Podcasts about bigness antitrust

Lina Khan, the youngest F.T.C. chair in history, reset U.S. antitrust policy by thwarting mega-mergers and other monopolistic behavior. This earned her enemies in some places, and big fans in others — including the Trump administration. Stephen Dubner speaks with Khan about her tactics, her track record, and her future. SOURCES:Lina Khan, former commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and professor of law at Columbia Law School. RESOURCES:"Merger Guidelines" (U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, 2023)."The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications," by Jan De Loecker, Jan Eeckhout, and Gabriel Unger (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019)."US Antitrust Law and Policy in Historical Perspective," by Laura Phillips Sawyer (Harvard Business School, 2019).The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age, by Tim Wu (2018)."Amazon's Antitrust Paradox," by Lina Khan (Yale Law Journal, 2017)."A Tempest In a Coffee Shop," by Tanya Mohn (New York Times, 2004). EXTRAS:"The Economics of Eyeglasses," by Freakonomics Radio (2024)."Should You Trust Private Equity to Take Care of Your Dog?" by Freakonomics Radio (2023)."Are Private Equity Firms Plundering the U.S. Economy?" by Freakonomics Radio (2023)."Is the U.S. Really Less Corrupt Than China — and How About Russia? (Update)" by Freakonomics Radio (2022).

Why is reforming capitalism so essential? In the latest issue of Liberties Quarterly, Tim Wu argues that unregulated capitalism not only leads to economic monopolies, but also drives populist anger and authoritarian politics. In “The Real Road to Serfdom”, Wu advocates for "decentralized capitalism" with distributed economic power, citing examples from Scandinavia and East Asia. Drawing from his experience in the Biden administration's antitrust efforts, he emphasizes the importance of preventing industry concentration. Wu expresses concern about big tech's growing political influence and argues that challenging monopolies is critical for fostering innovation and maintaining economic progress in the United States.Here are the 5 KEEN ON AMERICA takeaways from our interview with Tim Wu:* Historical Parallels: Wu sees concerning parallels between our current era and the 1930s, characterized by concentrated economic power, fragile economic conditions, and the rise of populist leaders. He suggests we're in a period where leaders are moving beyond winning elections to attempting to alter constitutional frameworks.* The Monopoly-Autocracy Connection: Wu argues there's a dangerous cycle where monopolies create economic inequality, which generates populist anger, which then enables authoritarian leaders to rise to power. He cites Hugo Chavez as a pioneer of this modern autocratic model that leaders like Trump have followed.* Decentralized Capitalism: Wu advocates for an economic system with multiple centers of distributed economic power, rather than just a few giant companies accumulating wealth. He points to Denmark, Taiwan, and post-WWII East Asia as successful examples of more balanced economic structures.* Antitrust Legacy: Wu believes the Biden administration's antitrust enforcement efforts have created lasting changes in legal standards and public consciousness that won't be easily reversed. He emphasizes that challenging monopolies is crucial for maintaining innovation and preventing industry stagnation.* Big Tech and Power: Wu expresses concern about big tech companies' growing political influence, comparing it to historical examples like AT&T and IBM. He's particularly worried about AI potentially reinforcing existing power structures rather than democratizing opportunities.Complete Transcript: Tim Wu on The Real Road to SerfdomAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. We live in very strange times. That's no exaggeration. Yesterday, we had Nick Bryant on the show, the author of The Forever War. He was the BBC's man in Washington, DC for a long time. In our conversation, Nick suggested that we're living in really historic times, equivalent to the fall of the Berlin Wall, 9/11, perhaps even the beginnings of the Second World War.My guest today, like Nick, is a deep thinker. Tim Wu will be very well known to you for many things, including his book, The Attention Merchants. He was involved in the Biden White House, teaches law at Columbia University, and much more. He has a new book coming out later in the year on November 4th, The Age of Extraction. He has a very interesting essay in this issue of Liberties, the quarterly magazine of ideas, called "The Real Road to Serfdom."Tim had a couple of interesting tweets in the last couple of days, one comparing the behavior of President Trump to Germany's 1933 enabling act. And when it comes to Ukraine, Tim wrote, "How does the GOP feel about their president's evident plan to forfeit the Cold War?" Tim Wu is joining us from his home in the village of Manhattan. Tim, welcome. Before we get to your excellent essay in Liberties, how would you historicize what we're living through at the moment?Tim Wu: I think the 1930s are not the wrong way to look at it. Prior to that period, you had this extraordinary concentration of economic power in a very fragile environment. A lot of countries had experienced an enormous crash and you had the rise of populist leaders, with Mussolini being the pioneer of the model. This has been going on for at least 5 or 6 years now. We're in that middle period where it's moving away from people just winning elections to trying to really alter the constitution of their country. So I think the mid-30s is probably about right.Andrew Keen: You were involved in the Biden administration. You were one of the major thinkers when it came to antitrust. Have you been surprised with what's happened since Biden left office? The speed, the radicalness of this Trump administration?Tim Wu: Yes, because I expected something more like the first Trump administration, which was more of a show with a lot of flash but poor execution. This time around, the execution is also poor but more effective. I didn't fully expect that Elon Musk would actually be a government official at this point and that he'd have this sort of vandalism project going on. The fact they won all of the houses of Congress was part of the problem and has made the effort go faster.Andrew Keen: You talk about Musk. We've done many shows on Musk's role in all this and the seeming arrival of Silicon Valley or a certain version of Silicon Valley in Washington, DC. You're familiar with both worlds, the world of big tech and Silicon Valley and Washington. Is that your historical reading that these two worlds are coming together in this second Trump administration?Tim Wu: It's very natural for economic power to start to seek political power. It follows from the basic view of monopoly as a creature that wants to defend itself, and the second observation that the most effective means of self-defense is control of government. If you follow that very simple logic, it stands to reason that the most powerful economic entities would try to gain control of government.I want to talk about the next five years. The tech industry is following the lead of Palantir and Peter Thiel, who were pioneers in thinking that instead of trying to avoid government, they should try to control it. I think that is the obvious move over the next four years.Andrew Keen: I've been reading your excellent essay in Liberties, "The Real Road to Serfdom." When did you write it? It seems particularly pertinent this week, although of course you didn't write it knowing exactly what was going to be happening with Musk and Washington DC and Trump and Ukraine.Tim Wu: I wrote it about two years ago when I got out of the White House. The themes are trying to get at eternal issues about the dangers of economic power and concentrated economic power and its unaccountability. If it made predictions that are starting to come true, I don't know if that's good or bad.Andrew Keen: "The Real Road to Serfdom" is, of course, a reference to the Hayek book "The Road to Serfdom." Did you consciously use that title with reference to Hayek, or was that a Liberties decision?Tim Wu: That was my decision. At that point, and I may still write this, I was thinking of writing a book just called "The Real Road to Serfdom." I am both fascinated and a fan of Hayek in certain ways. I think he nailed certain things exactly right but makes big errors at the same time.To his credit, Hayek was very critical of monopoly and very critical of the role of the state in reinforcing monopoly. But he had an almost naivete about what powerful, unaccountable private economic entities would do with their power. That's essentially my criticism.Andrew Keen: In 2018, you wrote a book, "The Curse of Bigness." And in a way, this is an essay against bigness, but it's written—please correct me if I'm wrong—I read it as a critique of the left, suggesting that there were times in the essay, if you're reading it blind, you could have been reading Hayek in its critique of Marx and centralization and Lenin and Stalin and the Ukrainian famines. Is the message in the book, Tim—is your audience a progressive audience? Are you saying that it's a mistake to rely on bigness, so to speak, the state as a redistributive platform?Tim Wu: Not entirely. I'm very critical of communist planned economies, and that's part of it. But it's mainly a critique of libertarian faith in private economic power or sort of the blindness to the dangers of it.My basic thesis in "The Real Road to Serfdom" is that free market economies will tend to monopolize. Once monopoly power is achieved, it tends to set off a strong desire to extract as much wealth from the rest of the economy as it can, creating something closer to a feudal-type economy with an underclass. That tends to create a huge amount of resentment and populist anger, and democracies have to respond to that anger.The libertarian answer of saying that's fine, this problem will go away, is a terrible answer. History suggests that what happens instead is if democracy doesn't do anything, the state takes over, usually on the back of a populist strongman. It could be a communist, could be fascist, could be just a random authoritarian like in South America.I guess I'd say it's a critique of both the right and the left—the right for being blind to the dangers of concentrated economic power, and the left, especially the communist left, for idolizing the takeover of vital functions by a giant state, which has a track record as bad, if not worse, than purely private power.Andrew Keen: You bring up Hugo Chavez in the essay, the now departed Venezuelan strongman. You're obviously no great fan of his, but you do seem to suggest that Chavez, like so many other authoritarians, built his popularity on the truth of people's suffering. Is that fair?Tim Wu: That is very fair. In the 90s, when Chavez first came to power through popular election, everyone was mystified and thought he was some throwback to the dictators of the 60s and 70s. But he turned out to be a pioneer of our future, of the new form of autocrat, who appealed to the unfairness of the economy post-globalization.Leaders like Hungary's Viktor Orbán, and certainly Donald Trump, are direct descendants of Hugo Chavez in their approach. They follow the same playbook, appealing to the same kind of pain and suffering, promising to act for the people as opposed to the elites, the foreigners, and the immigrants. Chavez is also a cautionary lesson. He started in a way which the population liked—he lowered gas prices, gave away money, nationalized industry. He was very popular. But then like most autocrats, he eventually turned the money to himself and destroyed his own country.Andrew Keen: Why are autocrats like Chavez and perhaps Trump so much better at capturing that anger than Democrats like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?Tim Wu: People who are outside the system like Chavez are able to tap into resentment and anger in a way which is less diluted by their direct information environment and their colleagues. Anyone who hangs around Washington, DC for a long time becomes more muted and careful. They lose credibility.That said, the fact that populist strongmen take over countries in distress suggests we need to avoid that level of economic distress in the first place and protect the middle class. Happy, contented middle-class countries don't tend to see the rise of authoritarian dictators. There isn't some Danish version of Hugo Chavez in the running right now.Andrew Keen: You bring up Denmark. Denmark always comes up in these kinds of conversations. What's admirable about your essay is you mostly don't fall into the Denmark trap of simply saying, "Why don't we all become like Denmark?" But at the same time, you acknowledge that the Danish model is attractive, suggesting we've misunderstood it or treated it superficially. What can and can't we learn from the Danish model?Tim Wu: American liberals often misunderstand the lesson of Scandinavia and other countries that have strong, prosperous middle classes like Taiwan, Japan, and Korea. In Scandinavia's case, the go-to explanation is that it's just the liberals' favorite set of policies—high taxation, strong social support systems. But I think the structure of those economies is much more important.They have what Jacob Hacker calls very strong "pre-distribution." They've avoided just having a small set of monopolists who make all the money and then hopefully hand it out to other people. It goes back to their land reform in the early 19th century, where they set up a very different kind of economy with a broad distribution of productive assets.If I'm trying to promote a philosophy in this book, it's for people who are fed up with the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism and think it leads to autocracy, but who are also no fans of communism or socialism. Just saying "let people pile up money and we'll tax it later" is not going to work. What you need is an economy structured with multiple centers of distributed economic power.Andrew Keen: The term that seems to summarize that in the essay is "architecture of parity." It's a bit clunky, but is that the best way to sum up your thinking?Tim Wu: I'm working on the terminology. Architecture of equality, parity, decentralized capitalism, distribution—these are all terms trying to capture it. It's more of a 19th century form of Christian or Catholic economics. People are grasping for the right word for an economic system that doesn't rely on just a few giant companies taking money from everybody and hopefully redistributing it. That model is broken and has a dangerous tendency to lead to toxicity. We need a better capitalism. An alternative title for this piece could have been "Saving Capitalism from Itself."Andrew Keen: Your name is most associated with tech and your critique of big tech. Does this get beyond big tech? Are there other sectors of the economy you're interested in fixing and reforming?Tim Wu: Absolutely. Silicon Valley is the most obvious and easiest entry point to talk about concentrated economic power. You can see the dependence on a small number of platforms that have earnings and profits far beyond what anyone imagined possible. But we're talking about an economy-wide, almost global set of problems.Some industries are worse. The meat processing industry in the United States is horrendously concentrated—it takes all the money from farmers, charges us too much for meat, and keeps it for itself. There are many industries where people are looking for something to understand or believe in that's different than socialism but different than this libertarian capitalism that ends up bankrupting people. Tech is the easiest way to talk about it, but not the be-all and end-all of my interest.Andrew Keen: Are there other examples where we're beginning to see decentralized capitalism? The essay was very strong on the critique, but I found fewer examples of decentralized capitalism in practice outside maybe Denmark in the 2020s.Tim Wu: East Asia post-World War II is a strong example of success. While no economy is purely small businesses, although Taiwan comes close, if you look at the East Asian story after World War II, one of the big features was an effort to reform land, give land to peasants, and create a landowning class to replace the feudal system. They had huge entrepreneurism, especially in Korea and Taiwan, less in Japan. This built a strong and prosperous middle and upper middle class.Japan has gone through hard times—they let their companies get too big and they stagnated. But Korea and Taiwan have gone from being third world economies to Taiwan now being wealthier per capita than Japan. The United States is another strong example, vacillating between being very big and very small. Even at its biggest, it still has a strong entrepreneurial culture and sectors with many small entities. Germany is another good example. There's no perfect version, but what I'm saying is that the model of monopolized economies and just having a few winners and hoping that anybody else can get tax payments is really a losing proposition.Andrew Keen: You were on Chris Hayes recently talking about antitrust. You're one of America's leading thinkers on antitrust and were brought into the Biden administration on the antitrust front. Is antitrust then the heart of the matter? Is this really the key to decentralizing capitalism?Tim Wu: I think it's a big tool, one of the tools of managing the economy. It works by preventing industries from merging their way into monopoly and keeps a careful eye on structure. In the same way that no one would say interest rates are the be-all and end-all of monetary policy, when we're talking about structural policy, having antitrust law actively preventing overconcentration is important.In the White House itself, we spent a lot of time trying to get other agencies to prevent their sectors, whether healthcare or transportation, from becoming overly monopolized and extractive. You can have many parts of the government involved—the antitrust agencies are key, but they're not the only solution.Andrew Keen: You wrote an interesting piece for The Atlantic about Biden's antitrust initiatives. You said the outgoing president's legacy of revived antitrust enforcement won't be easy to undo. Trump is very good at breaking things. Why is it going to be hard to undo? Lina Khan's gone—the woman who seems to unite all of Silicon Valley in their dislike of her. What did Biden do to protect antitrust legislation?Tim Wu: The legal patterns have changed and the cases are ongoing. But I think more important is a change of consciousness and ideology and change in popular support. I don't think there is great support for letting big tech do whatever they want without oversight. There are people who believe in that and some of them have influence in this administration, but there's been a real change in consciousness.I note that the Federal Trade Commission has already announced that it's going to stick with the Biden administration's merger rules, and my strong sense is the Department of Justice will do the same. There are certain things that Trump did that we stuck with in the Biden administration because they were popular—the most obvious being the turn toward China. Going back to the Bush era approach of never bothering any monopolies, I just don't think there's an appetite for it.Andrew Keen: Why is Lina Khan so unpopular in Silicon Valley?Tim Wu: It's interesting. I'm not usually one to attribute things to sexism, but the Justice Department brought more cases against big tech than she did. Jonathan Kanter, who ran antitrust at Justice, won the case against Google. His firm was trying to break up Google. They may still do it, but somehow Lina Khan became the face of it. I think because she's young and a woman—I don't know why Jonathan Kanter didn't become the symbol in the same way.Andrew Keen: You bring up the AT&T and IBM cases in the US tech narrative in the essay, suggesting that we can learn a great deal from them. What can we learn from those cases?Tim Wu: The United States from the 70s through the 2010s was an extraordinarily innovative place and did amazing things in the tech industry. An important part of that was challenging the big IBM and AT&T monopolies. AT&T was broken into eight pieces. IBM was forced to begin selling its software separately and opened up the software markets to what became a new software industry.AT&T earlier had been forced to license the transistor, which opened up the semiconductor industry and to some degree the computing industry, and had to stay out of computing. The government intervened pretty forcefully—a form of industrial policy to weaken its tech monopolies. The lesson is that we need to do the same thing right now.Some people will ask about China, but I think the United States has always done best when it constantly challenges established power and creates room for entrepreneurs to take their shot. I want very much for the new AI companies to challenge the main tech platforms and see what comes of that, as opposed to becoming a stagnant industry. Everyone says nothing can become stagnant, but the aerospace industry was pretty quick-moving in the 60s, and now you have Boeing and Airbus sitting there. It's very easy for a tech industry to stagnate, and attacking monopolists is the best way to prevent that.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Google earlier. You had an interesting op-ed in The New York Times last year about what we should do about Google. My wife is head of litigation at Google, so I'm not entirely disinterested. I also have a career as a critic of Google. If Kent Walker was here, he would acknowledge some of the things he was saying. But he would say Google still innovates—Google hasn't become Boeing. It's innovating in AI, in self-driving cars, it's shifting search. Would he be entirely wrong?Tim Wu: No, he wouldn't be entirely wrong. In the same way that IBM kept going, AT&T kept going. What you want in tech industries is a fair fight. The problem with Google isn't that they're investing in AI or trying to build self-driving cars—that's great. The problem is that they were paying over $20 billion a year to Apple for a promise not to compete in search. Through control of the browsers and many other things, they were trying to make sure they could never be dislodged.My view of the economics is monopolists need to always be a little insecure. They need to be in a position where they can be challenged. That happens—there are companies who, like AT&T in the 70s or 60s, felt they were immune. It took the government to make space. I think it's very important for there to be opportunities to challenge the big guys and try to seize the pie.Andrew Keen: I'm curious where you are on Section 230. Google won their Supreme Court case when it came to Section 230. In this sense, I'm guessing you view Google as being on the side of the good guys.Tim Wu: Section 230 is interesting. In the early days of the Internet, it was an important infant industry protection. It was an insulation that was vital to get those little companies at the time to give them an opportunity to grow and build business models, because if you're being sued by billions of people, you can't really do too much.Section 230 was originally designed to protect people like AOL, who ran user forums and had millions of people discussing—kind of like Reddit. I think as Google and companies like Facebook became active in promoting materials and became more like media companies, the case for an absolutist Section 230 became a lot weaker. The law didn't really change but the companies did.Andrew Keen: You wrote the essay "The Real Road to Serfdom" a couple of years ago. You also talked earlier about AI. There's not a lot of AI in this, but 50% of all the investment in technology over the last year was in AI, and most of that has gone into these huge platforms—OpenAI, Anthropic, Google Gemini. Is AI now the central theater, both in the Road to Serfdom and in liberating ourselves from big tech?Tim Wu: Two years ago when I was writing this, I was determined not to say anything that would look stupid about AI later. There's a lot more on what I think about AI in my new book coming in November.I see AI as a classic potential successor technology. It obviously is the most significant successor to the web and the mass Internet of 20 years ago in terms of having potential to displace things like search and change the way people do various forms of productivity. How technology plays out depends a lot on the economic structure. If you think about a technology like the cotton gin, it didn't automatically lead to broad flourishing, but reinforced plantation slavery.What I hope happens with AI is that it sets off more competition and destabilization for some of the tech platforms as opposed to reinforcing their advantage and locking them in forever. I don't know if we know what's going to happen right now. I think it's extremely important that OpenAI stays separate from the existing tech companies, because if this just becomes the same players absorbing technology, that sounds a lot like the darker chapters in US tech history.Andrew Keen: And what about the power of AI to liberate ourselves from our brain power as the next industrial revolution? When I was reading the essay, I thought it would be a very good model, both as a warning and in terms of offering potential for us to create this new architecture of parity. Because the technology in itself, in theory at least, is one of parity—one of democratizing brainpower.Tim Wu: Yes, I agree it has extraordinary potential. Things can go in two directions. The Industrial Revolution is one example where you had more of a top-down centralization of the means of production that was very bad for many people initially, though there were longer-term gains.I would hope AI would be something more like the PC revolution in the 80s and 90s, which did augment individual humanity as opposed to collective enterprise. It allowed people to do things like start their own travel agency or accounting firm with just a computer. I am interested and bullish on the potential of AI to empower smaller units, but I'm concerned it will be used to reinforce existing economic structures. The jury's out—the future will tell us. Just hoping it's going to make humanity better is not going to be the best answer.Andrew Keen: When you were writing this essay, Web3 was still in vogue then—the idea of blockchain and crypto decentralizing the economy. But I didn't see any references to Web3 and the role of technology in democratizing capitalism in terms of the architecture of corporations. Are you skeptical of the Web3 ideology?Tim Wu: The essay had its limits since I was also talking about 18th century Denmark. I have a lot more on blockchain and Web3 in the book. The challenge with crypto and Bitcoin is that it both over-promises and delivers something. I've been very interested in crypto and blockchain for a long time. The challenge it's had is constantly promising to decentralize great systems and failing, then people stealing billions of dollars and ending up in prison.It has a dubious track record, but it does have this core potential for a certain class of people to earn money. I'm always in favor of anything that is an alternative means of earning money. There are people who made money on it. I just think it's failed to execute on its promises. Blockchain in particular has failed to be a real challenge to web technologies.Andrew Keen: As you say, Hayek inspired the book and in some sense this is intellectual. The father of decentralization in ideological terms was E.F. Schumacher. I don't think you reference him, but do you think there has been much thinking since Schumacher on the value of smallness and decentralized architectures? What do people like yourself add to what Schumacher missed in his critique of bigness?Tim Wu: Schumacher is a good example. Rawls is actually under-recognized as being interested in these things. I see myself as writing in the tradition of those figures and trying to pursue a political economy that values a more balanced economy and small production.Hopefully what I add is a level of institutional experience and practicality that was missing. Rawls is slightly unfair because he's a philosopher, but his model doesn't include firms—it's just individuals. So it's all about balancing between poor people and rich people when obviously economic power is also held by corporations.I'm trying to create more flesh on the bones of the "small is beautiful" philosophy and political economy that is less starry-eyed and more realistic. I'm putting forward the point that you're not sacrificing growth and you're taking less political risk with a more balanced economy. There's an adulation of bigness in our time—exciting big companies are glamorous. But long-term prosperity does better when you have more centers, a more balanced system. I'm not an ultra-centralist suggesting we should live in mud huts, but I do think the worship of monopoly is very similar to the worship of autocracy and is dangerous.Andrew Keen: Much to discuss. Tim Wu, thank you so much. The author of "The Real Road to Serfdom," fascinating essay in this month's issue of Liberties. I know "The Age of Extraction" will be coming out on November 10th.Tim Wu: In England and US at the same time.Andrew Keen: We'll get you back on the show. Fascinating conversation, Tim. Thank you so much.Hailed as the “architect” of the Biden administration's competition and antitrust policies, Tim Wu writes and teaches about private power and related topics. First known for coining the term “net neutrality” in 2002, in recent years Wu has been a leader in the revitalization of American antitrust and has taken a particular focus on the growing power of the big tech platforms. In 2021, he was appointed to serve in the White House as special assistant to the president for technology and competition policy. A professor at Columbia Law School since 2006, Wu has also held posts in public service. He was enforcement counsel in the New York Attorney General's Office, worked on competition policy for the National Economic Council during the Barack Obama administration, and worked in antitrust enforcement at the Federal Trade Commission. In 2014, Wu was a Democratic primary candidate for lieutenant governor of New York. In his most recent book, The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age (2018), he argues that corporate and industrial concentration can lead to the rise of populism, nationalism, and extremist politicians. His previous books include The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads (2016), The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires (2010), and Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World (2006), which he co-authored with Jack Goldsmith. Wu was a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times and also has written for Slate, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post. He once explained the concept of net neutrality to late-night host Stephen Colbert while he rode a rollercoaster. He has been named one of America's 100 most influential lawyers by the National Law Journal; has made Politico's list of 50 most influential figures in American politics (more than once); and has been included in the Scientific American 50 of policy leadership. Wu is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He served as a law clerk for Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

A single company, EssilorLuxottica, owns so much of the eyewear industry that it's hard to escape their gravitational pull — or their “obscene” markups. Should regulators do something? Can Warby Parker steal market share? And how did Ray-Bans become a luxury brand? (Part one of a two-part series.) SOURCES:Neil Blumenthal, co-founder and co-CEO of Warby Parker.Dave Gilboa, co-founder and co-CEO of Warby Parker.Jessica Glasscock, fashion historian and lecturer at the Parsons School of Design.Neil Handley, curator of the British Optical Association Museum at the College of Optometrists.Ryan McDevitt, professor of economics at Duke University.Cédric Rossi, equity research analyst at Bryan Garnier.Tim Wu, professor of law, science and technology at Columbia Law School. RESOURCES:"Leonardo Del Vecchio Dies at 87; Transformed Eyeglass Industry," by Jonathan Kandell (The New York Times, 2022).Making a Spectacle: A Fashionable History of Glasses, by Jessica Glasscock (2021)."Dave Gilboa and Neil Blumenthal: ‍A Vision for Business," by Lucy Handley (CNBC, 2020)."The Roots of Big Tech Run Disturbingly Deep," by Tim Wu and Stuart A. Thompson (The New York Times, 2019)."The Spectacular Power of Big Lens," by Sam Knight (The Guardian, 2018).The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age, by Tim Wu (2018)."Statement of the Federal Trade Commission Concerning the Proposed Acquisition of Luxottica Group S.p.A. by Essilor International (Compagnie Generale d'Optique) S.A.," FTC File No. 171-0060 (2018).Cult Eyewear: The World's Enduring Classics, by Neil Handley (2011).A Far-Sighted Man, by Luca Goldoni (1991). EXTRAS:"Direct-to-Consumer Mattresses," by The Economics of Everyday Things (2024)."Are Two C.E.O.s Better Than One?" by Freakonomics Radio (2023).“Are We in a Mattress-Store Bubble?” by Freakonomics Radio (2016).

What's next for TikTok? President Biden signed legislation on April 24 that would ban the popular video-sharing app unless its Chinese owner ByteDance sells to a U.S-based company. Supporters of the law say TikTok poses national security risks, warning that the Chinese government could potentially access sensitive user data or spread misinformation on the app. ByteDance says it has no intention of selling and will fight in the courts to stay in business. We'll look at what it all could mean for TikTok and its 170 million users in the US. Guests: Tim Wu, professor of law, science and technology, Columbia Law School - His latest book is "The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age" Suzy Loftus, Head of Trust and Safety, TikTok USDS Sapna Maheshwari, business reporter, New York Times - covering TikTok and emerging media Vivian Xue, TikTok creator; CEO, Pamper Nail Gallery - based in San Francisco

When a subsidiary of the giant UnitedHealth Group got hit by a cyberattack recently, a big chunk of the country's doctors, pharmacists, hospitals and therapists just stopped getting paid. It's been a huge disruption, with some providers wondering if they can keep their doors open.But thanks to their huge size and reach, the situation may have had a silver lining — for United.Which seems like a big problem, and got us wondering: What can we maybe do about it?The answer turns out to be: Maybe more than we think, via antitrust enforcers at the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice.Strap in for a wild ride — and then maybe check out FTC Chair Lina Khan's talk with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show. We include some short excerpts, but the whole thing is worth a watch.Thanks to reporters Brittany Trang (STAT News) and Maureen Tkacik (The American Prospect) for guiding us through their reporting.And to the novelist/journalist/activist Cory Doctorow, who has been writing about antitrust enforcement for years. Here are a couple of his columns about Lina Khan and what she and other antitrust enforcers are up to.If you want a deeper dive on the new antitrust movement: It's summed up in a terrific (and short) book by Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor and former White House adviser: The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age. And you may be able to get it for free! If your local library uses a system called Hoopla, you can borrow it as either an audiobook or an ebook.Super-fun tangent: Cory Doctorow and Tim Wu went to elementary school together — and apparently played a lot of Dungeons and Dragons — when they were kids in Toronto. Here's a transcript of this episode. Send your stories and questions. Or call 724 ARM-N-LEG.And of course we'd love for you to support this show. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Verge's David Pierce, Nilay Patel, and Alex Cranz answer questions from The Vergecast Hotline all about the TikTok ban debate and the US v Apple case.  Further reading:  TikTok ban: all the news on attempts to ban the video platform US v. Apple: everything you need to know The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age Vote for The Vergecast in the Webbys! Join The Verge at the 2024 Chicago Humanities Spring Festival Email us at vergecast@theverge.com or call us at 866-VERGE11, we love hearing from you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The Department of Justice, along with 16 states including California, filed a sweeping antitrust lawsuit against Apple last week. The government alleges that the trillion-dollar company's practices around its iPhone have quashed competition by limiting access to its app store, constraining the ability to send messages across different platforms and blocking alternative wallet payment systems. The suit is part of a suite of antitrust legal actions aimed at breaking alleged monopolies by tech behemoths including Google, Meta, and Amazon. We'll talk about what these suits mean for Apple's devoted user base and the tech industry. Guests: Aaron Tilley, reporter, Wall Street Journal Tim Wu, professor of law, science and technology, Columbia Law School; author, "The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age" Margaret O'Mara, Scott and Dorothy Bullitt professor of American History, University of Washington; author, "The Code: Silicon Valley and the Remaking of America"

The U.S. Senate has introduced legislation that presents dramatic changes to the current state of U.S. antitrust law, driven by the assumption that Big Tech as it has evolved currently constitutes a series of defined market monopolies.  But the Economist recently questions whether that assumption should be reconsidered given the rise in shares of second and third firms in these markets over the past five years. Adding to any reconsiderations is the intensifying and game-changing competition among the Big Tech industries and the abundance of Big Tech newcomers which poses the question of whether the current market structure is really one of hyper-competitive Big Tech oligopolies rather than monopolies.   In this context, Tom and Bill join me in discussing the question of whether America’s 125 year old competition policy, developed through common law applied to actual controversies sorting the American experience, isn’t the more appropriate enforcement mechanism to apply in the American marketplace. We assess the current adequacy of those laws to address Big Tech concerns, the political source of those concerns, the legitimacy of those concerns, and the impacts of the antitrust reforms the American Congress has presently proposed. Thomas Dillickrath is an Antitrust & Competition partner in Sheppard Mullin’s Washington, D.C. office, focusing on antitrust litigation and merger investigations. Prior to joining the firm, he served as Deputy Chief Trial Counsel at the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition. During his time at the FTC, Tom litigated antitrust cases brought by the FTC involving mergers and acquisitions and other business practices affecting U.S. consumers. Bill Margeson is an associate in the Antitrust and Competition Practice Group in Sheppard Mullin’s Washington, D.C. office. Bill has litigated antitrust, intellectual property, and other disputes in federal and state court and in the International Trade Commission under Section 337.  Bill also has criminal litigation experience, including in grand jury investigations related to price fixing and fraud.  Prior to law school, Bill worked in the public policy field. What We Discussed in This Episode: Are the courts the most qualified to deal with the unique developments in antitrust laws in the U.S.? How are current economic, social, and political climates affecting antitrust laws? Is the notion that “big is bad” a belief held by both governmental parties? How should monopolies be dealt with? Should the government regulate? Should any type of regulation be industry specific? What new rules is the American Congress attempting to impose in this area? What is Senator Klobuchar’s antitrust bill proposing? How will it affect competition if passed? Has the Supreme Court completely abandoned the application of the essential facilities doctrine? Resources Mentioned: The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age by Tim Wu   Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy by Matt Stoller  Monopolies Suck: 7 Ways Big Corporations Rule Your Life and How to Take Back Control by Sally Hubbard  Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis Trinco, LLP  Contact Information: Tom’s Sheppard Mullin attorney profile  Bill’s Sheppard Mullin attorney profile  Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every week. If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Stitcher Radio, Google Podcasts, or Spotify.  It helps other listeners find this show. Be sure to connect with us and reach out with any questions/concerns: LinkedIn Facebook Twitter  Sheppard Mullin website This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.

The US government has filed charges against Google, accusing it of violating competition law to preserve its monopoly over internet searches and online advertising. The lawsuit marks the biggest challenge brought by US regulators against a major tech company in years. Google called the case "deeply flawed". We speak with Tim Wu, an American attorney, professor at Columbia Law School and the author of The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age and also with Gabriel Weinberg, the founder of DuckDuckGo search engine. Also in the programme, we will go to Thailand where, despite threats, the protests continue. We look at why the protesters have had enough of the government. Plus, President Trump's America first policies have involved pressing the reset button on trade relations with the rest of the world, with the aim of bringing jobs back to the US and levelling the playing field between the US and China. We assess whether Mr Trump has achieved what he set out to do. And - how can the very name of a town put off investors? We hear from a town call Asbestos. We are joined by guests Alison Van Digglelen in San Francisco and David Kuo in Singapore. PHOTO: Google/Getty Images

The US government has filed charges against Google, accusing it of violating competition law to preserve its monopoly over internet searches and online advertising. The lawsuit marks the biggest challenge brought by US regulators against a major tech company in years. It follows more than a year of investigation and comes as the biggest tech firms face intense scrutiny of their practices at home and abroad. Google called the case "deeply flawed". We speak with Tim Wu, an American attorney, professor at Columbia Law School and the author of The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age and also with Gabriel Weinberg, the founder of DuckDuckGo search engine. Also in the programme, President Trump's America first policies have involved pressing the reset button on trade relations with the rest of the world, with the aim of bringing jobs back to the US and levelling the playing field between the US and China. BBC economics correspondent Andrew Walker assesses whether Mr Trump has achieved what he set out to do. And we get reaction to US trade policy changes from Mark Rowlinson, counsel at United Steelworkers, which is the largest union representing steel and aluminium workers in Canada. And - how can the very name of a town put off investors? We hear from a town call Asbestos.

Throughout our series, corporate giants and their exploitation of workers was disturbing evidence of capitalism run amok. That greed and disregard for the working class defined the Gilded Age. But the problems of that era haven’t disappeared. The economic disparities that were forged in the Gilded Age are still affecting our country. And monolithic companies like Facebook and Apple continue to grow, leaving a burning question of whether big tech has too much power. Today, Lindsay speaks with Tim Wu, a Columbia law professor and author of “The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age,” about the economic and social changes that took place then, and how they set the stage for modern America. For more on Tim Wu: http://www.timwu.org/about.htmlListen ad-free on Wondery+ hereSupport us by supporting our sponsors!Sleep Number - For a limited time, save 50% on a Sleep Number 360 Limited Edition smart bed. Shop your way, at a Sleep Number store, online at sleepnumber.com/TELLERS or by chat.American Giant - Get 15% your first order when you use promo code AHT at american-giant.com.

In recent years, the consumer welfare standard has been heavily criticized by some as too weak or simply inadequate to address the complex antitrust issues raised by the modern economy. But what alternatives exist? Tim Wu, author of The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age and Julius Silver Professor of Law, Science and Technology at Columbia Law School, joins Christina Ma and John Roberti to discuss what hipster antitrust is and its potential for reshaping how we think about the consumer welfare standard or replacing it. Listen to this episode if you want to think critically about the changes needed, if any, to antitrust policy. Related Links: https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/2018/11/tim-wu-curse-of-bigness-antitrust https://www.wired.com/story/tim-wu-says-us-must-enforce-antitrust-laws/ Hosted by: Christina Ma, Associate, Wachtell Lipton and John Roberti, Partner, Allen & Overy

0:08 – Hello 2020. This holiday we're bringing back some of our favorite interviews of the past year. Jen Schradie is a sociologist and Assistant Professor of the Observatoire sociologique du changement at Sciences Po in Paris. Her latest book is The Revolution That Wasn't: How Digital Activism Favors Conservatives. 1:08 – Tim Wu is a policy advocate, a professor at Colombia Law School, and a contributing opinion writer to the New York Times. His latest book is The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age. The post How Digital Activism Favors Conservatives with Jen Schradie; Plus: The Curse of Bigness with Tim Wu (rebroadcast) appeared first on KPFA.

Host Nicholas Lemann sits down with Columbia University law professor, and author of The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age Tim Wu to discuss the politics of Louis Brandeis and Theodore Roosevelt as antitrust has reemerged this year as a major issue in the run-up to the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. 

Read and reviewed Tim Wu's important new book on the effects of, and solutions for, economic concentration. Something both conservatives and liberals can get behind. Up the NeoBrandeisianism! (The written version of this review was first published November 18, 2018. Written versions, in web and PDF formats, are available here.)

Today it's all economics- why not a $15/hr minimum wage?- Bernie Sanders and the state of the Progressive agenda... Thom debates conservative Charles Sauer on the possible impact of a living wage... And Professor Steve Keen is taking the 'con' out of economics... Thom also sits down with Stephen Sheller, author of 'Big Pharma, Big Greed: The inside story of one lawyer’s battle to stem the flood of dangerous medicines and protect public health'... Plus readings from 'The Third Pillar: How Markets and the State Leave the Community Behind' by Raghuram Rajan, and from the new book 'The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Guilded Age' by Tim Wu.

Get rowdy with Roxanne Coady, indie bookstore owner and host of the Just the Right Book podcast. Roxanne finds common ground with Frank and Gwen, talking about places where people seek connection and community with books at their heart.    Roxanne's Book Recommendation My Sister, the Serial Killer  by Oyinkan Braithwaite  Also mentioned: A Drinking Life by Pete Hamill Lucky by Alice Sebold Bastard Out of Carolina by Dorothy Allison The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Guilded Age by Tim Wu The Common Good by Robert Reich Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl Embers by Sándor Márai You can visit Roxanne's bookstore, RJ Julia, in Madison, Conneticuit and check out one of their events. And definitely have a listen to her podcast Just the Right Book for more book recommendations and interviews with a wide-range of authors and guests. (Including Frank and Gwen!)

Roxanne recently sat down with technology law expert and professor Tim Wu at his Columbia University office in New York City to discuss his latest book The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age which examines the history of antitrust actions in the 20th century, making the argument that breaking up today's largest high-tech titans would be good for business as well as our democracy.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What are the implications of a few massive firms controlling global industry? Tim Wu endeavors to answer this question by linking together big business, inequality and political extremism in his latest book, The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age. Wu argues the failure to curb excessive corporate power has led to greater tolerance of inequality and may even engender extreme populism, nationalism and fascism. Wu's argument concludes that excessive corporate power poses a great threat to the health of American democracy, just as giant trusts did during the Gilded Age. Wu asserts that we must thus learn from the progressive policies of the past to overcome the consequences of extreme inequality today. Join us and learn from Wu as he discusses the problem of modern massive firms and what America can learn from its past. Notes: This program was generously supported by Jackson Square Partners Foundation Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

SPEAKERS Tim Wu Professor, Columbia Law School; Author, The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age In Conversation with Alexandra Suich Bass Senior Correspondent for Politics, Technology and Society, The Economist—Moderator This program was recorded in front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club in San Francisco on February 20th, 2019.

On this episode, Columbia Law professor Tim Wu discusses his latest book "The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age."  The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/ep-127-tim-wu-on-the-curse-of-bigness-political-economy-with-james-pethokoukis/ (Ep. 127: Tim Wu on ‘The Curse of Bigness' — Political Economy with James Pethokoukis) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).

It's a been a tough couple of years for technology companies. Facebook, Google, Twitter and others have faced criticism on many fronts, from accusations of bias to privacy concerns. Leaders of these companies have been called before Congress to testify about their businesses, most recently this week, when Google's CEO Sundar Pichai answered questions from members of the House Judiciary Committee. Underlying those concerns is the realization that tech companies have become so big, powerful and necessary in our lives that many of us are troubled by that reality, but unsure what to do about it.  In his new book, "The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age," technology law expert Tim Wu examines the history of antitrust actions in the 20th century and makes the argument that breaking up today's largest companies will not only be good for business, but for our democracy as well. This week on Money Talking, Charlie Herman speaks with Wu about his book and the state of monopolies in the U.S.

Tim Wu is an American lawyer, professor at Columbia Law School, and contributing opinion writer for The New York Times. In this episode of the Evolve the Law Podcast, Tim and host Ian Connett (@QuantumJurist) discuss one of the biggest threats for American democracy as we know it today: the rise of legal antitrust enforcement. Show Notes How we arrived at the New Gilded Age – unprecedented levels of industry concentration across multiple industries. Correlating industry concentration to political polarization. How Tim’Wu’s tenure in Obama White House sparked an interest in Antitrust – observing increasing wealth concentration like a growing “hole in ozone lawyer.” Why you cannot see, but most certainly feel the ill effects of weak Antitrust enforcement. The heroes of The Curse of Bigness – the legacy of Louis Brandeis and his vision of an America filled with thriving small businesses designed to help human beings reached their fullest potentials. Louis Brandeis as the original “start up” business lawyer. On building churches – the churches of Rockefeller and Big Tech. Teddy Roosevelt as “octopus hunter” – the trust-buster made flesh! Dissecting The Sherman Act – a broad law Being big vs. being big and bad. The crucial question of Antitrust enforcement. On the possibility of “gentle giants”.  Microsoft of the 90s vs. Microsoft of today. How Robert Bork helped to bork Antitrust enforcement during the Reagan years.  How that spurred the New Gilded Age. Why Big Tech is now beyond ripe for Antitrust enforcement.  Why large tech firms were given a 20 year pass. On the fear of “killing the golden goose in the cradle.” Facebook as the emblem of The Curse of Bigness? How corporate breakups are actually part of a healthy, technological innovation cycle.  See the examples of Standard Oil and AT&T. Why Anti-Trust is not at all Anti-Tech. How to get a copy of The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age. Links and Resources from this Episode For additional information go to https://abovethelaw.com/legal-innovation-center http://www.timwu.org    Review and Subscribe If you like what you hear please leave a review by clicking here Subscribe to the podcast on your favorite player to get the latest episodes. Subscribe with Apple Podcasts Follow on Spotify Subscribe with Stitcher

Best known for coining the phrase “net neutrality” and his book The Master Switch, Tim Wu has a new book coming out in November called The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age. In it, he argues compellingly for a return to aggressive antitrust enforcement in the style of Teddy Roosevelt, saying that Google, Facebook, Amazon, and other huge tech companies are a threat to democracy as they get bigger and bigger. Nilay sits down with Wu for this week's interview episode of The Vergecast. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices