Innovation Over Intervention

Make Antitrust Boring Again

Hello friends,

Washington is doing that thing it always does: taking a useful policy tool and turning it into a political weapon. Antitrust used to be boring in the best way. It had a clear test, a clear purpose, and a clear restraint on government power.

Today, it’s being used like a Swiss Army knife for whatever grievance is trending, on the left and increasingly on the right. That’s bad economics, bad governance, and a great way to slow innovation at the exact moment America needs more of it.

This is the core warning in Innovation Over Intervention and it connects directly to a bigger point I’ve made elsewhere: winning the global technological race requires more competition and capacity at home, not more politicized control.

If antitrust is going to exist, it must be governed by the consumer welfare standard. Not political vibes. Not “bigness.” Not “bias.” Real evidence of consumer harm.

The only antitrust test that works

The consumer welfare standard asks four questions:

• Will it raise prices

• Reduce output or choice

• Lower quality

• Slow innovation

If the government can prove consumer harm, enforce the law. If not, get out of the way.

That standard is not a gift to big companies. It’s a restraint on government. It keeps antitrust from becoming economic central planning by lawsuit.

Antitrust is becoming a political multi-tool

The Federal Trade Commission filed an appeal in its Meta case. The point isn’t whether you like Meta. The point is the signal: structural theories and retroactive challenges remain a live strategy, which increases uncertainty for investors and competitors.

The Google search remedies fight keeps pushing antitrust toward industrial policy. DOJ is still emphasizing sweeping remedies in its remedies statement and case materials on the search case page. Even where unlawful conduct is proven, remedies still need to be tethered to consumer welfare, not “restructure the market because we can.”

And look how quickly competition policy gets pulled into cultural fights. The FTC’s debanking warning letters show how easily agencies drift into non-economic missions.

This is the bipartisan trap: the left wants to punish “big.” Parts of the right want to punish “bias.” Either way, antitrust becomes politics-first.

And politics-first antitrust is the opposite of competition.

What tech is actually doing for the U.S. economy

Now, the part Washington keeps skipping: the benefits.

America’s tech sector is driving a historically large private investment cycle in AI and data infrastructure. Projected hyperscaler spending is expected to reach roughly $610 billion in 2026 based on company guidance. Related reporting also describes the capex surge as a broad annual investment cycle across major firms.

This matters for competition because capital formation is the fuel for entry. When expected after-regulation returns fall, the first thing that dies is the marginal project. And the marginal project is often where the next competitor comes from.

Also, these firms are not just apps. They build physical assets in America. A clear example is Amazon’s Project Kuiper satellite facility producing satellites for broadband connectivity. That’s advanced manufacturing and domestic capability.

Data centers and infrastructure investments are increasingly local growth stories too, like Amazon’s planned San Antonio data center and Meta’s boosted West Texas investment to $10 billion.

When policymakers treat profitability reduction as a goal, they are not just fighting “corporate power.” They are changing incentives to build and invest in America.

Your retirement account is in this debate

Americans own these companies through retirement accounts and broad index funds, whether they follow tech policy or not. The scale of retirement assets and equity exposure is visible in retirement market data and household exposure to equities in the Financial Accounts.

So when politicians talk about reducing profitability by force or breaking up firms for political reasons, it doesn’t just punish executives. It hits retirement savers and household wealth.

That should matter to anyone who claims to care about working families.

The biggest barrier to competition in AI is not “bigness.” It’s infrastructure.

Competition in AI is increasingly constrained by infrastructure: energy, transmission, interconnection, data centers, and permitting timelines.

The energy and AI analysis and the data center electricity demand overview emphasize rising electricity demand tied to AI and data centers.

So if Washington wants more competition, it should focus on building capacity and speeding permitting. That’s why actions on removing barriers to AI leadership and updating permitting technology matter, along with the permitting technology action plan.

You can sue your way to a headline. You cannot sue your way to a power plant.

Permitting reform is competition policy.

Why “monopoly” is often a government-made problem

In a free market, durable monopoly is rare because profits attract entry. Consumers substitute. Innovators leapfrog incumbents. Competition is a process, not a snapshot.

Durable monopoly usually requires barriers markets can’t break. And those barriers are often government-made: licensing, permitting, protected markets, trade barriers, and compliance regimes only incumbents can afford.

If policymakers want more competition, the honest agenda is lowering barriers to entry and trade, not punishing success.

For policymakers

Here’s the quick checklist:

• Use the consumer welfare standard as the only guardrail

• Demand evidence of consumer harm, not narratives about “power”

• Stop using antitrust to fight cultural disputes

• Treat permitting, energy, and transmission as pro-competition policy

• Remember that stable rules are part of winning the global technological race

• Remember: uncertainty is a barrier, and barriers are the oxygen of monopoly

Closing

If antitrust exists, it must be disciplined and boring. Consumer welfare. Evidence. Predictable rules.

Because monopoly is not defeated by breaking successful firms into smaller pieces. Monopoly is defeated by making it easy to compete.

That’s the American model. Let’s stop abandoning it.

Let people prosper,

Vance Ginn, Ph.D.