text stringlengths 0 9.69k |
|---|
But third, lower pricing also takes a long time to kick in and often has to grow through many stages of the supply chain. So often you have to take a cut at every level, and often it kind of trickles to the consumer. They don't actually face that much of a price cut, so you don't actually improve consumer welfare by th... |
Therefore, what this means is that most of the benefits you want to talk about may exist, but we already cannot be outweighed by the sheer harm that we provide on our side of the house. These things are going to happen in most parts. |
Secondly, let's talk about the politicization of the FSC and regulatory bodies. Things like their leftists—you can see them as corrupt, they're political—then you have to select like really harsh regulators, which means less enforcement for regulation. |
<poi> |
lots of firms outside of tech, externalities, and concentration applies to them too. And OB isn't about how much antitrust is saying; it's more of a chilling effect because of higher risk. Last time we asked about cross subsidization and got to respond on economies of scale, you responded precisely to what I've asked. |
</poi> |
Look, the biggest profit in competitive behavior, respectfully, has always been in big tech. If you read the recent news, but if it's like, if it's not big tech companies, fine. If you're polluting rivers and killing people, we find you should also get punished on your side of the house. |
Second, breaking up big is bipartisan by most part. Judge the left thinks it's anti-competitive; the right thinks it’s really bad. I don't know what issue they have on off. |
Second, there's a game disincentive to politicize antitrust bodies by the tech because for the very reason that often if one company can do it, the other company feels they lose out. So there's a collective collusion to decide not to do it. |
Third, courts are likely to be reasonable because they don't want to scare away any investment in companies too, because often they realize if that is the case, they lose the exact funding that they actually want, as per the opposition case. |
But even if you don't believe any of these reasons, our argumentation is that fine, maybe you let cage regulators, but at best we think the harm of that is not nearly as large compared to what we before on Raya's case. Very proud to propose. |
</gw> |
<ow> |
Consumers saving money on a smartphone means they spend on other goods, creating jobs for low-income workers. who wouldn't have jobs otherwise and wouldn't have the money to access healthcare. Technological innovation is more than that, though. Companies engaging in technological innovation have been the driver of econ... |
Antitrust enforcement, in order to help the environment, has often been used to block consolidation in the green energy sector on the basis that, potentially, this helps the green energy sector develop. This prevents oil companies from taking up patents, but oil companies investing in the green energy sector is critica... |
Here's the problem with arguments about health, life and death, and environmental harms: their mechanism for antitrust helping is literally that antitrust will punish these companies, which causes them to not do this. We have another mechanism of punishing companies this way: fines. Regulations work in the specific con... |
This form of deterrence is better accomplished through targeted regulation. Now, I want to address their specific arguments on why this is primarily about innovation and what the harm in tech is. The first claim they make is more innovation. They say there is more lending for smaller tech companies because they won't b... |
There are a number of reasons why antitrust enforcement that blocks mergers and acquisitions that tech companies engage in ensures small tech companies can't develop and can't innovate. Reason one: big tech can potentially buy up small tech firms. Small tech companies struggle to compete precisely because of the networ... |
This deters investors from wanting to invest in a small tech company, even if it creates a social media company that has a critical new innovation that people want to access. However, investors will invest in a small tech company if they realize that this new innovation is also something a big social media platform tha... |
That for a social media company that was a messaging platform, or even if the company's media platform itself doesn't get used, the innovations that it creates can be leased out to big tech firms because big tech firms want the innovation from them. This is also why they want to simply block out these firms or prevent ... |
Big tech firms want to use those advantages for their own consumer markets, and the way they use those advantages is by giving them money to lease technology from them, which is why they don't just run these companies into the ground. This means small companies have some advantages, but these advantages depend on getti... |
Their second mechanism is democracy: that aggregation allows you access to data, and this poses a threat to democracy. The first argument here I want to flip is that there is a greater risk of social media companies trying to influence politics on their side of the house for two structural reasons. One, currently socia... |
Facebook's stock dropped so sharply after the 2016 election, which created substantial pressure on Facebook to try to seem politically neutral and project political neutrality. However, this calculus changes for Facebook in a world where they believe antitrust regulators are more likely to be after them because then th... |
You preempt the act before antitrust enforcers can get to you to do things like misuse user data. But second, they don't actually explain why antitrust enforcement works in this space. Because suppose you break Facebook up into a bunch of different social media companies. Their own network effects mechanism proves that... |
The rise of newer and smaller tech companies in response to Facebook antitrust likely increases political influence. Why? Because smaller tech companies, in order to survive, are the ones that do survive at the end of an antitrust lawsuit. They are the ones who are likely to attract a lot of users. For example, the onl... |
Here's a distinction, however: when a bunch of users use both WhatsApp and Facebook but they have different owners or new owners who face less public scrutiny because they are smaller companies, once they have been broken up, you're more likely to have owners who want to use the social media platform to push a politica... |
No, thank you. This is why the regulation does actually work at accomplishing the objectives they want; however, it does hurt innovation. And here I want to explain why other industries are also meaningfully affected by this standard. Because their argument is basically that these industries aren't very concentrated, s... |
<poi> |
Even if you prove that more mergers and acquisitions (M&As) are good, this debate is also about regulations of general business conduct... |
</poi> |
Ya ya ya, And the regulation of general business conduct one-stop mergers and acquisitions, two, splitting companies apart, three, punishing behavior that attempts to get firms to expand or become larger, or cover a larger number of industries or diversify in these sectors. So that's the reason why M&A being there does... |
Because other kinds of business conduct are also affected. Why is it unlucky that other industries are also overwhelmingly affected? One, if it's a less concentrated industry, antitrust is more likely to be a threat to democracy because it means a single large company has some potential capacity to lobby while other fi... |
Second, if it's a less concentrated industry, you're more able to fight an antitrust case. Regulators want wins, and antitrust cases give them access to settlements, which is why they try to get wins. Third, many of the specific impacts are relevant, like environmental protection standards or media companies for the us... |
In this context, I want to be crystal clear: you get way too much of this because the opening opposition's justification is that you might get some office judges; you might get some conservative judges. Here's the problem, as my point out, unpopularity might limit that. This is why business extension comes in: there is... |
This conflict of interest results in over-policing, and this is where the impacts come in. We explained the argument on economies of scale, a larger impact than cross-subsidization, because cross-subsidization might lower prices in one bloated, unproductive industry, while economies of scale lead to lower prices for ev... |
</ow> |
Motion: This house would attend the Queer Liberation March rather than the Stonewall50 March. |
<pm> |
PM Speech Transcript: |
is the motion for this round is this house will attend queer liberation March, rather than the Stonewall50 March, |
Any movement of political organization is about offering unique benefits that could be achieved through other venues of discussion. Within the stone wall 50 March has lost its core political character and is providing benefits regarding benefits that are no longer exclusive in the modern era. After this debate is like ... |
And as I highlight, the key strategic effect of this debate is about the unique benefits or harms occurred by each of the different prior marches, and why ours is preferable to Stonewall50. The argument I'm going to make is that it makes political messaging and perception better than on the OP comparative, that it unde... |
So on that argument of politics and messaging, the thesis of this argument is that Stonewall50 is worse or compared to the queer liberation marks at getting unique benefits. What are the unique benefits we think that Pride marches should provide? Firstly, it's about organizing the community towards external policy base... |
Firstly, it has no clear political message. Why is this the case for structural reasons? Firstly, in order to have mass appeal to the wider society, it has watered down its political message to the point of non-existence. At the point of which you want to get straight people to attend the march. You can't really do tha... |
Why is this so particularly harmful? Firstly, it abdicates one of prides key historical functions, which is a ground for political organization to discuss within the LGBTQ community what we need, what will allow us to push forward into the future and create a better role. Those key political functions of organization a... |
The second reason why I think it has failed its goals is that the presence of non members of the LGBTQ community make it actively exclusionary to certain individuals. There are members of the LGBTQ community who are actively oppressed by the police, who are members of ethnic minorities, who are trans and thus more like... |
The reason why this is so harmful is when activist movements are able to band together to have unity and support across intersectional characteristics, that's when you have a broader base of support to get political exchange, and you have allies with other organizations who are more willing to help and assist you, but ... |
Why is the queer liberation March particularly better? Personally, there is more political discussion. You don't need to water down your message for mass appeal. You don't have the issue of sponsorship and corporations who often prevent you from having an active political message. Yes, |
<poi> |
talked a lot about messages getting water down. Maybe it would help if you like explain some of those messages that you think not currently out really think come out these messages. |
</poi> |
so I think a couple of things. One, highlighting that tolerance isn't enough and you need active political change in order to get policy highlight the problems with trans community faces that is often left out of priorities because it's too political and too controversial, highlighting how corporations often have syste... |
Secondly, will be more community focused. The fact that this will be less allies, or less just random people from the general population means that you're more likely to have an internal discussion within the LGBT community, which allows you to create an internal conception of what we need, what you particularly want a... |
Lastly, I want to make one argument about perception, because the Pride March effectively become an excuse for a party, a demonstration of hedonism, because that's one of the ways they attempted to have mass appeal. But this perception of hedonism of the Stonewall50 March is harmful for perception, because it feeds int... |
</pm> |
<lo> |
The basis of opposition is really clear. We will first tell you why is progression still not to include more individuals to the Q lib has traditionally attracted, and why that's better than structurally happening at the moment. But second, we'll tell you what values do individuals ordinarily subscribe to, and why that ... |
first, I think it’s important to characterize Q lib beyond just what said. Because, true, it's not politically there is no police support, but the result of that has been pretty atrocious in the sense that oftentimes these marches have become violent, they divisive in the way in which they concentrate their efforts and... |
The first thing, why is Stonewall better? Now, I think there are few changes that they realized over the few years. The first is in 2017 where they changed the prime police individuals to protect Gay Pride marches as black cops, because it was a fair of, say, black LGBT individuals getting police reviews from individua... |
The reason why it's important that is when we argue that Stonewall provides the kind of March that an individual who's either career or an ally can able to ascribe to the best. What do individuals who have ascribed these values for one three things. |
The first, in main is mainstream acceptance, either intersectional or not, for people to recognize that you're just as anyone else. The second is very important is group, solidarity with community, to get behind them in all instances. And the third is literally just a day to celebrate the progress of how far you've com... |
Why does Q lib fail in that? And the reason why it fails at a fundamental level is because oftentimes it's extremely scrutiny when it's angry. It is always obstructionist in nature. It's not celebratory in nature, in all instances. And the reason why it's strongly tends to that is because there's not much regulation, n... |
The second thing, I think it's important, and it's a comparison, that is, if it's a perceptional problem on humanism, on opening government, the same perceptional problem is on humanism exists on either side. The reason is because people often associate this with the idea of the LGBT, not necessarily the specific prote... |
And what's important then is that I think the kind of the kind of change it gets here is on one level, awareness for the second level. I think the reason why it's awareness is important because oftentimes the kinds of policy we talk about aren’t directly antithetical to the individuals who are likely to vote against th... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.