The Next Era Of Antitrust — ft. DOJ’s Jonathan Kanter

Summary

Prof G Markets Podcast Summary: "The Next Era Of Antitrust — ft. DOJ’s Jonathan Kanter"

Podcast Information:

• Title: Prof G Markets
• Host/Author: Vox Media Podcast Network
• Description: Prof G Markets breaks down the news that’s moving the capital markets, helping you build financial literacy and security. Hosted by Scott Galloway and Ed Elson, the podcast offers insightful analysis on stocks, sectors, and corporate leadership within a capitalist society.
• Episode: The Next Era Of Antitrust — ft. DOJ’s Jonathan Kanter
• Release Date: March 6, 2025

---

Introduction

In this episode of Prof G Markets, hosts Scott Galloway and Ed Elson delve into the evolving landscape of antitrust regulations in the United States. They are joined by Jonathan Kanter, the former Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Kanter brings his extensive experience from both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and leading law firms to discuss the current state and future of antitrust enforcement under the Trump administration.

---

State of Antitrust Under Trump

Continuity and Policy Outlook

Jonathan Kanter begins by addressing the antitrust environment nearly 50 days into Donald Trump’s second term. He expresses cautious optimism about policy continuity despite the change in administration.

“We’re in a wait and see mode, but I will say I’m cautiously optimistic that we’re gonna see continuity.” [25:56]

Kanter highlights that the DOJ’s new appointees, including Andrew Ferguson as the Chair of the FTC, are enforcement-minded, suggesting a shift towards more rigorous antitrust actions. He contrasts this with the neoliberal view that favors mergers and monopolies, which he believes is currently out of fashion in Washington.

Antitrust Priorities

Kanter identifies healthcare and big tech as primary areas of focus for the administration’s antitrust efforts. He emphasizes the importance of fostering competitive markets to benefit consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs.

“One of the things I noticed when I was at the government was that there are lots of businesses who want to invest in fixing our healthcare system.” [28:24]

---

Key Antitrust Cases

Google Monopoly in Search

One of the central discussions revolves around the DOJ’s landmark case against Google for maintaining an illegal monopoly in the search market.

“Google was found to be an illegal monopolist that illegally maintained its monopoly position in search.” [40:16]

Kanter explains that the case has entered the "remedies phase," focusing on breaking Google’s entrenched dominance by fostering opportunities for AI and other technologies to disrupt the search and advertising markets. The DOJ’s proposed remedies aim to dismantle the network effects and scale advantages that protect Google’s monopoly.

Nvidia Investigation

The conversation shifts to the DOJ’s investigation into Nvidia, particularly concerning its role in the AI hardware and software sectors.

“When you think about the areas of competition or where competition can come into place in AI, you have to think both about the hardware infrastructure and you have to think about how that technology is deployed.” [44:42]

Kanter clarifies confusion around whether Nvidia received a subpoena, stating that while specifics remain confidential, the focus is on ensuring competition in AI by addressing choke points in hardware and software.

---

Lobbying and Its Impact

The Pervasiveness of Lobbying

Kanter discusses the heavy influence of lobbying in Washington and its detrimental effects on antitrust enforcement. He points out that significant lobbying efforts often hinder meaningful regulatory actions.

“Companies pour a ton of money into this. I'll also say that the bigger they get, the more weight they can throw on Washington.” [30:44]

Types of Lobbying Activities

He elaborates on the various dimensions of lobbying, including direct campaign contributions, PR campaigns, funding academic research favorable to corporate interests, and the use of front groups to sway public opinion.

“Most of the money that gets invested is not into solving the problem and fixing the problem. Most of the lobbying money goes into throwing sand in the gears against any effort to actually make things better.” [34:19]

---

AI and Antitrust Concerns

AI's Role in Market Dominance

Kanter emphasizes that AI represents a critical area for antitrust scrutiny, particularly regarding how big tech firms invest in and collaborate with AI startups, potentially stifling competition.

“If these massive players are essentially pulling the puppet strings of smaller emerging rivals and disruptive players, then it creates the same kind of antitrust concern.” [47:37]

Recommendations for AI Competition

He suggests that to promote competition in AI, there should be restrictions on how dominant companies like Google can invest in competing AI technologies. This includes divestments and preventing further investments that could hinder the growth of new entrants.

“Our proposed remedy in the Google case... is focused on making sure that those markets have the opportunity to develop... the disruption that can come from things like AI have the opportunity to achieve their full potential.” [49:14]

---

Sectors Needing Antitrust Enforcement

Healthcare

Healthcare is highlighted as a sector with significant monopolistic tendencies that adversely affect costs and access to services.

“Healthcare markets today remind me a lot of big tech in 2016 or 2017... the degree of concentration, the degree of control... are all pointing to greater antitrust enforcement.” [53:40]

Defense

The defense sector has seen massive consolidation, leading to inefficiencies and reduced competition in government contracts.

“Defense... massive consolidation starting in the 90s among our prime contractors... too many contracts are sole source.” [53:40]

Agriculture

Farmers face monopolistic practices from seed suppliers, meat packers, and equipment manufacturers, which limit their operational independence and inflate costs.

“Farmers... have to go to a specialized retailer, buy expensive parts... right to repair restrictions are debilitating.” [53:40]

---

Relationship Between Big Tech and Government

Influence and Conflict of Interest

Kanter expresses concern over the close relationships between big tech CEOs and government officials, which can lead to conflicts of interest and undermine public trust.

“You can’t dismiss self-dealing, right? When companies are advising a government and have something to gain from it, it creates distrust in government.” [57:40]

Event Symbolism

He cites the inauguration event where tech CEOs were present indoors while grassroots supporters waited outside as a metaphor for the imbalance between corporate influence and public representation.

“It’s a metaphor for the situation... big companies cozying up with the president while rank and file supporters are left out.” [57:40]

---

Advice to Young Listeners

Developing a North Star

Kanter advises young professionals interested in public service to cultivate a clear set of values and goals—referred to as a "North Star"—to guide their careers and contributions to society.

“Developing your North Star early on in your career, understanding what values you hold dear, and then working through public service... that's what my advice is.” [59:29]

---

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Jonathan Kanter reiterates the importance of maintaining competitive markets to foster innovation and economic resilience. He warns against the dangers of concentrated corporate power and the corrosive effects of unchecked lobbying. The discussion underscores the need for vigilant antitrust enforcement to ensure a diverse and competitive economic landscape.

“We need to be more diversified. We need newer voices alongside the bigger companies. We need smaller players nipping at their heels in order to make them more competitive.” [49:14]

Kanter also touches on the critical need for comprehensive privacy regulations, highlighting the absence of robust data protection laws as a significant oversight in current U.S. policy.

“There are no basic privacy regulations... This is the most unregulated industry relative to its size and its significance that the country has ever seen.” [53:18]

Notable Quotes:

• “We’re in a wait and see mode, but I will say I’m cautiously optimistic that we’re gonna see continuity.” — Jonathan Kanter [25:56]
• “Most of the lobbying money goes into throwing sand in the gears against any effort to actually make things better.” — Jonathan Kanter [34:19]
• “We need to be more diversified. We need newer voices alongside the bigger companies.” — Jonathan Kanter [49:14]

---

Conclusion

This episode of Prof G Markets provides an in-depth exploration of the current antitrust climate in the U.S., featuring expert insights from Jonathan Kanter. The discussion highlights the challenges and opportunities in enforcing antitrust laws amid evolving market dynamics and significant political influences. Listeners gain a comprehensive understanding of how antitrust efforts can shape the future of competition and innovation across key sectors such as technology, healthcare, defense, and agriculture.

Transcript

[Scott]

Today at T Mobile I'm joined by a special co anchor. What up everybody?

[Snoop Dogg]

It's your boy big Snoop.

[Scott]

D O Double G Snoop where can people go to find great deals?

[Snoop Dogg]

Head to T mobile.com and get four.

[Scott]

Iphone 16s with Apple Intelligence on us plus four lines for 25 bucks. That's quite a deal. Snoop and when you switch to T Mobile you can save versus the other big guys. Comparable plans plus streaming respect.

[Snoop Dogg]

When we up out of here, see.

[Scott]

How you can save on wireless and streaming versus the other big guys. @t mobile.com/apple intelligence requires iOS 18.1 or later. Your data is like gold to hackers and they'll sell it to the highest bidder. Are you protected? McAfee helps shield you blocking suspicious texts, malicious emails and fraudulent websites. McAfee Secure VPN lets you browse safely and its AI powered tech scam detector spots threats instantly. You'll also get up to $2 million of award winning antivirus and identity theft protection, all for just $39.99 for your first year. Visit mcafee.com/incancel anytime terms apply. Imagine what's possible when learning doesn't get in the way of life at Capella University. Our game changing flexpath learning format lets you set your own deadline so you can learn at a time and pace that works for you. It's an education you can tailor to your schedule. That means you don't have to put your life on hold to pursue your professional goals. Instead, enjoy learning your way and earn your degree without missing a beat. A different future is closer than you think with Capella University.

[Snoop Dogg]

Learn more at capella.edu today's number $55,000. That's how much a lifetime membership costs at Miami's new Harbor Club, which offers a private speakeasy and weekly backgammon tournaments. Ed, what's the difference between a garbanzo bean and a chickpea?

[Ed]

I think I know this one. What?

[Snoop Dogg]

I'm not going to pay a garbanzo to bean on my.

[Ed]

The delivery was wrong to bean on your face.

[Snoop Dogg]

Oh, dude, shut the fuck up. Just laugh and tell me how hilarious I am.

[Ed]

No, not when the delivery is completely wrong.

[Snoop Dogg]

Wait, it's. I won't pay someone 50 bucks to garbanzo on my bean, but I will pay 50 bucks for a chick to pee on me. You get it?

[Ed]

This is our worst opening ever.

[Snoop Dogg]

Your fault. Totally your fault.

[Ed]

No, not my fault.

[Snoop Dogg]

Do you not understand the corporate world? When your boss makes a bad joke, you laugh hilariously. No matter. Oh my. Oh it's so. It's funny because it's true.

[Ed]

My job is to protect my boss. I don't want you to humiliate yourself in front of our audience.

[Snoop Dogg]

Let's talk a little bit about private members clubs, which is my new hobby. You want to know the story of my life, Ed?

[Ed]

Yes, please.

[Snoop Dogg]

I finally get the ultimate hookup. The best room in Europe. I don't know if it's in Europe. Best room in London is Chiltern Firehouse. They have a bar there that is so well done. The DJs on fire, and they have total obnoxious face control. And I wouldn't even go there. There was no way I could get in. And I went with some friends, and this nice woman came up and started talking to me. Recognized me from the pod. She's like, I'm starting a podcast. Would you be willing to have coffee? And I said, yes, we had coffee. We became friendly. And she said, here's my WhatsApp. Whenever you want to come in, here's my number. I'm like, oh, my God. I fucking. I am Charlie from Willy Wonka. I have just gotten the golden ticket. And for about the last six months, whenever I was with friends, and they'd be like, oh, wouldn't it be great? Well, let's go to children. Does anyone know anyone does any of a hookup? And I'm like, oh, no problem. I'll handle it. No problem. I'll handle it. And boom, right in. Hello, Scott. Loved it there. Loved it there. Hot people everywhere, which is not easy. In the uk, it's not easy. It's not like New York or LA where they just let in a bunch of Uber drivers who are looking for their SAG AFTRA card. And they're hot. No, it's not easy. You are definitely like, you've got some crazy pig hunting for truffles in the middle of some forest somewhere. I don't know how to come out of that analogy. Anyway, the best room, I would bet, in the uk, and I am totally, finally fucking hooked up. And you know what happened?

[Ed]

Burned down.

[Snoop Dogg]

It burned down.

[Ed]

Yeah, I saw that. I had serious schadenfreude on that. Because obviously I've never gotten in.

[Snoop Dogg]

And I'm not exaggerating. No. Less than a dozen people are, like, sent me video footage, and they're like, are you okay? I'm like, I'm not exaggerating. I think it burned down on a Thursday.

[Ed]

So sorry if you're lost, Scott.

[Snoop Dogg]

No one died, so we can joke about it. Whatever. Angel Balaza is already super fucking rich and the insurance will pay for it. So people, I'm not exaggerating, no less than a dozen people send me video footage and they're like, are you all right? I was there the night before. I was there at the closing party. We just didn't know it was the closing party. Anyways, the new place is a place called Soho Muse.

[Ed]

Yeah, I've heard of this. By the way. We really need to put a moratorium on the members club stalks because the problem is both you and I are irrationally obsessed with this stuff in a way that's very unhealthy and strange.

[Snoop Dogg]

That's cause I'm a narcissist.

[Ed]

So I mean, I could talk about this with you all day, but you know, we really gotta.

[Snoop Dogg]

Well, just let me finish up here. This is why the audience comes here. They just can't get enough of Scott. Anyways, so I hear the new hot place is so amused. So I call them. Oh, no problem. I'm like a global member and I never go. And they're like, oh, hello. No, we haven't gone out with invites. And I'm like, so I can't come tonight? Like, no, not yet we haven't. So even the Soho House has said we have so many non aspirational members to try and feed the public company earnings call that we've had to create a new Soho House that Soho House members don't have access to. So here I am, back to who I really am. And that is not able to get into the hot place. The world, the order of the universe has been restored. I am now again on the outside looking in.

[Ed]

Ed, I'm sure you'll get into Soho Museum, but by the time you get in, there's going to be another Soho Muse.

[Snoop Dogg]

Yeah, probably. All right, enough of that chick. Get to the headlines. Now is the time to buy. I hope you have plenty of the wherewithal.

[Ed]

European defense stocks hit their highest level in four years after President Trump's meeting with Ukrainian President Zelensky put pressure on European leaders to boost defense spending. The stocks Europe Aerospace and defense index rose 8% while London's Footsie reached a record high. Trump is planning to create a national crypto reserve that would include Bitcoin, Ether, xrp, Solana and Cardano. It's the first time he's proposed actively buying crypto in regular installments rather than simply stockpiling the assets. Bitcoin and Ether jumped more than 10% on that news. And finally, the 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada are officially in effect after hopes for a last minute deal fell through. Trump said there was, quote, no room left to negotiate with the two countries. All three major indices fell on that news, with the S&P 500 suffering its worst day of the year. Okay, Scott, we have three Trump headlines. I know we said we were gonna try to talk a little bit less about Trump, but the trouble is politics and markets, they are simply connected. And these are the biggest stories that are moving the markets right now. And they all have to do with Trump. And I think that's probably by design. Let's start with your thoughts on European defense stocks rallying after that rattling meeting we saw between Trump and Zelenskyy last week.

[Snoop Dogg]

Russia is a fairly small economy. Russia's economy is smaller than Canada. So you want to kiss the ass. You want to give a lap dance to a small economy and alienate these dependable, prosperous relationships with economies in Europe that combined are 15 to 17 times the size of the gas station posing as an economy called Russia. So this is incredibly stupid. Now, what could go right. I love what Josh Brown said. What could go right on when he co hosted with you. These nations are bigger than Russia. Spain is almost as big as Russia combined. They are a bigger economic force. And quite frankly, they've become lazy and dependent upon a rich uncle who is no longer. Who's gone fucking senile, has become emotionally and mentally unstable and them recognizing they have to fight their own fights, but also waking up and realizing, you know what? I'm pretty goddamn strong and dangerous myself. If they massively increase their military budgets, which I think they're gonna do, and start taking leadership cues from their own leaders and they unify, get rid of all the arguing and the bullshit and they become a union again. There is absolutely no reason why they can't push back on Russia themselves. In addition, I think this is a starting gun. And this was one of our predictions at the end of last year, before I even knew this, for European stocks. If you look at military spending, it's expensive in the short run, but there is the potential for dramatic technology spillover that realizes or is registered in huge economic gains in the markets. Apple and Google are basically adjuncts or thick layers of innovation put on top of an innovation that was developed during military or war spending. Gps. Apple is basically GPS technology with a consumer layer on it that was developed during the Cold War, such that we could put an ICBM in Putin's pocket within 10ft of its designated target. If you look at the Internet, for God's sakes. It was the US Military decided a Defense Department could decided we needed a means of nodeless means of communication for after the nuclear attack from Russia. That was darpa, which became the Internet. So I believe Europe is going to be a union again. I believe they will massively increase the military spending, which will result in stimulus and possible technology spillover. So I think there is a real silver lining here. And I am super excited about European getting the jolt it needed to move out of the house and realizing that they should start commanding the space they occupy.

[Ed]

I'm completely with you on the silver lining here. And just if we look at the numbers. So last year Russia spent, if you adjust for their purchasing power and defense, they spent $462 billion on defense last year. All of Europe, meanwhile, spent only 457 billion. So less than Russia. And if you look at that as a percentage of their GDP, the difference becomes even more stark. So Russia spent 7% of their GDP on defense. That number is expected to increase this year to seven and a half percent or higher. And then on average, Europe spent 2.2% of its GDP. So, yeah, Europe can spend more. Trump wants them to go to 5% of GDP. He wants to make that a minimum. That's very unlikely. I think for a lot of these countries. It's just not possible for them economically. But I think Europe has gotten the message loud and clear. They're on their own now. I think we're going to see double digit percentage growth in defense spending from all of the major European governments, which means that these defense companies will be in very, very high demand. We saw shares in Rheinmetall, which is Germany's largest defense company, those rose 15%. Britain's BAE Systems rose 14%. Leonardo, a defense company from Italy, that rose 17%. So the markets are basically telling us European governments are going to significantly increase their defense spending and that's going to benefit these defense companies. I wouldn't invest in those defense companies myself because I think the market is reacting a little too over enthusiastically to this. What's what happened last week. I think they're expecting these budgets to transform overnight. But in reality, these transitions happen quite slowly and quite steadily. They have to get through governments. They have to figure out these supply chains. I mean, reconstituting an entire army is not an overnight job. But there is no doubt Europe will be bolstering its militaries. And I do, I like the silver lining you point out there. And I think I agree with it, let's shift to crypto and this new U.S. crypto reserve. So our government will be buying Bitcoin, Ether, xrp, Solana, and Cardano in regular installments. I find this quite ironic because you think about the conversation we just had about Ukraine, where America's position is, sure, you need help, but we can't afford it. We've got our own problems. Meanwhile, we can afford buying up billions of dollars of useless cryptocurrencies that provide no benefit to the real economy whatsoever, which I find ridiculous. The fact that these headlines are happening in the same weekend, the idea that.

[Snoop Dogg]

We are going to increase our deficits such that we can artificially raise the prices of an asset class, the majority of which is controlled, like every other asset class, by very wealthy people, including the head of a VC fund that is the advisor to Trump. This is pure corruption in its most naked form. And people will say, and I gotta give it to them, well, the Democrats have just been doing this slowly, more elegantly and more covertly with lobbyists. Trump has just decided, fuck, that I'm just going to steal right in the light of day. But that is. It is insane that we have an individual who is the AI of the crypto czar encouraging the President to spend your money in the form of deficits, increased deficits, such that he can dramatically increase his wealth and the wealth of other people my age that have the money or have already invested in these assets. This is kleptocracy meets intergenerational theft.

[Ed]

Yeah. The person you're talking about there is David Sachs, of course, who is the AI and crypto czar. He is a significant crypto investor, both individually and through his VC firm. And I do want to just play you a clip from the all in podcast. And this was recorded, I think, a couple of years ago.

[Snoop Dogg]

Really? I mean, the All Grifter podcast.

[Ed]

Yeah, the All Grift podcast. And basically, David and his boys are talking about their positions in Solana, which is one of these cryptocurrencies that is going to be included in the national crypto reserve. I'd like to get your reaction to this. You better clear that Solana position.

[Scott]

What's your lockup? 24 months?

[Snoop Dogg]

Fuck, no. He's trying to sell it to me on text message.

[Scott]

Yeah, of course.

[Snoop Dogg]

We're negotiating discounts.

[Scott]

I just had the fat roll.

[Ed]

You're fucking the whole thing up, bro.

[Snoop Dogg]

You don't. You don't think I'm Hodling.

[Ed]

I'm Hodling.

[Scott]

You think I buy hundreds of millions of dollars of anything without a discount.

[Snoop Dogg]

Everything is a discount. Everything's discounted.

[Ed]

You want to clear that position in an llc? Are you saying I got a billion dollars of Solana?

[Snoop Dogg]

No, bro, I'm saying I have one, but you know, I brought it at a discount.

[Ed]

But you're holding, correct?

[Scott]

Ish.

[Snoop Dogg]

Ish. Okay.

[Ed]

Yeah, me too. David Sachs did sell his individual crypto position before he joined the government. So he doesn't own Solana anymore. But his VC still owns stakes in these crypto startups. And of course all of his friends are big crypto investors. So yes, he's not enriching himself directly with this move, but he is certainly enriching himself indirectly and he is for sure enriching his friends. So I just want to get that argument out of the way.

[Snoop Dogg]

But doesn't he have huge investments in crypto related companies?

[Ed]

He has huge investments in crypto related companies. Exactly.

[Snoop Dogg]

That is a direct enrichment. That's like saying I don't buy Google keywords, but I own Google, so I'm not directly benefiting off of the government buying 10 billion.

[Ed]

Well, this is the argument these guys like to make. So I'm just, I'm still manning their corrupt position.

[Snoop Dogg]

Look, I think David is an intelligent guy. I, you know, when I've seen clips of him on YouTube, I think he makes interesting points. He and I have different politics, but I think he's at least intellectually honest about his politics. But he's essentially part of this kleptocracy that wink, wink, I'll become your AI czar and I'm going to use taxpayer, the taxpayer purse to enrich myself. And that used to be not allowed. The more existential stupidity here is that you are essentially trying to come up with another default currency and the carrier strike force, that is the invisible carrier strike force that is probably more devastating than even the SS Gerald Ford carrier strike force is the US dollar. The fact that we can track the flows and control the flows of the default currency globally and it is very difficult for anyone to do business when we put sanctions on them and we get to see where money is going and coming is such an incredible advantage. And we are purposely ourselves trying to undermine the acceptance and ubiquity of the default currency by creating a second with crypto. I mean, okay, measles, surrender and just fucking stupid is the new American brand. Your thoughts, Ed?

[Ed]

I think that applies specifically to Bitcoin. And you know, I'm willing to hear the Bitcoin argument out, but yeah, it is ultimately a bet against the US dollar. So why would the US Government be betting against its own currency? This is completely different though, because this is a ton of other cryptocurrencies in addition to the Bitcoin. So now we have our government actively recommending individual tickers to the public. And these aren't even companies. These are assets that generate no revenue, no cash flows, no profits. Assets whose value is entirely dependent on the greater fool theory. I mean, this is literally the equivalent of the US Government creating a national Beanie Baby reserve. There is literally no difference. And it benefits no one other than the people who already own Beanie Babies. And in this case, those are the people who are crypto investors, most of whom are in Silicon Valley and who are good friends with David Sachs, who is the guy who came up with this whole charade. You know, Elon keeps on talking about how the government is the biggest scam in history. That might be true now. This might actually be the biggest scam in history. Let's move on finally to tariffs. Your thoughts, Scott? This has been, I guess, a long time coming, but it is finally in effect, 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico and an additional 10% tariff on China. What happens now, Scott?

[Snoop Dogg]

It's simple. Our economy shrinks, costs go up, our exports go down. I mean, tariffs are taxes on the consumer. So whenever Donald Trump makes a really fucking stupid decision, they're like, oh, no, no, no, we can't defend it intellectually, so we're just gonna say it's 4D chess and he gets it and we don't. And that latest argument is, oh, it's a negotiating ploy. This is just dumb. And it costs money to spin up these tariffs and then spin them down and we lose credibility. It's economic warfare against unbelievably big economies that have been great allies, I think in economic history. We're going to say our entry into Southeast Asia, our invasion of Iraq, Brexit. And these tariffs will be seen as the biggest self inflicted wounds in history unless they are immediately rectified. And even then it's just like, you look stupid. Well, I'm leaving you. I'm leaving you. Just kidding. I'm back. Well, okay. That takes a toll on the relationship.

[Ed]

Yeah. Just to go through the numbers that we can expect, if these remain intact, it's expected that prices across the board will rise 0.7%. According to estimates, the price of certain other goods will be even higher. For example, fruits and vegetables, which we largely get from Mexico. Also smartphones. They're expected increase in price by more than $200. GDP growth is expected to fall. Economists are expecting a 0.6% decline. Interest rates are expected to remain higher for longer. As expected, corporate profits are expected to fall. Unless, of course, corporations just pass all of the costs onto the consumers, which is of course entirely possible. All of this in concert. That is why the S and P and the Dow and the NASDAQ all had certainly one of their worst days in a long, long time. And basically all of the gains that we saw in the stock market since the election, it's all been erased because of this decision. What's the upside in all of this? I don't know. I mean, as I've said, it's very much like Brexit. You shoot yourself in the foot and you label it patriotism because you decide, oh, we're better off alone. But every economic study said Brexit would be a disaster. But people just loved the emotional argument. It was so compelling. They loved this sort of fake reboot version of independence. And now the UK has its tail between its legs. Most of the country agrees it was a giant mistake. And I think, as you say, I think a similar thing is happening here. All the ingredients look the same to me. So my prediction is quite simple. Sounds like it's the same as yours. This is Brexit 2.0. People feel very patriotic. And then we turn around and we see all the damage that we did to ourselves. We realized we buried ourselves for no good reason at all. We'll be right back after the break for a conversation with Jonathan Kanter. If you're enjoying the show so far, be sure to give Property Markets a follow wherever you get your podcasts.

[Snoop Dogg]

Support for the show comes from public.com all right, if you're serious about investing, you need to know about public.com that's where you can invest in everything. Stocks, options, bonds and more. They even offer some of the highest yields in the industry, including the bond account 6% or higher yield that remains locked in even if the Fed cuts rates. With Public, you can get the tools you need to make informed investment decisions. Their built in AI tools called Alpha doesn't just tell you if an asset is moving, it tells you why the asset is moving so you can actually understand what's driving your portfolio performance. Public is a FINRA registered SIPC insured US based company with a customer service support team that actually cares. Bottom line, your investments deserve a platform that takes them as seriously as you do. Fund your account in five minutes or [e-mail] profg and get up to $10,000 when you transfer your old portfolio. That's public.com Prof. G paid for by Public Investing. All investing involves the risk of loss including loss of principal. Brokerage services for U.S. listed registered securities, options and bonds and a self directed account are offered by Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC. Complete disclosures [e-mail] disclosures I should also disclose I am an investor in Public.

[Ed]

Support for Profg Markets comes from Pilot Running a business is complicated enough Tax deadlines shouldn't add to your stress. If you're a C corp expecting no taxes owed in 2024, then Pilot will file your corporate income tax extension for free. Most corporate tax deadlines hit April 15th. If you're a for profit US based corporation that was unprofitable in 2024, Pilot's finance experts will handle filing your extension for free, which can save you valuable hours this tax season. But the truth is, when it comes to taxes, there is no off season. With Pilot, you get more than just tax help. You get a team of accounting and finance experts who are always looking for ways to simplify how you run your business so you can focus on what matters most, growing your business and keeping customers happy. Go to pilot.com profg and they'll take care of this for you for free. No subscription required. That's pilot.com profg.

[Snoop Dogg]

Support for Prof. G Markets comes from Found. Have you ever been so bogged down by your business's finances that you look up and realize you spent the entire day or a week sifting through spreadsheets and filling out tax forms? That's probably not what you signed up for when you started out. With Found, you can finally spend a little less time worried about finances and more time growing your business. Found is a business banking platform that lets you effortlessly track expenses, manage invoices, and prepare for taxes all in one place. And Found doesn't just consolidate your financial ecosystem. Found automates manual activities including expense tracking and finding tax write offs. And the best part? No hidden fees. That means no account maintenance fees, no minimum balance, and it's free to sign up. Oh, and by the way, other small businesses are loving Found too. According to Found, one user said Found is going to save me so much headache. It makes everything so much easier. Expenses, income, profits, taxes, invoices even. And they also claim they have 30,000 five star reviews just like this. You can open a Found account for free at F o u n d.com profg found is a financial technology company, not a bank Banking services are provided by Piermont bank, member fdic. You can join thousands of small business owners who have streamlined the finances with found.

[Ed]

Welcome back. Here's our conversation with Jonathan Kanter, former Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust division of the U.S. department of Justice. Jonathan, thank you so much for joining us on property markets.

[Scott]

Great to be here.

[Ed]

So we are nearly 50 days into Trump's second term. We've had a lot of attention on tariffs, on foreign policy, on immigration. What we haven't been hearing that much about, though, is antitrust. It feels like it's been kind of outshined by these other issues. So I'm really excited that we can discuss this with you today. For those that don't know, Jonathan is probably the number one expert in America on antitrust. I mean, he worked for a number of years at the ftc. He was a partner at several top law firms, and then he led the antitrust division for the DOJ under Joe Biden until you resigned in December of last year. So, Jonathan, give us the state of play of antitrust under Trump at the moment. What has happened thus far and how have things changed since you left?

[Scott]

So we're in a wait and see mode, but I will say I'm cautiously optimistic that we're gonna see continuity. Ultimately, personnel is policy. And the two people that President Trump nominated for the Department of Justice, my old job and the chair of the ftc, Andrew Ferguson, are both enforcement minded. And so what they do will be different from how we enforce the law. But what antitrust does is it touches on this sort of weird area in Washington of policy overlap where there is more of a realignment around antitrust in economic populism and controlling corporate power for the benefit of workers, for the benefit of consumers, for the benefit of entrepreneurs. And I think we're likely to see that continue at least to some degree in this current administration.

[Ed]

And what is the other side of the argument? So it sounds like where you land is tough in terms of antitrust, tough on regulation and enforcement. These new picks are probably in the same camp. And that's for the benefit of the public, basically. What is the other side of it? What could he have gone with otherwise?

[Scott]

Let me just, if you don't mind me picking at that a little bit, I think I am not super pro regulation. So my belief is that I believe I'm a capitalist. I believe in markets. I believe that ultimately free markets and competitive markets can yield better outcomes for society and that are a much better alternative to invasive regulation. And so sometimes regulation Rules are necessary, but I would much rather have markets sorted out through competition in the first instance. That's ultimately the theory that I had in animated our approach to antitrust enforcement. And I think it actually reflects the theory that animates the approach to antitrust enforcement in the current administration. But we'll have to wait and see. The alternative to that is a neoliberal view, one that really dominated in the era of Reagan and George W. Bush, the Clinton administration, to some degree part of the Obama administration, which is ultimate Mergers are efficient, monopolies are efficient, and ultimately we should just regulate the big companies rather than stopping them from getting big or maintaining their bigness. And I think that view is pretty much out of fashion right now in Washington.

[Ed]

So if you had to outline the top priorities for this administration when it comes to antitrust, maybe one or two things they definitely want to accomplish. When you look at what they've done so far, what do you think those.

[Scott]

Priorities would be, taking them at their own word? I think those priorities are big tech workers, and what remains to be seen, but I think what should be among the highest priorities is healthcare.

[Ed]

Interesting. Why do you think that healthcare is such an important priority right now?

[Scott]

The healthcare markets today remind me a lot of big tech in 2016 or 2017, where we've seen this sort of gradual, if not alarming, march toward concentration and convergence around a handful of conglomerate platforms that have outsized control in the healthcare system. And there's now a greater appreciation that those integrated companies are essentially emerging as platforms unto themselves and control our healthcare system. And so whether you're a doctor or a nurse, a pharmacist, another insurance company, you kind of have to plug into those healthcare platforms, and they're exerting a massive amount of control, and it constitutes a massive spend for our economy. And so I think the degree of concern, the degree of concentration, the degree of control, and the impact on our economy are all the ingredients that usually point to greater antitrust enforcement and greater interest by business in seeing antitrust enforcement. One of the things I noticed when I was at the government was that there are lots of businesses who want to invest in fixing our healthcare system. They want to invest in improving the ability to get access to pharmaceuticals for less money money. The insurance system is completely bloated and bureaucratic, not at the government level, but at the private sector level. And there's a great interest of business to disrupt that to compete. But they can't break in, in part due to the moats that surround these large healthcare platforms.

[Ed]

I Think one of the other big issues that a lot of people are talking about is just the power of lobbying. That's certainly important in the cultural conversation around healthcare. The idea that politicians are basically being paid off, or at least, you know, these healthcare companies are investing millions, maybe billions into lobbying such that these regulations can work in their favor. You served in government for three or four years. You can now speak freely, I assume. How bad is lobbying in government? Is it something that you experienced yourself?

[Scott]

It's everywhere. Right, but. And so you have to. When you take a job like the one I took, you have to decide you don't give a shit. And ultimately, I'm a lawyer and I have clients, and I viewed my client as the public. And I was going to jump in front of a train if I had to in order to protect my client, which was the public. That's my philosophy toward representing companies in the legal area. And so that's what we did. And so if companies came in and made sensible arguments and presented facts, we would listen. But the idea of playing politics, going to the media, going after us personally, going to Congress and trying to interfere with legitimate antitrust enforcement, we tune that out. But I would say that there's a real risk that that kind of lobbying and PR campaigns and public affair campaigns can take hold, and it's really dangerous when it does. Companies pour a ton of money into this. I'll also say that the bigger they get, the more weight they can throw on Washington. And one of the things that I think people inside Washington understand, sometimes it's not appreciated outside, is that it's really hard to do something. It's really easy to get people to do nothing. And so most of the money that gets invested is not into solving the problem and fixing the problem. Most of the lobbying money goes into throwing sand in the gears against any effort to actually make things better. And so you have to have a tremendous amount of will, you have to have a tremendous amount of courage and perseverance in order to actually make a difference. That's something that we did, but it's really freaking hard.

[Ed]

The whole lobbying industry feels so obscure and strange in a lot of ways. I just don't really understand how it actually works. So just at a very basic level, what does lobbying actually look like? Is it a meeting with someone and they present all the arguments as to why something should or should not be done? Why is it so compelling? And why does it push politicians so far in either direction?

[Scott]

So there are a number of different dimensions that go into this. First there's kind of the straight traditional lobbying, which is I'm going to pour a ton of money into a campaign, right? And people who are running for office, especially if it's every two years, need a constant influx of cash, right? And so they're trying to figure out how do they come up with a policy agenda that allows them to stay in office. And it's very easy to rationalize that, well, if I compromise and get enough donors, then I can stay in office and do other good things, right? But that can easily tilt into a very dangerous place. That's one. But it's more than just that. Most of the money that gets reported as lobbying is really just for that. Going up to Capitol Hill and meeting with a senator or congressman. That's not where most of the money goes though. Most of the money goes into PR campaigns. It goes into funding university professors who write favorable articles that then they can cite to in their PR campaigns. It's planning stories and getting people to talk on podcasts. And this insidious layer of operatives who you don't realize are speaking on behalf of big business, but are there to seed ideas and promote their clients interest, often not disclosing who they work for, who paid for their stuff. I can't tell you how many times I heard the same arguments from these grassroots public advocacy organizations that are just front groups for the same handful of big companies. They're everywhere. They're pouring a ton of money into it, and it far outstrips the amount that they're disclosed disclosing in their lobbying forms.

[Ed]

I mean, it sounds like, you know, you are fighting against that to the best of your ability. It's possible now that the DOJ will have its funding cut with doge. I mean, what do you think of that? Do you think that DOGE will target the doj? And if so, what would that mean for antitrust?

[Scott]

It would be devastating. Let me just give you a little bit of context, right? So when I ran the antitrust division at the Department of Justice, we were in charge of antitrust enforcement. We were about 800 people. That's about 250 fewer people than we had in 1979. We were smaller than 1979. But I will also tell you this. In terms of efficiency, we ran at zero cost to taxpayers. And each year during my tenure, we had a budget surplus. And we relied on fees, merger fees, to fund the entire antitrust division, even though that's not what we did. So taxpayers got a great deal. And during that time we brought cases against Google. We brought cases against Apple, Ticketmaster, American Airlines, Visa, UnitedHealthcare, RealPage, and the big landlords, the big meat packers. We touched through a case involving a company called Agristats. We brought some of the most effective, significant antitrust cases. We did it at zero cost to the taxpayers, and we did it at a budget surplus, while at the same time investing in things like AI and other tools to make ourselves more efficient. If there's a real, real interest in making government more efficient, then there's a real conversation to have. But I don't believe that's what's happening. I think what's happening right now is attempt to dismantle our government infrastructure because they don't want it there.

[Ed]

Are there any sectors of the government that you believe actually could benefit from budget cuts or from at least being inspected by some form of government efficiency oversight?

[Scott]

I think they could all benefit from being more efficient. So I think the amount of process and sometimes norms that have good intentions often create debilitating bureaucracy. And so I will tell you, sure, right. And in fact, I was an agent of change and I came in and despite those headwinds, we were able to move things forward, change policies, change the composition of our workforce, hire more experts, invest in more technology. There are plenty of things you can do to make it more efficient. I will say this, though. So if you wanted to address efficiency in government spending, employees, federal employees are the last place you'd probably start. They're a sliver of the federal budget. Just from an employment perspective, I think 4/5 of government employees reside outside the DC area. 1/3 are veterans. And that's before you factor in all the money that goes into funding employers like state universities and hospitals, particularly in the Midwest and the south, that are themselves the largest employers in their states. The federal government is the largest employer in the U.S. so one, firing people wholesale, indiscriminately, without regard for whether they are talented or whether they are lower wage than someone who's been there a long time is not the way to improve efficiency. And lower cost. You wanted a lower cost. The place you'd start would be government contractors. Massive amounts of money fraud, waste and abuse is often in private government contractors who are overcharging the government. You talk about Medicare, for example. There have been studies by the Wall Street Journal and reports about massive billions upon billions of dollars in overcharging due to things called upcoding, which is when an insurance company goes in, they take someone on Medicare, make them look really sick, and then they get to bill for all that, but then they don't necessarily reimburse for all that and they keep the money in between. These are the kinds of areas focus if you were actually trying to make government less expensive and more efficient, there might be things you can do in terms of personnel and in terms of process. But that's not where you'd start if you were actually trying to address the problem.

[Ed]

We'll be right back. The Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer.

[Scott]

University helps you go from I know the way to I've arrived with our top 10 ranked online MBA.

[Ed]

Gain skills you can learn today and apply tomorrow.

[Scott]

Get ready to go from make it happen to made it happen and keep striving. Visit strayer.edu Jack Welchmba to learn more. Strayer University is certified to operate in Virginia by Chev and its many campuses, including at 2121 15th Street north in Arlington, Virginia. Get the Angel Reef Special at McDonald's.

[Ed]

Now let's break it down.

[Scott]

My favorite barbecue sauce, American cheese, crispy bacon, pickles, onions, and a sesame seed bun, of course. And don't forget the fries and the drinks.

[Ed]

Sound good?

[Scott]

I participate in restaurants for a limited time. I can say to my new Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, hey, find a keto friendly restaurant nearby and text it to Beth and Steve. And it does without me lifting a finger so I can get in more squats anywhere I can. 1, 2, 3. Will that be cash or credit? Credit. 4 Galaxy S25 Ultra, the AI companion that does the heavy lifting. So you can do you get [e-mail] compatible with select apps. Requires Google Gemini. Account results may vary based on input. Check responses for accuracy.

[Ed]

We're back with Prof. G Markets. Let's talk about some of the biggest antitrust cases that you brought and how you think they may play out in the next few years. So let's start with Google. You brought one of the biggest cases against Google for maintaining an illegal monopoly in the search market. The judge ruled in your favor, but of course Google is now working on appealing that decision. Give us the state of play on Google. Where does that case stand today and how do you expect that lawsuit will play out?

[Scott]

So there are two cases against Google. One is the search case, which we won and now is in what they call the remedies phase. So Google was found to be an illegal monopolist that illegally maintained its monopoly position in search, in part through spending tens of billions of dollars a year contracting with companies like Apple and others. To say you won't work with anyone else or there'll be limits on your ability to work with other folks. That case is really all about not just those contracts, but it's about the network effect. It's about the moat that protects Google search business. We are at a moment in time, we are at a key inflection point where AI and kinds of technologies may not be perfect replacements for search yet, but they are in shooting distance. They have the opportunity with the right nurturing to start creeping into those markets and then eventually, hopefully take on some of those advertising markets, the search advertising markets, the remedies phase, really the current proposal on the table from doj, which I was a part of, is focused on making sure that those markets have the opportunity to develop in the inflection point the disruption that can come from things like AI have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. There will be a trial in a few months to address the remedy and we'll see how that goes. But it's a very important part of this second case involves what people call ad tech. That's the stuff that you don't realize is being bought and sold through Google. But when you go to any website or often an app and you see an ad that is going through a stock like exchange or commodities like exchange, that is run by Google. Google owns the exchange. They buy on the exchange and they sell on the exchange and they run the tools that run the infrastructure for publishers, news publishers and others who want to show ads. And that case is full of allegations that Google abused that position, manipulated the market and squeezed out competition. We finished the trial there and we're waiting for disposal.

[Ed]

One of the suggestions from the DoJ on the first case at least was a breakup, breaking Google up into several or I guess two different companies. Specifically it's the search product. Why do you think breaking up Google is the answer? And I'll just plug in a little bit of my opinion here. Why wouldn't simply making Google stop paying those contracts to Apple and other companies to be the default search engine, why wouldn't that cut it? Why couldn't that be the remedy for this situation?

[Scott]

So those are backward looking remedies which are important. Right. And so cutting off the mechanism that a company used to dominate a market is really critical. But you know, if you focus on competition and if you focus on where the next competitive threat is going to come from, you have to look at the ingredients that go into creating competition. And in something like search, it's data, it's an index, it's the ability to monetize that through A sufficient base of advertisers. Those are the kinds of market dynamics that create the important infusion of capital. There are conflicts of interest when you're on all sides of a market. And so if you want to create competition, you have to look at, okay, what are the ingredients that a new competitor needs? Also to what extent. If, if conduct in an antitrust case has occurred over a year or two, it's much easier to fix because their company's not entrenched. But if the conduct occurred, for example, over 10 year period, which is what happened in the search case, then it's far more entrenched. The network effects, the scale effects, the learning by doing, and the feedback loops are far more significant today than they would have been a decade ago. And so if you want to create openings in competition, you have to think about a suite of remedies that are going to create the opportunities to compete and start addressing the scale advantages that were obtained through illegal behavior.

[Ed]

You also launched an investigation into Nvidia last year. And I'd like to get your views on Nvidia from an antitrust perspective more generally. But there was also just some confusion over that investigation because all these news outlets said that the DOJ had subpoenaed them Nvidia and then Nvidia said, no, we never received a subpoena. So I'd love to just get clarification from you. What happened there? Did Nvidia get a subpoena? Was that falsely reported on? Why was there so much confusion with that?

[Scott]

Yeah, there are still some things. I'm free to speak about a lot of things now, but there are things that are confidential that I can't talk about that occur. But what I can say broadly is that AI is a really important focus. And when you think about the areas of competition or where competition can come into place in AI, you have to think both about the hardware infrastructure and you have to think about how that that technology is deployed. And we were looking at all of it. And I think my recommendation is that enforcers should continue looking at all of it. The way to focus in a market like this is look for the choke points and then look for the exclusion. So where are the choke points in AI? Well, let's start with the hardware. They're all pretty obvious, right? It's the equipment that's used to make it, it's asml, right in the Netherlands, it's the fabs, the highly specialized fabs which are in Taiwan, tsmc, and it's the chip design. Now it's easy to say, okay, well chip designs are just science and somebody else can come up with a better design and great. But it's not just the chip design that can create lock ins and modes, it's the software that goes into operating those chips. And so one of the things that people talk about, for example in the context of Nvidia, is its cuda, which is its software layer that people who want to interoperate with Nvidia chips must use and the ability for example, to have a data center that might have workloads running on different kinds of chips and mixing and matching. And so to the extent that we're going to see competition emerge in this space, we're going to need to address some of those choke points, or potentially at least one is by creating more manufacturing and process tool capability. The other is by making it easier to mix and match chips in a data center and elsewhere in order to diversify your dependence on one particular supplier.

[Ed]

I'd also like to get your views on AI in the startup world. This has been probably one of my biggest concerns when it comes to AI from an antitrust perspective. I just see all of these big tech companies investing in all of these AI startups and it feels like they're all kind of investing in each other, collaborating with each other. You've got got Microsoft which was on the board of OpenAI for a while, but they also invested in Mistral and Inflection which compete with OpenAI. You've got Reid Hoffman who was on the board of Microsoft and then he's also the co founder of Inflection. And then all the employees at Inflection suddenly go over to Microsoft. I just see what's happening in AI and it feels like it's all kind of puppeteered by the big dogs in big tech and it feels like they're sort of playing pretend competition but ultimately they're all collaborating with each other. Has been my sense of the situation. What is your read on the AI startup scene and do you think there is legitimate concern for antitrust enforcement as I have on this subject?

[Scott]

This is a significant question and concern that has been raised quite a bit. It's actually something we raised in our proposed remedy in the Google case, which is that if there are query based AI solutions, generative AI solutions that have the potential to compete against search, Google would need to divest its investments, existing investments, and refrain from making additional investments. These are the kinds of things that seem self evident in the context of antitrust. We have an opportunity finally after all these years to Introduce new actors, new players, create new opportunities for companies to go public and create tremendous amount of value. And whether it's through acquisition in form or acquisition in substance, if these massive players are essentially pulling the puppet strings of smaller emerging rivals and disruptive players, then it creates the same kind of antitrust concern and will lead to the same small number of firms controlling our economy. And that's bad for so many different reasons, not the least of which is already our indices are too dependent on a small number of players so that it creates resiliency, risk. And one or two of those players get hurt in the stock market or whole markets. Markets crumble. We need to be more diversified. We need newer voices alongside the bigger companies. We need smaller players nipping at their heels in order to make them more competitive. And we need more companies going public. I think that's been a real deficiency is good companies going public and entering. And frankly, some of these companies might be well suited to unlock value by divesting assets that might be worth more as independent companies than they are as part of a conglomerate.

[Ed]

After Deep Seek happened, I feel like there is an opportunity for the technologists to push back on that argument and say, hey, you know, AI is happening really fast. China's getting really good at AI. Look at this thing they've just created with supposedly less money and less compute. We need to increase, or at least we need to pull back our regulation. We need to make sure that big tech can build bigger AI, more AI. We don't want to be too harsh from a regulatory perspective. I think that's an argument that is beginning to emerge. I just would love to get what would be your response to those concerns.

[Scott]

I think that's a distraction. So first there's Deep Seek. I think we all need to learn a little bit more. If you listen to some, it sounds like they used 20 bucks and an Olive Garden gift certificate to create this major competitor. I think, I think people who understand the industry know that's not true. Right. The models were trained using something called distillation, probably, which is essentially when you copy someone else's stuff. And a lot of the investment, the innovation is in the reasoning part, which is a little less compute intensive. And so that's not to say there weren't really exciting innovations that come from dc. There were, but I think what happened behind it, whether they were circumventing export controls in order to get chips, is something I don't know. But I think those are the kinds of questions that people need to ask. It is a. It is antithetical to our system to say that we need a small number of really big players in order to compete against China. The way to compete against China is not to be more like China. We are at our best when we have a free, open, fair market economy that allows 1,000 flowers to bloom and to innovate. And if anything, we become too dependent on a small number of players, many of whom are not. I mean, these are great companies, but they're global companies, they're not the US Government. Many of them have huge alliances with China and care deeply about China both for manufacturing and for growth. And so we are at our best when we are promoting the development and growth of more companies, when we are forcing more innovation. I would much rather see a world where we have numerous chip suppliers, where we have more onshore manufacturing capability, where we have big players and small players and everybody in between innovating on top of the various different models and structures. Yes, some of this is very capital intensive and some of these markets are going to result in a handful of small big players. Hopefully not. But now our question is, are we going to let those big players now vertically integrate and conglomerate so they can take over every market that relies on that platform? These are the kinds of lessons we learned from the Internet age. We did nothing for 15 years with respect to big tech. And I think we got to a place where everyone in Washington, or at least, least most people in Washington realized that antitrust enforcement was too lax. And rather than having invasive regulation and rules, we're better off creating a market where we can have significant amount of competition and entry. And I think that is far more important. The other thing I will say is in terms of regulation, I sometimes roll my eyes at this because here we are in 2025 and we still don't have any basic privacy regulations. 0. Think about all the data that collected. There's not a single comprehensive privacy bill that's ever made it out of Congress. Right. This is the most unregulated industry relative to its size and its significance that the country has ever seen. So this idea that there's been too much regulation is not something I quite understand. That being said, I think so I push back against this concept that we need a small number of really big players and then we regulate them through government control. That to me sounds like a planned economy. It sounds more like China. I would much rather have a free and open market that keeps these big firms from dominating, allow smaller and medium sized player to get the scale they need in order to compete effectively.

[Ed]

As you look at the state of competition across the US And I think maybe let's put big tech aside because I think it's clear what's at stake there. Which sectors would you say are most in need of antitrust enforcement? In other words, where in the economy, aside from tech, is monopolization most problematic or most egregious?

[Scott]

Number one on my list is healthcare.

[Snoop Dogg]

Okay.

[Scott]

Another area is defense. We had massive consolidation starting in the 90s among our prime contractors. And the government spends a lot of money without enough competition. And too many contracts are sole source or if you're lucky, dual source. And there needs to be more manufacturing, more supply, more prime contractors. I think there's a lot we can do to help save money there. Another is agriculture. Talk to farmers. They are the lifeblood of our economy and our society and our rural communities. They're being squeezed, whether it's seeds, meat packers, tractors. I mean, it is unbelievable. A farmer can't. They can't fix their own tractor. He or she has to go to a specialized retailer, buy expensive parts that might be hours away. They can't fix their own stuff in order to operate on their own farms because of right to repair restrictions. These kinds of things are debilitating for farmers around the country. And if you go to rural communities, they will tell you that they are being squeezed and they need more help.

[Ed]

Everything you've said so far feels so bipartisan. Like, I can't figure out how you could really take issue with any of your positions that have been explained on this podcast. But I'm gonna try, or at least I wanna point out some things that would maybe be said on the Republican side of things.

[Scott]

Not always the Republican side. That's the part I would just. So this issue creates strange bedfellows, right? And so figuring out who favor and who's opposed is not as simple as looking at red or blue. These issues transcend politics, and I think they go to different philosophies on do we want a controlled economy with a small number of players and more regulation, or we do want a decentralized economy with lots of players and perhaps lighter regulation only when necessary in order to promote safety and security.

[Ed]

I love that distinction. Who in your view is on the side of the former? Who in your view in America today, or which kinds of people want more monopolization in America?

[Scott]

The monopolies. So this is actually really the kind of interesting little bit from my experience. For every case we brought, for every monopoly we went against, whether it's there probably were 20 or 30 companies that were asking us to bring the case, not because they wanted a handout, they weren't gonna make any money from our litigation. They just wanted the opportunity to compete. So the dirty little secret is that business actually likes what we do. They're the ones encouraging us to bring cases because they want access to markets, they want supply chains that are affordable, they want greater supply of key inputs. This is something that's quite popular in business. The monopolies though, hate it because the one or two companies in each market that control it don't like it when they're sued. I will say this, they might not like it, but it's better than massive industry wide regulation. It's more surgical, it's more of a scalpel. Two is they invest tremendous amount of money to throw sand in the gears. They'll go after you personally and they'll send people to your house and they'll get op EDS written in the newspaper and they'll go pay university professors to say that you're destroying innovation and this, that and the other thing, you just have to rub, you know, brush that off. But most of the cases that we brought, the only people defending the monopolists were the monopolist or people paid by the monopolist.

[Ed]

So it's basically in line with what we're seeing in government right now, which is the tech oligarchy is emerging where we have a few monopolists who are running around trying to convince everyone that we should maintain these monopolies. And now they're getting cozy with the president. What is your view on these people's relationship with Donald Trump and does it concern you?

[Scott]

Yeah, it concerns me. I mean, I've seen this movie before and it doesn't end well. Right. Like, you know, the role of Google in the Obama administration was well documented in terms of their role, not just in getting the campaign and the data, but in terms of the infiltration in government. We tried to squeeze that out and we tried to say we're gonna put people in, people like me and others who don't care and who are going to focus on representing the public first, not the big companies and the donors. And I worry that if we go right back to that situation, it's going to be a problem. The other is you can't dismiss self dealing, right? And so when companies are advising a government and have something to gain from it, it creates distrust in government. I'll also say, and this to me was a concern is think about the inauguration, right? The day of the inauguration, it was held indoors because supposedly it was too cold to be outside. So in the Capitol rotunda, nice and warm and cozy, you had the CEOs of Google and Apple and Amazon and Meta and others, while the rank and file grassroots supporters were outside freezing their tuchuses off. So. But to me, that's a metaphor for the situation. And I think if the public wants government to work for it and not just big companies, then it needs to say so.

[Ed]

Well, Jonathan, this has been exceptional, and I really appreciate your time. I have one final question for you. If you had to give a piece of advice to young people who are listening to this program, who are interested in government, who are interested in service, and they're trying to figure out how to provide value for our country, what would your advice be?

[Scott]

Have a North Star. So I kept a compass on my desk because it was a reminder that every day, ultimately, my North Star was making sure we had a competitive economy that worked for the broader public. I think developing your North Star early on in your career, understanding what values you hold dear, and then working through public service or organizations around public service in order to further those values, in order to make people's lives better, that's what my advice. It's really easy in Washington. It's really easy in this public policy conversation to get caught up in attention and caught up in ideas and catchphrases. Have a North Star. Start by helping people figure out what you believe in and then work backwards from that.

[Ed]

Jonathan Kanter is the former Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust division of the U.S. department of justice under the Biden administration. During his tenure, he brought major antitrust lawsuits against Google, Google, Apple, Live Nation and Ticketmaster, UnitedHealth, RealPage, American Airlines, the meatpacking industry, and many others. He also previously served as an attorney at the ftc, and he founded his own law firm, Cantor Law Group. Jonathan, this was so great. I really appreciate your time. And I will just say it's very nice to have you out of office because now we get to hear about how things actually work, which is a great benefit. So, you know, there's a silver lining there.

[Scott]

All right, well, it's good to look under the hood every once in a while. And let's go, Mets.

[Ed]

Thanks, Jonathan.

[Scott]

Take care.

[Ed]

This episode was produced by Claire Miller and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our associate producer is Alison Weiss. Mia Silverio is our research lead. Isabella Kinsel is our research associate. Drew Burrows is our technical director, and Catherine Dillon is our executive producer. Thank you for listening to Prof. Giving markets from the Vox Media Podcast network. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow and join us for a fresh take on markets on Monday.

[Scott]

Love.

[Snoop Dogg]

As the world. All right, Sean, you can do this promo. Talking about all the great Vox Media podcasts that are going to be on.

[Scott]

Stage live that south by Southwest this March.

[Snoop Dogg]

You just need a big idea to.

[Ed]

Get people's attention, to help them, you.

[Scott]

Know, keep them from hitting the skip button.

[Snoop Dogg]

I don't know.

[Ed]

I'm going to throw it out to the group.

[Scott]

Chat. Kara, do you have any ideas?

[Snoop Dogg]

In these challenging times, we're a group of mighty hosts who have banded together to fight disinformation by speaking truth to power. Like the Avengers, but with more Spandex. What do you think, Scott? I'm more of an X Man fan myself. Call me Professor. Can I read minds? I can't really read minds, but I can empathize with anyone having a midlife crisis, which is essentially any tech leader. So minds are important, Scott, but we're more than that. I think that you can't really separate minds from feelings. And we need to talk about our emotions and explore the layers of our relationships with our partners, coworkers, our families, neighbors, and our adjacent communities.

[Scott]

I just want to add a touch more. From sports and culture to tech and politics, Vox Media has an all star lineup of podcasts that's great in your feeds, but even better live.

[Ed]

That's it.

[Snoop Dogg]

All Stars.

[Scott]

Get your game on, Go play. Come see a bunch of Vox Media All Stars and also me at south by Southwest on the Vox Media Podcast Podcast stage. Presented by Smartsheet and Intuit. March Eigth through 10th in Austin, Texas. Go to VoxMedia. Com SXSW.

[Ed]

You'll never know if you don't go. You'll never shine if you don't glow.