Search This Blog

Tuesday, September 10, 2024

Kamaflage: The Harris Policy Dump

The Harris-Walz campaign has been vibe-a-licious and content-free; its positions on domestic and foreign policy have (with apologies to Hollywood) essentially consisted of open defiance of any presidential campaign norms: “Policy? We ain’t got no policy. We don’t need no policy. We don’t have to show you any stinkin’ policy.”

But the campaign’s policy on policy changed, sort of, the day before the debate, when it went ahead and posted some stinkin’ policy anyway.

In a word, Harris’ policy dump should be seen for what it is: Kamaflage. She uses words that score well with Republicans and moderates, but inverts the meaning of those words, creating an unintelligible stinkin’ mess.

“Kamala Harris will create an Opportunity Economy where everyone has a chance to compete and a chance to succeed – whether they live in a rural area, small town, or big city.” Really? How is she going to do that?

The campaign also promises that Harris would “make it a top priority to bring down costs and increase economic security for all Americans.” It added, “As President, she will fight to cut taxes for more than 100 million working and middle class Americans while lowering the costs of every day needs like health care, housing and groceries.”

How would Harris cut taxes? Not by actually reducing anyone’s taxes, but by increasing spending: “restoring” (i.e. increasing) the amount paid out under two tax credits that provide cash payments to lower income families, most of whom already do not pay federal income taxes. But, as we learned from the ironically named Inflation Reduction Act, pumping more money into the system without increasing the supply of goods and services just devalues the dollar and creates inflation for everyone.

Harris’ campaign calls for both “making our tax system fairer and prioritizing investment and innovation,” while also calling for higher taxes on corporate earnings, quadrupling the tax on corporate distributions through stock buybacks, and increasing the capital gains rate by 40%. With a flourish that would make George Orwell blush, she blithely asserts that tax increases bolster the economy too: “When the government encourages investment, it leads to broad-based economic growth and creates jobs, which makes our economy stronger.” In what alternate reality does raising taxes on investments encourage investments?

A lifelong government employee who never worked in the private sector, Harris apparently envisions herself a preternaturally talented real estate developer. Her campaign’s policy paper claims she has a “comprehensive plan” to build three million more rental units and affordable homes “to end the national housing supply crisis in her first term.” What’s the big plan? She’ll “cut red tape” to build housing faster, while also penalizing companies that “hoard available homes to drive up prices,” and “outlaw new forms of price fixing by corporate landlords.”

Did you follow that? She will cut red tape and build more housing by imposing new red tape in the form of federal rent regulations so that landlords make less money. This is merely contradictory nonsense with poll-tested verbiage. 

She would also give $25,000 to first-time home buyers, “with even more generous support for first-generation homeowners.” Obviously, giving people more money to buy houses means houses will cost more, not less. Note, too, that not all first-time home buyers would be treated equally. Some, such as immigrants (whether here legally or illegally), would get even more than young Americans who are descended from (gasp!) previous homeowners.

Harris also wants you to know that “neighborhood shops, high-tech startups, small manufacturers, and more – are the engines of our economy.”

“Kamala Harris will always support small businesses and invest in entrepreneurs as president,” the campaign vows in employing good Republican words! How will she do this? By expanding set-asides for minority-owned small businesses. She has set a goal of 25 million new business applications (apparently you’ll have to apply to start a small business under Kamala Harris) and would expand the start-up expense deduction, while driving venture capital to the talent that exists all across our country, including in rural areas. Does this portend new geographic investment regulations for venture capital? Note too, that she asserts she will drive this investment at the same time as increasing the tax on investments.

She also calls for the first-ever price regulations for grocery and food businesses, claiming that price gouging is rampant in an industry where the profit margins are usually around 1.5%. She also calls for extending price regulations with respect to health care and prescription drugs. Of course, it’s axiomatic that price regulations reduce supply – so what would happen in the real world is that there would be less food, drugs, and healthcare services, and what’s still produced will cost more too.

The Orwellian theme of using Republican words to Kamaflage socialist policies while asserting that down is up continues throughout the entire package of policies: Secure the borders by hiring more agents to process more immigrants! Reduce crime by making lawful gun ownership harder! Stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, except with respect to Palestinian terrorists! Protect voting by blocking states from taking steps to secure the vote, like imposing ID requirements!

You get the gist. Her policy dump is an incoherent mess put out under the thin guise of poll-tested verbiage in the hope of Kamaflaging the reality that a Harris administration would double down on the dumbest ideas of Sen. Bernie Sanders and the socialist “squad” in the House. The only thing clear from her policy proposals is that Kamala Harris has not changed. She’s only hiding her hard-left values behind verbiage she’s expropriating from her opponents.

Richard Porter is a lawyer in Chicago and a former policy advisor to President George H.W. Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/09/10/kamaflage_harris_policy_dump_151594.html

Illegal Immigrants' Ongoing Crime Spree

 Posts like this are becoming a weekly installment at this point -- and not because we are straining to find content to fit a certain narrative.  We have been witnessing a steady drumbeat of news stories about illegal immigrants committing crimes all across the country for years now.  When ten million unlawful crossings take place, including tens of thousands of 'got-aways' every single month, it's inevitable that an alarming number of bad or dangerous people will be part of that mass flow of humanity.  That's why the border crisis isn't just a national sovereignty issue, but also a public safety and national security concern.  And every violent crime committed by someone who has no right to be in this country in the first place constitutes an extra and outrageous attack on the rule of law.  We'll keep saying it because it's true, and because events justify a continued focus on these matters.  

For the purposes of this piece, let's start in Maryland with this surreal story:


This person was a member of an infamously violent gang, was present the United States illegally, and was the prime suspect in a brutal murder -- and was nevertheless welcomed into a public high school as a student.  Can you imagine being that mother? Can you imagine being any other parent of kids at that school?  How and when did he get into the country, presumably as a minor?  Was he "vetted," without the gang ties coming up, or was he recruited into MS-13 on US soil? Meanwhile, just down the road in Virginia, we have this story, which Leah mentioned yesterday:



The man was encountered, "vetted" and released at our Southern border late last year.  Months later, he was impersonating a police officer while abducting a minor female on her way to the bus.  (This is, of course, entirely separate from the multiple recent incidents involving groups of migrants trying to force their way onto school buses in Southern California).  Out in Colorado, Fox is reporting that four illegal immigrants and gang members who've been arrested in connection with an attempted murder were all encountered, "vetted" and released at the Southern border under the Biden-Harris administration. "ICE confirms to Fox News that all four of the known and suspected Tren de Aragua gang members arrested by police in Aurora, CO in connection to a shooting/attempted murder in July are Venezuelan illegal aliens who were caught and released at the TX border by the Biden admin." Some details:

Jhonnardy Jose Pacheco-Chirinos, who @JennieSTaer reports is a “shot caller” of the gang known as “Cookie”, was apprehended by Border Patrol in Del Rio sector on 10/2/2022, and he was released into the U.S. with a notice to appear. Jhonnarty De Jesus Pacheco-Chirinos was also apprehended by Border Patrol in Del Rio sector on 10/2/2022 and released into the U.S. with a notice to appear. He was terminated from ICE’s Supervision Appearance Program as an absconder when he failed to report to an ICE office.

Nixon Jose Azuaje Perez was apprehended by Border Patrol in Eagle Pass, TX on 8/22/2023 and was released into the U.S. with a notice to appear and paroled into the country. ICE has placed a detainer on him with local authorities. Dixon Jose Azuaje Perez was also apprehended by Border Patrol in Eagle Pass, TX on 8/22/2023, was given a notice to appear, and was released/paroled into the U.S. ICE has placed a detainer on him with local authorities.


It gets worse, under Colorado's 'sanctuary' policies:

Venezuelan brothers Dixon Azuaje-Perez, 20, and Nixon Azuaje-Perez, 19, who are charged with trying to tamper with evidence in the July 28 shooting, were sprung after posting $1,000 bond — and despite Immigration and Customs Enforcement issuing a detainer for their arrests, sources said...Aurora Police Department confirmed to The Post that the two “are no longer in custody.” Homeland Security sources told The Post that the brothers entered the US on Aug. 22, 2023 at a port of entry in Eagle Pass, Texas, using the CBP One app, even though they lacked proper documents to be allowed in. Instead, they claimed to be seeking asylum and were ushered through, sources said. “Sanctuary cities do not protect United States citizens, they only protect criminals,” said former Denver ICE director John Fabbricatore, who is running for Congress in Colorado. “As we see in this case, where two individuals that were let in on the CBP One app were involved in a shooting and were released due to sanctuary policy, and ICE was not notified. Two men who will go back into the community and potentially commit more crimes.”

Within hours of their entry into the US, the siblings were released and believed to be en route to New York — where they told federal authorities they were headed. But the brothers were instead turned up in the sanctuary city of Aurora, where Tren de Aragua members have been taking over whole apartment complexes and terrorizing residents with violent crime...The Biden administration began using the CBP One app for asylum seekers in January 2023 in anticipation of the end of the Trump-era expulsion COVID-era order known as Title 42. Migrants then began using the app to book entry appointments while in Mexico, with the intention that they wouldn’t be exploited by cartels or expose themselves to danger by coming illegally. However, sources say no extra vetting is involved. “There’s hardly any vetting done with that app. So it doesn’t surprise me that gang members get in so easily and frequently,” a source told The Post. The app allows 1,450 migrants to enter the US each day by availing themselves at ports of entry in Mexico.

These illegal immigrants would be categorized separately from "border encounters," because they came in quasi-legally under the Biden-Harris CBP One app system for "asylum seekers."  At first, I thought this incident stemmed from the same Denver-area armed robbery and assault incident involving four illegal immigrant gang members that we'd previously mentioned, in which the group pistol-whipped employees of a jewlery store.  No, that was a separate crime, featuring a different foursome of illegal immigrant gang members:

Four Venezuelan migrants believed to have links to the notorious prison gang Tren de Aragua were indicted Wednesday in the violent armed robbery of a Denver jewelry store  including two migrants who have previously been arrested in other states, The Post can reveal. Three of the alleged gangbangers — Oswaldo Lozada-Solis, 23, Jesus Daniel Lara Del Toro, 20, and Jean Franco Torres-Roman, 21 — were charged with armed robbery and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado announced Wednesday. The fourth migrant, Edwuimar Nazareth Colina-Romero, 18, was charged with transporting stolen goods and possession of stolen goods. The charges stem from a June 25 robbery in which two female staffers at Joyeria El Ruby Jewelry Store were pistol-whipped and threatened with death.

Two of these charged assailants, in addition to entering the country unlawfully, were also arrested for other crimes in two other sanctuary jurisdictions -- New York and Chicago.  Thanks to pro-illegal immigration and pro-crime 'sanctuary' policies, they were free to make their way to yet another sanctuary city to commit more crimes.  Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are ardent defenders of 'sanctuary' policies.  No wonder hardened gang-bangers feel emboldened to exploit our laws and border to come here, with an expectation of relative impunity for other criminal activity.  And it's not just major cities facing the fallout:


Every state is effectively a border state.  But by all means, Democrats, keep screaming 'racism' at anyone who views as unacceptable ten million illegal crossings, two million known got-aways, and a crime wave from people with no legal right to be in the United States:

Who picked ABC to run the presidential debate?

 Step back from all the discussion about Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Donald Trump, debate preparations, microphones, and all the rest. Start with a basic question: How did the first, and possibly only, Harris-Trump debate become an ABC News debate?

The answer is that President Joe Biden picked ABC because he thought it offered him the friendliest and most advantageous forum in which to debate Trump. Of course, he picked CNN, too, and while CNN was not unfriendly to Biden, the debate will be remembered for the president’s vivid, real-time display of his senescence more than for anything the CNN moderators did.

It happened quickly in May, when Biden cockily challenged Trump to two debates. “Donald Trump lost two debates to me in 2020, and since then, he hasn’t shown up for a debate,” Biden said in a video released on May 15. “Now, he is acting like he wants to debate me again. Well, make my day, pal. I’ll even do it twice.”

Biden proposed two debates, laying out conditions that ruled out the possibility of Fox News handling either debate. The Biden campaign quickly settled on CNN for the first debate, scheduled for June 27, and ABC for the second, scheduled for Sept. 10.

Given Biden’s mental and physical decline, the “make my day” challenge had to be the dumbest move ever made by a presidential candidate. Trump sensed that Biden didn’t really want to debate, that Biden was offering two debates to Trump on terms that Biden believed Trump would find unacceptable and refuse. Then, Biden could accuse Trump of being too chicken to debate.

Trump decided to call Biden’s bluff and quickly accept both debates. “I am ready and willing to debate Crooked Joe at the two proposed times in June and September,” Trump wrote on Truth Social the same day Biden issued his challenge. Saying there should also be more debates, Trump added, “Just tell me when, I’ll be there. Let’s get ready to rumble!!!”

Trump knew that neither CNN nor ABC was friendly territory, but he believed that Biden just wasn’t up to debating, so the network didn’t really matter. The debates were on, and Biden rolled toward disaster on June 27. (In the end, Trump praised the CNN moderators’ fairness.) By the end of July, Biden was out, pushed to withdraw from the race by a secretive group of powerful Democratic Party powerbrokers. Harris was instantly chosen as his successor.

Harris quickly embraced the ABC debate for the same reason Biden proposed it — because it would be the friendliest and most advantageous forum for her candidacy. She claimed that Trump had already agreed to debate her on ABC on Sept. 10 and that if he did not, he would be “backing out” of a debate he had already accepted. It was a baseless claim, of course. Trump had agreed to debate Biden — “I am ready and willing to debate Crooked Joe” — and not Kamala Harris, who was not a candidate for president when Trump accepted Biden’s challenge.

Many in the media took up Harris’s framing of the situation, reporting that Trump might “back out” of a debate to which he never agreed. In any event, Trump eventually accepted ABC as the debate network. When he did, Harris then turned around and claimed that the rules of the debate should be changed to exclude a provision to mute a candidate’s microphone when he or she was not speaking. After weeks of wrangling, she appears to have lost that fight.

So, ABC it is. Will the network’s moderators conduct a straight-down-the-middle debate? Or will they conduct a debate more along the lines of their own daily coverage of the news? That’s unknown, but on the latter, ABC’s news coverage, look at a new report from the conservative Media Research Center.

“MRC analysts reviewed all 100 campaign stories that aired on ABC’s World News Tonight from the day Harris entered the race (July 21) through September 6, including weekends,” MRC wrote. “Our analysts found 25 clearly positive statements about Harris from reporters, anchors, voters, or other nonpartisan sources, with zero negative statements — none. That computes to a gravity-defying 100% positive spin score for the vice president. As for Trump, our analysts found just five clearly positive comments, vs. 66 negative statements, for a dismal 7% positive (93% negative) spin score.”

The MRC team explained that its analysts omitted “partisan comments, as well as ‘horse race’ assessments about the candidates’ poll standings and prospects.” Doing that meant that yes, ABC viewers did hear negative comments about Harris, but “all of them were from Trump, his campaign team, or other Republicans — never from reporters or nonpartisan sources.” With Trump, on the other hand, ABC voices supplied a lot of the negative comments.

The MRC report will not come as a surprise to anyone tracking media coverage during what even Harris partisans admitted was a period of extraordinarily positive treatment of the vice president’s new campaign. Biased, pro-Harris coverage certainly contributed to what came to be known as the Harris “sugar high” of rising polls and fawning news treatment. 

There are now signs that the “sugar high” is wearing off, albeit slowly. Will it shoot back up or continue to abate? We’ll see what role the ABC debate plays in providing the answer.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/3148758/who-picked-abc-run-presidential-debate/

Grifols Holders Call on Family, Brookfield to Offer ‘Fair Price’

 Some large Grifols SA shareholders are increasing pressure on the Spanish blood plasma firm to seek a substantial premium in talks with suitor Brookfield Asset Management.

Spanish law firm Araoz & Rueda, known for advising large investors in the country, has been retained by several significant shareholders to help avert what they worry could be a lowball offer, according to founding partner Alejandro Fernández de Araoz. Toronto-based Brookfield and the Grifols family in July made an approach to buy the company and take it private.

Grifols’ board last week postponed the company’s capital markets day as the potential acquirers carry out due diligence.

Fernández de Araoz said by phone that they expect the family to act properly and “have been disappointed to see the CMD canceled,” adding that the Grifols clan needs to apply a “fair price.”

“I can’t say what a good price is, but if you think about fair value, you may look at the pre-short attack share price of above €15 or the average analyst target price,” he said.

Grifols’ voting shares — or class A stock — closed Tuesday at about €9.23, giving the company a market capitalization of €5.9 billion ($6.5 billion). Any proposal from Brookfield could give the company an equity value of roughly €8 billion, Bloomberg News has reported.

Fernández de Araoz said the investors aren’t acting in concert and still retain the freedom to act independently. Still, they could pose a counterweight to the Grifols family, which owns roughly 31% of their namesake company’s A shares.

Under Spanish law, investors representing more than 3% of the capital in a public company can call for extraordinary shareholder meetings, seek board representation and have extensive information rights. Spain’s Expansion newspaper reported the investors’ plans earlier.

The takeover approach came as the manufacturer of drugs made from human blood plasma tries to recover from an attack in January from short-seller Gotham City Research.

Gotham targeted Grifols by releasing a report in which it criticized the company’s corporate governance, accounting practices and certain transactions with third-parties linked to the Grifols family. In the aftermath of the attack, family members stepped down from all executive positions at Grifols but continue to sit on the board.

Representatives for Grifols and Brookfield declined to comment. Mark Carney, chair of Brookfield Asset Management, is also chair of Bloomberg Inc.

Biden's FAA Punishes SpaceX, Delays Starship Rocket Launch By Months

 Does the Biden Administration have it in for Elon Musk? ... Absolutely.

The radical leftists in the Biden administration have ramped up their weaponization of federal agencies against Musk's companies, retaliating as the world's richest man and top Trump supporter champions free speech on X during this crucial election cycle. Musk has made it his mission to ensure the Deep State's censorship machine has tentacles partially or entirely removed from the X platform. Democrats are furious about this (crying about the proliferation of 'hate speech' under the guise of trying to re-control the platform) as their dying legacy corporate media allies have severe problems in narrative control.

In continued federal action against Musk, the Federal Aviation Administration has delayed SpaceX's Starship launch by two months. This is longer than what was previously discussed between the space company and federal regulators regarding a mid-September launch.

According to a new SpaceX update

We recently received a launch license date estimate of late November from the FAA, the government agency responsible for licensing Starship flight tests. This is a more than two-month delay to the previously communicated date of mid-September. This delay was not based on a new safety concern, but instead driven by superfluous environmental analysis. The four open environmental issues are illustrative of the difficulties launch companies face in the current regulatory environment for launch and reentry licensing.

This is not the first time the Biden-Harris team has weaponized federal agencies against SpaceX to impede launches... 

Late last year, Musk described the apparent 'beef' that the Biden administration has had with him. Last September, he told All-In Podcast host entrepreneur David Sacks:

"...there does seem to be some significant increase in the weaponization of government and really sort of misuse of prosecutorial discretion in many areas... I think this is really a dangerous thing for there to be partisan politics with government agencies."

Musk continued:

"I don't think the whole administration has it out for me.

"But I think there's probably aspects of the administration... or aspects of interests aligned with President Biden who probably do not wish good things for me."

Here's what X users are saying... 

In addition to Biden-Harris' weaponization of federal agencies, Musk has also observed lawfare from Jeff Bezos' struggling Blue Origin rocket company to impede launches.

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/bidens-strikes-spacex-starship-rocket-launch-delayed-months

Google and US attorneys kick off ad tech trial with clash over defining the market

 Are the technologies that power online advertising all part of one giant market, or are there distinct markets within the multibillion-dollar industry?

The answer is critical to Google's defense in an antitrust case brought by the US Justice Department that went to trial on Monday in a packed Alexandria, Va., courtroom.

"Market definition, not just in this case, but in most antitrust cases, has potential to be outcome determinative," said former DOJ antitrust attorney Dan McCuaig, who is now a partner with Cohen Milstein.

The highly anticipated trial comes on the heels of Google's defeat in August an antitrust case where a Washington, D.C., judge ruled the tech giant illegally monopolized the market for online search engines.

For Google (GOOG), the broader the market, the more likely it can overcome federal prosecutors' claims that it illegally monopolized markets for online advertising technology in violation of antitrust laws.

"The DOJ wants to slice and dice the market," Google's lawyer Karen Dunn of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison said in her opening statement. Dunn characterized the government's claims as gerrymandered in order to eliminate the existence of substitute online advertising services that could broaden the market.

"I think it's a clever play by Google," McCuaig said. "I don't think it ultimately carries the day."

McCuaig said Google may have relied too strongly on a Supreme Court case involving American Express, in which the high court ruled that credit card networks were one market with two sides.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia is seen Monday, Sept. 9, 2024, in Alexandria, Va. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough)
Google's day in court: The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria, Va. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

According to the DOJ, businesses that offer technology to automate sale and purchase of ads on the open web, or "open web display ads," operate in distinct markets. The technologies are responsible for processing more than $24 billion in online ad sales each year.

Prosecutors claim that Google illegally monopolized three markets for open web display ads: the publishing ad server market, the ad exchange market, and the advertiser ad network market.

Together, the technologies make it possible for website owners to organize and offer display ad space on their web and mobile pages. For advertisers, they help evaluate those advertising opportunities. Exchanges then process auctions for the ad, in real time, most of which is automated using algorithms.

There is "no such thing" as a "tool for open web display ads," Google lawyer Dunn told US District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, who will decide the case.

Instead, Dunn argued, ad tech tools are just part of a larger online advertising market that, in addition to algorithm-driven or "programatic" auctions, also includes digital ad deals negotiated human-to-human.

That larger market, Google said, is a single, two-sided, rapidly changing one in which Google competes with other tech giants, including Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, TikTok, Roku, Disney, and Yahoo Finance's parent company Yahoo.

On top of that, Google said it also competes with ad tech companies that deal more exclusively in the businesses of supplying ad tech for publishers, advertisers, or exchange platforms.

However, on Monday, the government's first four witnesses suggested that separate ad tech markets do, in fact, exist.

James Avery, founder and CEO of the ad tech company Kevel, testified that his company serves only the publisher side of the industry by building proprietary ad technologies for publishers. One goal of that type of technology, he said, is to make website owners less reliant on third-party ad tech, like Google's publisher server DoubleClick for Publishers.

Avery said his company stopped trying to compete with Google around 2012, once he realized that he couldn't overcome the tech giant's rules that walled off rival publisher servers from accessing Google's real-time inventory on Google's exchange, AdX.

Avery added that his publisher-side technology does not preference exchanges unless a customer chooses to do so.

"We have no horse in that race," Avery said, distinguishing Kevel's market from other parts of the ad tech stack.

Jeannie Rhee, a lawyer representing Google in the Department of Justice's antitrust case against the tech giant, leaves the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for a break in the trial, Monday, Sept. 9, 2024, in Alexandria, Va. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough)
Gerrymandered? Jeannie Rhee, a lawyer representing Google in the Department of Justice's antitrust case against the tech giant, leaves the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for a break in the trial, Monday, Sept. 9, 2024, in Alexandria, Va. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Another witness, Joshua Lowcock, president of the advertising data firm Quad (QUAD), testified that open web display ads, or "programmatic" display ads, are unique because they can be placed anywhere on the internet.

Those ads are different from ads run on platforms such as Facebook (META), TikTok, or Amazon (AMZN), which run their own auctions on proprietary "walled garden" ad tech software.

"Direct" transactions, otherwise known as human-to-human transactions, are another market still, Lowcock said, in that they are negotiated between real people.

"They are not substitutes," Lowcock said about the different ad platforms.

Lowcock admitted on cross-examination that his firm had suggested that a client replace ad spending on programmatic ads with ads bought through social media platforms, which tend to own their own ad auctions.

Eric Mahr, right, a lawyer representing Google in the Department of Justice's antitrust case against the tech giant, leaves the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for a lunch break in the trial, Monday, Sept. 9, 2024, in Alexandria, Va. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough)
Day one: Eric Mahr, right, a lawyer representing Google, leaves the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for a lunch break in the trial, Monday, Sept. 9, 2024, in Alexandria, Va. (AP Photo/Stephanie Scarbrough) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Whether a consumer would substitute one product for another is integral to how Judge Brinkema will evaluate the DOJ's suggested markets.

In theory, if a substitute exists, the market should be defined broadly enough to include it.

Andrew Casale, founder and CEO of ad exchange Index Exchange, testified for the government that exchanges are yet another part of the ad tech ecosystem, along with walled garden ad tech software that does not integrate with third-party exchanges.

"I view these as separate businesses," Casale said. "We only compete in one business."

One antitrust expert who talked with Yahoo Finance doesn't buy what the Feds are selling.

Alden Abbott, a Mercatus Center research fellow and former general counsel for the US Federal Trade Commission, said that despite the DOJ's claims, he views Microsoft, TikTok, Yahoo, and others as Google's online advertising competitors.

"I don't see how this is an antitrust problem," Abbott said. "Where are the barriers to entry?"

Abbott and McCuaig said antitrust cases ultimately depend on the welfare of consumers, and the DOJ's case fails if it cannot prove that consumers are harmed by Google.

One obstacle to proving consumer harm, they said, is that the publisher- and advertiser-side technologies have no independent consumer demand absent their counterparts.

"Where is a harm to consumer welfare?" Abbott asked. "Antitrust, in my mind, is not supposed to design a market," Abbott said. "That's not a role that governments should play."

It's uncertain how long the trial will last. Google's case over the DOJ's search monopoly claims lasted 10 weeks. Google will have a chance to call its own witnesses once the government rests its case.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clash-of-the-titans-google-and-us-attorneys-kick-off-ad-tech-trial-with-clash-over-defining-the-market-195844829.html