pay for goods and services, should be the driving force behind antitrust enforcement. This acknowledges that consumers have the sovereignty to make decisions supporting the competitive market process.  

If not, we will have much less consumer satisfaction, which would be unfortunate because of the administration’s radical approach in the Amazon case. Instead, common sense should lead the way so that Amazon can continue to provide the satisfaction demanded by consumers rather than be directed by government. ​

Originally posted at Pelican Institute.