Slate Money – "Hipster Antitrust" (June 19, 2021)

Main Theme & Purpose

This episode centers on the appointment of Lina Khan as the new chair of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at just 32 years old, heralding a significant shift in antitrust philosophy. The hosts—Felix Salmon, Emily Peck, and Stacey Marie Ishmael—discuss what Khan’s “hipster antitrust” (or neo-Brandeisian antitrust) approach means for big tech, competition, and consumer protection. The episode also explores broader tech narratives, the power of Silicon Valley, the labor practices at Amazon, and shifting media/tech relationships.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Who Is Lina Khan and Why Is She Important?

[02:48–06:00]

• Emily introduces Lina Khan, emphasizing her as a pivotal figure due to her groundbreaking law review article advocating for a new-old way to think about antitrust.
  • "She wrote this great Law Review article outlining a new way. A new way. That’s an old way to think about antitrust." — Emily [02:53]
• Khan’s theory highlights not just behavioral issues but structural ones—arguing that the integrated nature of companies like Amazon (platform + merchant), Facebook, and Apple is inherently anti-competitive.

2. Neo-Brandeisian (Hipster) Antitrust and the FTC Mandate

[04:33–07:54]

• Khan was unexpectedly promoted to chair after being confirmed as a commissioner, a move by Biden that sidestepped tougher confirmation politics.
• The bipartisan dislike of big tech (for different reasons) enabled her smooth confirmation:
  • "The vote in the Senate was 69-28. Doesn’t seem controversial. That’s incredible in 2021 to get that kind of bipartisan agreement." — Emily [04:34]
• Hipster antitrust asserts that antitrust enforcement shouldn't require quantifiable consumer harm (like higher prices, per Bork’s view) but should focus on broader anti-competitive structures and behaviors.

3. Popular and Political Influence of Antitrust

[07:54–09:40]

• The issue resonates publicly, crossing into pop culture (e.g., TMZ asking Elizabeth Warren about breaking up Facebook).
• Tech companies now pervade everyday life, increasing scrutiny:
  • "Tech companies now inform every single thing that you do with your life from the second that you wake up until the moment that you go to sleep." — Stacey [08:28]

4. Data Monopolies and Consumer Harm

[09:40–13:08]

• Lina Khan's antitrust vision includes data control as a vector of consumer harm.
• Stacey explains how data is used as a “moat” to stifle competition; Emily and Stacey highlight that large tech companies’ reach into data isn’t just an antitrust issue, but a systemic privacy concern.
  • "The data that these companies have been collecting for years... are being combined in ways that are very powerful and much more powerful than we could have imagined 15 years ago." — Stacey [11:26]

5. Limits of Breaking Up Big Tech – Beyond Antitrust

[13:08–15:49]

• Felix pushes back that breaking up big companies won’t resolve all privacy issues:
  • "The standard antitrust remedy of break up the big companies would not solve the privacy problems... it is absolutely real. They're entrenched." — Felix [13:08]

6. Clarity and Communication in Policy — Lina Khan’s Impact

[15:49–17:35]

• The hosts praise Khan's clear writing and ability to frame complex issues simply and accessibly, comparing her to Elizabeth Warren’s impactful metaphors (e.g., toaster/consumer finance analogy).

7. Changing Tech and Media Narratives

[19:13–29:26]

• Discussion of a lengthy New Yorker article about Silicon Valley's shifting self-narrative and the launch of Andreessen Horowitz’s content platform, “Future.”
• Tech titans like Marc Andreessen are bypassing journalists to control the narrative and connect directly with fans/investors.
• Debate over whether journalism has grown more skeptical (post-Theranos, post-WeWork), or whether public excitement for tech—visible on Reddit, TikTok—still drives uncritical investment behaviors.
  • "Your share price, your valuation ... is entirely a function of how many optimists you can find and how much you can persuade them to buy into your narrative." — Felix [27:16]

8. The Question of Real Innovation

[30:46–32:46]

• Emily and Stacey discuss the mixed legacy of tech innovation: while pandemic-era advances (remote work, digital platforms) are remarkable, life-altering innovation for marginalized groups (like insulin pumps or wheelchairs) lags.

9. Amazon Labor Practices — New York Times Investigation

[32:56–41:32]

• The hosts break down the New York Times’ exposé on Amazon’s Staten Island fulfillment center:
  • Amazon’s system treats workers as disposable, tracking bathroom breaks and automating mass firings.
  • "There’s all these processes in place to get them out... after three years. And they actually have a pay to quit program." — Emily [34:28]
  • During 2020, Amazon hired 500,000 people; turnover at some facilities exceeds 150%.

10. Is Cultural Change Possible at Amazon?

[37:34–41:32]

• Felix muses whether Amazon could shift to being worker-friendly if new CEO Andy Jassy had Jeff Bezos’ genuine backing.
• Stacey is skeptical, citing deeply misaligned incentives between labor and management.
• The conversation touches on broader inequities in big tech (retail vs. HQ) and the limits of “nice” management without genuine power shifts.

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• “She wrote this great Law Review article outlining a new way. A new way. That’s an old way to think about antitrust.”
  — Emily [02:53]
• “Tech companies now inform every single thing that you do with your life from the second that you wake up until the moment that you go to sleep."
  — Stacey [08:28]
• “The data that these companies have been collecting for years... are being combined in ways that are very powerful and much more powerful than we could have imagined 15 years ago.”
  — Stacey [11:26]
• “The standard antitrust remedy of break up the big companies would not solve the privacy problems... it is absolutely real. They're entrenched.”
  — Felix [13:08]
• “Your share price, your valuation...is entirely a function of how many optimists you can find and how much you can persuade them to buy into your narrative.”
  — Felix [27:16]
• “There’s all these processes in place to get them out...after three years. And they actually have a pay to quit program.”
  — Emily [34:28]

Important Segment Timestamps

• Introduction & Lina Khan’s Appointment: [00:10–06:00]
• Hipster Antitrust Philosophy: [06:00–09:40]
• Antitrust, Data, and Privacy: [09:40–15:49]
• Lina Khan’s Communication Gift: [15:49–17:35]
• Silicon Valley Narrative & Media: [19:13–29:26]
• Innovation – For Whom?: [30:46–32:56]
• Amazon Labor Practices: [32:56–41:32]
• Could Amazon’s Culture Change?: [37:34–41:32]

Memorable Moments

• Emily describes explaining antitrust to her daughter, who instantly links it to tech companies owning data [09:40].
• Felix’s mild rant on the awkwardness of “financial literacy” PR efforts [18:25].
• The group’s frustration at Amazon's algorithmic management and firing via email [35:55].
• Stacey’s skepticism about Amazon’s ability (or desire) to undertake real pro-labor transformation [38:19].

Numbers Round Highlights [41:37–47:47]

• Felix: 365% increase in rubber footwear sales year-over-year (the pandemic, ugly shoe trend, and fashion).
• Emily: 15% decline in childcare workforce since the pandemic, and the geographic mismatch in supply/demand for child care.
• Stacey: 12,000 megawatts of power generation offline in Texas due to heat-induced power grid strain.

Tone & Style

The hosts maintain their signature blend of wit, insight, and skepticism, challenging each other and punctuating hard news with relatable, personal asides and pop culture references. They balance policy explanation with sharp observation and a pinch of dry humor.

Conclusion

This episode is essential listening for anyone interested in antitrust’s future, as Lina Khan’s rise signals a sea change in how the U.S. government may regulate the power of tech giants. The conversation reaches from theory to practice—touching on data, labor, media, and the challenges of (and for) innovation in tech—delivered with the Slate Money team’s usual candor and intelligence.