As an Indian I have to agree with this assessment. But India has gone through the socialist phase, it still maintains a liberal democracy and is now rapidly building out its industry. Socialism is completely dead in the cities, my opinion is it will eventually fall once the rural areas also develop.
I grew up in the USA and the changes in India even in the last 10 years has been completely astounding. For example I’m from Hyderabad and some of things changes I see: A national freeway that didn’t exist 10 years ago, a metro that covers most of the core of the city, skyscrapers, trains that now ship containers instead of boxcars, massive power plants that have recently been built.
Is India perfect? No. It still has a hierarchical society, sectarianism is still pretty acute, like everywhere else in the world India’s fertility rate has dropped off a cliff, and traffic in Hyderabad proper is a nightmare.
But culturally the submissive Indian mindset of my youth is largely gone. The millennial India is entrepreneurial and everyone is looking to get ahead. The next 20 years of India will be amazing at which point a lot of the issues of low fertility rates will start affecting India as well. Lastly, I think India really only has capacity to send a sizable amount of its citizens overseas only for the next 5 years or so at which point migration out of India will largely subside.
> like everywhere else in the world India’s fertility rate has dropped off a cliff
It's amazing when people flag this as a bad thing when it's undoubtedly a key component of getting places to prosperity in the first place. Got to get people away from being starvation-limited.
> I think India really only has capacity to send a sizable amount of its citizens overseas only for the next 5 years or so at which point migration out of India will largely subside.
That's how you can tell a country is ""winning"" in the international rankings, when more people want to move in than move out.
No society today got to prosperity on the back of falling birth rates. And nor did any of the western countries that went through population booms have food-production created famines.
> it's undoubtedly a key component of getting places to prosperity in the first place
The baby boom and a couple previous generations in the US is also associated with getting to high prosperity and high fertility. This part of your thesis is debunked and thus your whole argument falls apart.
> It's amazing when people flag this as a bad thing when it's undoubtedly a key component of getting places to prosperity in the first place. Got to get people away from being starvation-limited.
Exponentially falling fertility rates can create dynamics which can be destructive in its own right. As with other complex phenomena it would be for example foolish to rapidly cool the earth's climate. Stability is the key, here. Right now India is just below replacement which short to mid-term looks very promising but will it stabilize? Looking at worldwide trends I very much doubt that. A growing economy needs some demographical stability so coming from a long-term view fertility dropping off a cliff, now, could be bad news later (in one, two generations).
Turning some knobs one way or the other does not produce linear results, quite the opposite, there are thresholds, there is criticality. To draw on another more time compressed analogy here: I guess some operators thought back then: What could go possibly wrong by running a nuclear reactor (RBMK) at safer lower powers?
Yip, the reality is that words mean what people think they mean, and that changes over time. Don't think I'm yet ready to accept 'I could care less', but the colloquial meaning of begging the question is logical, reasonable, and is only objectionable on historical grounds.
I concur with this take. Like many facets of culture, some people/groups will project what they want onto a given cultural entity (South Park, in this case), but that doesn’t mean one should assume they speak for it.
For example, the “men’s rights activists” group appropriated the idea of “the red pill” from The Matrix. They certainly differ wildly in worldview from the Wachowski siblings.
I agree with your general point, but Khan was excessively trigger happy in a way that highlights exceptions to your observation. E.g. blocking Meta acquisition of Within was nonsense that did nothing to validate the concept of VR fitness as a promising category (anytime soon)
Doesn't have to be a perfect success rate... how about just something other than abysmal failure rate?
Asserting a sloganized refrain is not very convincing. Make a real argument. Here are some counterpoints to "big is bad" Neobrandeisianism:
-Scale enables better economics for certain businesses which consumers and other businesses then benefit from.
-Large size allows additional speculative cutting edge R&D funding which the whole world benefits from even if it never pays off.
-Being big on its own is almost never a cheat code to permanent monopoly / monopsony lock-in, especially in the technology business. That comes from actual anti-competitive behavior or regulatory capture (which ARE the parts that should be regulated, rather than targeting or preventing size for its own sake).
The S&P point is more than a bit overstated and it also doesn't really matter? The subset of the S&P that's performing well will naturally get weighted higher over time, until the performance changes. It doesn't really matter if the S&P is driven by 5 enormous companies or 500 equally-sized ones. Whatever works at the moment is what gets rewarded with capital -- that's the point of the system and it's been more effective than any alternatives. Besides, it'd be poor investing practice to be literally all-in on the S&P.
Her opinion should not be taken seriously on the matter. It's not just the empirically terrible track record she had as a regulator and the baffling cases she brought to bear (imo proof of your point that she had an overgeneralized bias). It's also that she was demonstrably inexperienced at the time she was selected! It was clearly performative political appointment, which the Biden administration was pretty egregious about (and so have both Trump administrations, this is not a political point).
The essay (literally, a homework assignment she did at law school) for which she became famous that criticizes Amazon for being big is so chock full of errors, misconstructions and faulty logic, that it's an indictment of some really poor political habits and instincts that the US is prone to. That due diligence in vetting her as a rigorous and informed thinker on the topic failed is an unequivocal failure.
>The essay (literally, a homework assignment she did at law school) for which she became famous that criticizes Amazon for being big is so chock full of errors, misconstructions and faulty logic, that it's an indictment of some really poor political habits and instincts that the US is prone to.
She got boosted by an insurgent group of law professors who spearhead whats called the Neobrandeis moment. Their theory is that anti-trust should be preemptively enforced against size for its own sake.
This is the article she wrote for her law review as a law student which put her on their radar and they started calling her a "rising star" etc etc, which snowballed into the performative appointment by the Biden admin.
A lot beyond the scope of the time I have to comment here. Read it with an open mind, knowledge of tech business, knowledge of how things unfolded since it was published and see for yourself.
But some short hand:
-Assumes vertical integration is necessarily abusive
-Assumes lowering price is necessarily a setup for anti-competitive practices. This one’s particularly ironic because lowering prices is definitely a first-order good for consumers and businesses that buy those goods. Bezos’ famous saying was “your margin is my opportunity” —- would you rather the standard continue to be massive retailer markup profit that goes straight to retail corps?
-Vague scare tactic claims that expanding into media production etc will somehow (yadda yadda, Step 2: ???) lead to monopolies in every category they enter.
The TLDR of the problem with Neobrandeis is it forms a very opinionated paranoid notion that size can only lead to bad things and no good things. It is a lazy dodge around the traditional responsibility of regulators to identify and regulate actual anti-competitive behavior when it actually happens
By constraining companies from using any form of size or integration-related advantage, it lowers the pressure to actually be competitive and innovative for everyone else.
I’m not saying everything should be unconditionally allowed, there’s a balance to strike. But when you just have a blunt “anti-size” hammer, you’re gonna do collateral damage to a healthy competitive ecosystem in a damaging way.
> It is a lazy dodge around the traditional responsibility of regulators to identify and regulate actual anti-competitive behavior when it actually happens
Traditional since the ‘70s, when Chicago school jackasses got their way and all but destroyed antitrust enforcement, in practice.
A shift back would be great. Let’s get a little more traditional.
We’ve seen this TV show before, but nobody paid attention. The magnificent 7 are essentially the ITT/LTV/Litton of the 1960s reborn. GE is the other one of more recent memory.
Massive diversified entities get bureaucratic, unwieldy and ineffective over time.
What gets me about this Lina Khan hero worshipping is that she has ZERO real-world experience. It’d be one thing if she crafted a worthy law career in fighting big corp. She never put in any hard work. She essentially an influencer.
The capitalization makes it a Tesla reference, which has notoriously been promising that as an un-managed consumer capability for years, while it is not yet launched even now.
This is feeling like a retread of climate change messaging. Serious problem requiring serious thought (even without “AI doom” as the scenario, just the political economic and social disruptions suffice) but being most loudly championed via aggressive timelines and significant exaggerations.
The overreaction (on both sides) to be followed by fatigue and disinterest.
reply