The concept of "corporate feudalism" is not achievable

In the current political landscape, the Biden administration, with its ties to progressive figures like Elizabeth Warren, has taken an aggressive stance against big tech companies such as Meta, Google, Amazon, and Apple. This move, spearheaded by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), reflects the influence of the Neo-Brandeisians, a group that has dominated antitrust thinking within the Warren movement and the administration.

The Neo-Brandeisians, named after the early 20th-century Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, are concerned that if companies become too rich and powerful, they could potentially take over the country, focusing on political power rather than economic outcomes. This approach, however, is seen as ironic given the current economic situation, where there are numerous issues that regular Americans are concerned about, such as Trump's tariffs, inflation, and Elon Musk's DOGE, among others.

On the other side of the spectrum, the Abundance Agenda, championed by centre-left figures like Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson, and Matt Yglesias, seeks more housing, energy, transit, health care, and other resources. The Agenda, however, remains agnostic about the methods of acquisition, a concern for Derek Thompson, who values the end result as much as the method of acquisition and is wary of enhancing or boosting corporate profits.

Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham law professor, criticises the Abundance Agenda for not addressing corporate power and monopolies. Teachout advocates for breaking up these entities to foster innovation and creativity, a stance that echoes Warren's call for price controls, which both Biden and Harris have, to some degree, echoed.

However, the Neo-Brandeisians' antitrust approach was not seen as a solution to rouse the masses, and the Biden administration and the Harris campaign did not spark populist fire among the American public. In contrast, working-class Americans, particularly Hispanic and Black Americans, have defected to the GOP despite the rhetorical and policy assaults on big corporations.

The Warrenite anti-corporate approach was considered an elite intellectual project that was mostly wrong on the actual economics and failed to spark enthusiasm among voters. This is evident in the 2010s, where there was circumstantial support for the idea that excessive corporate concentration was holding down wages and possibly holding back growth and innovation, but the movement did not gain significant traction.

Lina Khan, the FTC chair under Biden, approached antitrust with a focus on corporate power instead of consumer welfare, leading the FTC in antitrust matters during the administration. Despite this, the focus on antitrust by progressive lawyer types is seen as a sign of their out-of-touchness with what's really ailing the American masses.

In conclusion, the Neo-Brandeisians' antitrust approach and the Abundance Agenda present two different philosophies in the Biden administration. While the Neo-Brandeisians aim to prevent companies from gaining too much political power, the Abundance Agenda seeks more resources without specifying the methods of acquisition. The success of these approaches remains to be seen, as they navigate the complexities of the American economy and political landscape.