Max Gulker explains that “the DOJ’s Apple antitrust suit doesn’t add up.” A slice:
Some or all of the alleged conduct might be judged anticompetitive if the DOJ could show Apple’s intent was trapping users in its ecosystem rather than creating the ecosystem its customers want. Apple’s longtime successful branding as a “walled garden” suggests the opposite. It is difficult to envision remedies for decreasing Apple’s control over app distribution and use within the iPhone ecosystem that would not undermine the security, usability, and aesthetics many consumers prefer, which is fundamental to Apple’s competitive strategy. The DOJ’s theory rests on a “broad pattern” of exclusionary conduct because none of the specific acts clearly impose switching costs without making the iPhone ecosystem consumers have already chosen even more desirable.
In a recent post, Matt Yglesias flatters the left by saying that it stands for equality vs. hierarchy and that its supporters are more intelligent than conservatives.
My 2010 book, the widely-unread Unchecked and Unbalanced argues against Yglesias. It says that the leftist approach to government creates inequality that far exceeds the inequality produced by the market. And it says that the power wielded by government officials far exceeds their intelligence. I suggest ways to break up the concentration of political power.
…..
While power has become more concentrated, knowledge has become more dispersed. In the economy, people are increasingly specialized. Science, medicine, and engineering have split into smaller sub-disciplines
In general, policy makers have too little knowledge relative to the high concentration of power. Consider the bills passed in Congress that run to hundreds of pages, which is more than they can read. And often the bills merely delegate power to unelected officials in government agencies.
My GMU Econ colleague Pete Boettke talks economics.
University of Florida president Ben Sasse reports that, at the University of Florida, the adults are in charge. Two slices:
At the University of Florida, we tell parents and future employers: We’re not perfect, but the adults are still in charge. Our response to threats to build encampments is driven by three basic truths.
First, universities must distinguish between speech and action. Speech is central to education. We’re in the business of discovering knowledge and then passing it, both newly learned and time-tested, to the next generation. To do that, we need to foster an environment of free thought in which ideas can be picked apart and put back together, again and again. The heckler gets no veto. The best arguments deserve the best counterarguments.
To cherish the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly, we draw a hard line at unlawful action. Speech isn’t violence. Silence isn’t violence. Violence is violence. Just as we have an obligation to protect speech, we have an obligation to keep our students safe. Throwing fists, storming buildings, vandalizing property, spitting on cops and hijacking a university aren’t speech.
…..
Young men and women with little grasp of geography or history—even recent events like the Palestinians’ rejection of President Clinton’s offer of a two-state solution—wade into geopolitics with bumper-sticker slogans they don’t understand. For a lonely subset of the anxious generation, these protest camps can become a place to find a rare taste of community. This is their stage to role-play revolution. Posting about your “allergen-free” tent on the quad is a lot easier than doing real work to uplift the downtrodden.
Universities have an obligation to combat this ignorance with rigorous teaching. Life-changing education explores alternatives, teaches the messiness of history, and questions every truth claim. Knowledge depends on healthy self-doubt and a humble willingness to question self-certainties. This is a complicated world because fallen humans are complicated. Universities must prepare their students for the reality beyond campus, where 330 million of their fellow citizens will disagree over important and divisive subjects.
Eric Boehm is correct: Americans really are unhappy with today’s inflation.
Here’s David Henderson on the late Bob Hessen on the industrial revolution.
Vinay Prasad isn’t favorably impressed with Time‘s list of 100 of the most-influential people in health care. (HT Jay Bhattacharya)
