• Rooskie91@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This is not the result of a prolonged investigation. It’s the result of shifting precedent from a neoliberal, Chicago School, interpretation to a more “new deal” era interpretation of monopoly laws. For the last 30 years, monopolies could only be broken up if the corporation bought other companies "with the intention of of forming a “monopoly.” We literally had to get rid of all the followers of the Chicago School from the government and replace them with people that aren’t as friendly to corporations.

    Basically, think of companies forming monopolies as drunk driving. If a court of law were to determine drunk driving manslaughter cases like they’ve been determining monopoly cases, you’d have to prove that the drunk driver left his house with the intention of killing someone inna drunk driving accident. So they’d always be able to say, “well I didn’t leave the house thinking I’d kill someone!” And get away of it. That’s how companies and the judicial system have been treating monopoly laws.

    • SSTF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      For the last 30 years, monopolies could only be broken up if the corporation bought other companies "without the intention of of forming a “monopoly.”

      With the intention of forming a monopoly?