@halsinger
Account based inUnited States
About this account
- Account based in
- United States
- Connected via
- United States App Store
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Director @ EconOne | Editorial Board @TheSlingOrg | NYT: "one expert for the plaintiffs" | Prospect: "preeminent watchdog of The Economist's most wrong takes"
Joined December 2011
- Tweets6.1K
- Following3K
- Followers17.4K
- Likes45.3K
Hal Singer retweeted
For @NYMag, I spoke with John Fetterman’s colleagues and former staffers and about the senator’s past and future
nymag.com/intelligencer/arti…
Wait. I thought by allowing two of the largest studios to merge, Paramount would no longer leave California, which was going to save jobs. So confused. Perhaps these "broad layoffs" are merger synergies under the consumer welfare standard? Via @DealBook.
you can have really strong antitrust laws on the books and bring important cases but it won't matter much if you're too cowardly to stand up to corporate threats or blackmail and see a case though to trial.
And the Paramount-Warner deal goes through because Bonta fucked over the opposition. After this one, it's hard to see Democratic state enforcers as a credible check on corporate power. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Hal Singer retweeted
Okay folks, I verified it: This settlement does not require Paramount to make any more films than the two studios made last year. In fact, it lets them make fewer films.
People keep saying Paramount has agreed to "make" 30 films. In fact, the CEO of AMC theaters just said that's why he backed the deal. nitter.cf/CEOAdam/status/2102152…
But no, Ellison may have said that. But that's not what he signed.
Ellison did not agree to make -- that is, produce -- 30 films a year. He agreed to make 15 films a year. He only agreed to distribute the rest. (See III.1.a.d., below.)
That does not require the combined company make any new films. In fact, the company can make 3 fewer films than they made last year. Because last year they produced 18 films.
20% of the 30 have to be tentpole films. The rest can be of any size, with whatever marketing budget the company deems is customary.
Please read the fine print. This "deal" is not what it purports to be.
Today was an important day in the history of Hollywood. State Attorneys General settled their anti-trust case, so Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Brothers will proceed.
I signed on to this transaction back in April because David Ellison pledged to make at least 30 movies per year (66% more than the number made by the two studios last year) and promised to respect theatrical windows.
Now with the AG action, those commitments and more will be backed up by a binding five year “Consent Decree.”
But I never had any doubt in David Ellison’s desire to support theatrical exhibition. In his heart, he is a consummate movie maker.
Want proof? Again watch Skydance’s Top Gun: Maverick, as I did this weekend.
And he has a highly able team of executives in place at both studios.
My prediction: Paramount and Warner will be in extraordinarily capable hands.
Had the pleasure of interviewing Lindsay Owens (@owenslindsay1), about her new book, "Gouged: The End of a Fair Price--And What That Means for Your Wallet" on The Slingshot.
Here's a snippet where Lindsay explains the simple yet powerful role of the price tag in protecting consumers. And how surveillance pricing threatens that protection. Go give it a listen!
Special thanks to my co-host Darren Bush and special guest @DylanGyauchL for crashing the party!
Watch the full episode here:
thesling.org/video/slingshot…
Hal Singer retweeted
Independent oversight negotiated with the company is not a replacement for enforcing the law. Companies love this option for a reason. Remember when Facebook voluntarily set up an 'Oversight Board'?
Holding companies accountable is the govt's job, not creating toothless panels.
Hal Singer retweeted
"By settling with Paramount, the states’ attorneys general reinforce the dangerous message that there are few real checks left on the people who aim to control every aspect of American life and culture."
Statement from Barry Lynn:
openmarketsinstitute.org/pub…
Hal Singer retweeted
Just kidding!
Every time Paramount shoots itself in the foot, these AGs have responded by shooting themselves in the head.
Every major deal will now feature a ticking fee to gin up a bond and a threat to leave California.
Hal Singer retweeted
The worst part of Bonta caving on the Paramount merger is that it's a big flashing signal to every other company that there is no antitrust enforcement in America and you can bully your way into getting whatever you want. It's a monumentally bad decision.
How is the editorial board going to protect writers, directors, and independent producers?
thesling.org/hollywoods-labo…
Hal Singer retweeted
And the Paramount-Warner deal goes through because Bonta fucked over the opposition. After this one, it's hard to see Democratic state enforcers as a credible check on corporate power. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Hal Singer retweeted
Because a bunch of college administrators told them paying athletes was causing problems and if there’s one constituency Dem senators listen to it’s college administrators.
I am embarrassed that so many Ds voted to bring this bill to the floor. The party stands for nothing if it can't figure out on what side of the worker exploitation debate it stands.
Quick antitrust tutorial here: Antitrust exemptions are meant to REDUCE a power imbalance in the workplace, not to ENHANCE it.
And speaking of poorly justified antitrust exemptions, here's another terrible proposal. Maybe the sponsors of this bill don't want predominantly Black student athletes to keep *any* portion of their marginal revenue product?
thebignewsletter.com/p/monop…
I am embarrassed that so many Ds voted to bring this bill to the floor. The party stands for nothing if it can't figure out on what side of the worker exploitation debate it stands.
Quick antitrust tutorial here: Antitrust exemptions are meant to REDUCE a power imbalance in the workplace, not to ENHANCE it.
As @CapitolKVD points out, the bill would not restrict payments to coaches and support staff, even though spending on those items are also increasing. Only payments to the (predominantly Black) athletes are problematic, @SenatorCantwell?
