>You are 40 years behind on the modern day interpretations of the anti-trust laws by the courts then . . . lower prices are almost the court decided definition of a consumer benefit.
That's not the policy of Lina Khan and the current FTC. She was literally put into the position she holds because she was critical of that framework for antitrust.
Yes, since the 70's Bork and the Chicago school has held sway in courts, but that's changing. So no, I'm not behind - this is why the FTC is bringing this case in the first place.
> Yes, since the 70's Bork and the Chicago school has held sway in courts
Oh OK, so then I am correct under the overwhelming majority position/framework which is the only interpretation that matters for enforcement, which is the interpretation held by the court system.
I am more than happy to accept that concession and only be "wrong" under the minority position that hasn't been relevant for 40 years.
> That's not the policy of Lina Khan and the current FTC
They can make whatever bad arguments they want in court, and lose their lawsuits I guess.
They don't decide the outcome of these court cases.
If anything this strategy is actually harming then, as they make failing arguments that the courts won't listen to.
That's not the policy of Lina Khan and the current FTC. She was literally put into the position she holds because she was critical of that framework for antitrust.
Yes, since the 70's Bork and the Chicago school has held sway in courts, but that's changing. So no, I'm not behind - this is why the FTC is bringing this case in the first place.