EpicRandy said:
I don't know enough about all cases to know if she's right in some. The thing is, she is one of those to hold positions purely on a belief spectrum instead of a comprehensive one, and this makes her actions being appropriate dependent on the probability that a specific case does not divert from the generality on which her beliefs are based. However here, those interrogating her are even more guilty of that (did not look too much but I've seen Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz 2 despicable being more akin to living trash than human). |
She is def. right in some cases; the thing that bothers me the most with the way the FTC is handling some cases (and this was highlighted during the hearing) is that even if they know they are going to lose (Microsoft/Activision is an example) they still go for it; so those cases pills up and they can get the law to be changed.
The thing with that; is that
- First: They come up as being right from the start (so the law can be changed) and I think this is wrong. While they are the regulator, it does not mean that they are right about the topic or they are actually the experts... They have a big political agenda, esp. in the US (compared to the CMA for instance). And they insist on trying to make everyone believe that they lost the case because the laws are not adequate instead of maybe.... because they were wrong about it...
Second: And maybe this is not as bad as it looks, is a waste of resources/money to do so. They do not seem to consider any of this while making their call to pursue something they will not win to send a "message".
But you are right lol; she is not at all the only one guilty in that room.
And BTW: good job commenting on all those articles/news about the hearings and stuff related to this merger. You did a good job and enjoyed reading your comments everytime :D
