Righties, another question, on antitrust

Craig234 said:

Actually, I think that's one of the easier things - a government that can break up AT&T can break up monopolies. There are lots of experts who can advise on how to do it. The hard part is the politics of it IMO. You don't put checks and balances on greed, you simply deal with the organizations. It doesn't 'kill capitalism and entrepreneurship' to end monopolies, it helps them.

Click to expand...

~ So ... then the question should be ' Why are we not doing this ' ? :shock:

Craig234 said:

Actually, I think that's one of the easier things - a government that can break up AT&T can break up monopolies. There are lots of experts who can advise on how to do it. The hard part is the politics of it IMO. You don't put checks and balances on greed, you simply deal with the organizations. It doesn't 'kill capitalism and entrepreneurship' to end monopolies, it helps them.

Click to expand...

The government created the AT&T monopoly.

LosAngelesAngel said:

~ So ... then the question should be ' Why are we not doing this ' ? :shock:

Click to expand...

"The hard part is the politics of it IMO." - and your sig worries me, perhaps the most harmful bit of propaganda in the US in the last century.

jimbo said:

I take it you are looking for a specific opinion to confirm your own opinion, and that wasn't it.

Click to expand...

I take it your reading comprehension is terrible.

jimbo said:

Government is the world's largest monopoly. When in power they tend to create monopolies.

I don't think government is ever done honestly.

Click to expand...

It's like 'misguided right-wing fortune cookies'.

"Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken

jimbo said:

Nope. Government is the greater threat. Corporations that get too large soon are faced with fierce competition. Ma Bell is the classic example. Government decided that it was in the public interest to have only one phone company. The only choice the public had was whether you rented the black phone or paid extra for a different color. Once government got out, dozens of new companies gave the public what they wanted. Today you can buy hundreds of different phones from hundreds of different companies at half the Ma Bell price.

Click to expand...

Ya, when Government got out, that's when AT&T broke up.

"In 1974, the U.S. Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T based on complaints by MCI and other long-distance service providers. The lawsuit went unresolved for eight years. But in 1982, the company settled with the government under conditions ordained by Judge Harold H. Greene of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.

The landmark settlement required AT&T to divest its local operating companies and limit its services to the long-distance market. Hence, in 1984, Michigan Bell became part of Ameritech, one of seven regional “Baby Bells” that assumed control of local calling services."

Love the alt-right alt-history alt-facts.

Craig234 said:

Ya, when Government got out, that's when AT&T broke up.

"In 1974, the U.S. Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T based on complaints by MCI and other long-distance service providers. The lawsuit went unresolved for eight years. But in 1982, the company settled with the government under conditions ordained by Judge Harold H. Greene of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.

The landmark settlement required AT&T to divest its local operating companies and limit its services to the long-distance market. Hence, in 1984, Michigan Bell became part of Ameritech, one of seven regional “Baby Bells” that assumed control of local calling services."

Love the alt-right alt-history alt-facts.

Click to expand...

Did you actually read your post?

"In 1974, the U.S. Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T"

The government formed the AT&T monopoly. Years later the government filed suit against their own self created monopoly.

jimbo said:

Did you actually read your post?

"In 1974, the U.S. Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against AT&T"

The government formed the AT&T monopoly. Years later the government filed suit against their own self created monopoly.

Click to expand...

Did you actually read your post? Yes, the government created the AT&T monopoly. You said it only ended when the government 'got out', not when the government took anti-trust action. The opposite is what happened. The government broke it up, not when they 'got out'.

Craig234 said:

Did you actually read your post? Yes, the government created the AT&T monopoly. You said it only ended when the government 'got out', not when the government took anti-trust action. The opposite is what happened. The government broke it up, not when they 'got out'.

Click to expand...

You want to discuss semantics? Or issues?

LosAngelesAngel said:

➡ But that doesn't happen magically; left alone, they'll merge, merge again, and merge some more into behemoth monopolies and start making those excessive profits. The only way to prevent that I know of is for the government to intervene. Of course, corrupt government regulates corruptly - allowing ally monopolies, while abusing the power to take action against enemies.

~ Yes - and the question is how ...? How does an untrustworthy dysfunctional government intervene in such matters successfully without killing capitalism and entrepreneurship ? Greed is a difficult thing to put checks and balances on . ����

[ P.S. - I ain't no "rightie" but here I am anyway ]

Click to expand...

Actually, the exact opposite is true. AT&T controlled all telecommunications in the U.S. before they were broken up. Their service was dismal. Many of us can remember paying a fortune to make a long distance call on the holidays with terrible reception if you could even get through. After the breakup, it paved the way for innovation in the areas of satellite and cellular service and most importantly, it made companies in the telecommunications industry compete for the customer. This is the result of breaking up AT&T. It was not the motivation but it is the result.

Stealers Wheel said:

Actually, the exact opposite is true. AT&T controlled all telecommunications in the U.S. before they were broken up. Their service was dismal. Many of us can remember paying a fortune to make a long distance call on the holidays with terrible reception if you could even get through.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you were disagreeing with in his post, but I've seen in old movies, long distance calls were a big deal. Someone would get one, and everyone in the house would be told, "be quiet! It's LONG DISTANCE!" and everyone would stand and watch them on the phone. I remember when 0 and 411 got you to people immediately. Before that, all calls were made through operators...

Craig234 said:

I'm not sure what you were disagreeing with in his post, but I've seen in old movies, long distance calls were a big deal. Someone would get one, and everyone in the house would be told, "be quiet! It's LONG DISTANCE!" and everyone would stand and watch them on the phone. I remember when 0 and 411 got you to people immediately. Before that, all calls were made through operators...

Click to expand...

"Killing capitalism and entrepreneurship" is what I objected to. Breaking up AT&T opened the door to multitudes of innovations by various interests. Before the break up, no one owned a phone. All phones were leased and had to be returned to the telco. My in-laws have a wall phone that they had to either return to AT&T or purchase when the break up happened. They bought the phone because it would be more expensive to repair the gaping hole in the kitchen wall. To this day, they have a sticker on that phone, signed by an employee of the telco stating the date they purchased the phone from AT&T.

ttwtt78640 said:

What, exactly, does that (bolded above) mean? Amazon has plenty of competition and has resulted in many more retail outlets creating online shopping opportunities.

Click to expand...

While I disagree on most of what she says, Elizabeth Warren also advocates for breaking apart Amazon Marketing and Amazon Retail. Here is why:

1. Amazon takes 15%, plus as much as another 25% for advertising if you want to be at or near the top of page 1 - where 90% of sales occurs.

2. Amazon monitors sales and uses this information to determine what products to sell themself, to compete with their own merchants. Over 50% of all items listed on Amazon are products being sold by Amazon. Probably 75% of all sales are now Amazon products - which originally was 0%.

3. Amazon then buys the product, using its size for the lowest wholesale prices.

4. Amazon puts their product at the top of the page - not paying 15% nor the 25% advertising - saving 40% - meaning no one can compete on Amazon. So your company is paying 35%+ to Amazon, but your sales crash as Amazon puts their identical item above yours - and since Amazon saves 35%, you can not match their price.

5. Google puts Amazon at or near the top of page one of searches - even over Google paid advertisers. Another free-be to Amazon you don't get - for 80% of the market advertising. You have to charge more too, because you ARE paying Google advertising money, Amazon isn't.

6. Google is nearly 80% of Internet searches.

7. Amazon pays dramatically lower postage rates to the post office, so no other business can compete on shipping charges - which commonly actually are higher than the product cost for small items.

As a result of these unfair advantages by the collaboration of THE two largest Internet giants, no other business can compete because of their massive size and collaboration. As Amazon eliminates competitors, Amazon raises its prices (for example, Amazon prices are notably higher than Ebay because Ebay is not a retailer) - so in the end the consumer loses and Amazon's profits go even higher per sale, not just sales volume.

As the monstrosity grew, the Post Office became dependent - the term is "captured vendor" for which Amazon dictates to the Post Office the terms and shipping prices. Since the government underwrites the Post Office, the result has become we - the taxpayers - pay $1.43 in post office subsidizing for every package Amazon ships. Amazon ships billions of packages, so we the taxpayers literally are just giving Amazon billions per year.

To try to somewhat offset this, the post office has rapidly been raising postal rates on US, but not Amazon. So everyone now pays higher post office mailing and shipping costs because of Amazon, costs Amazon does not pay.

Now Amazon/Google - for their massive size and take over of the markets - is going to do their own delivery - but ONLY to major urban areas for density - which is the lowest cost deliveries for the Post Office, UPS and FedEx - leaving particularly the post office having to do the costly rural and small town deliveries, while Amazon sucks up the easy high density urban shipping.

Google, of course, is a media outlet in that they select what news to feature. Amazon is buying up newspapers also to try to influence politics to it's advantage and to control the tax code - for which Google and Amazon both essentially pay no taxes - though the most profitable companies on earth. Google/Facebook/YouTube is buying out every competitor - being starved out by Google - further eliminating competition.

THAT is the problem(s) with MASSIVE monopolies that overwhelmingly dominate the market. They "win" by using their massive size and money as a weapon itself. I could explain in more detail how mass money can crush competition. For example, demanding suppliers sell to them at a significantly lower price that other merchants or even to buy entire production so no one but Amazon can sell it. In addition, the massive size justified offshoring manufacturing, literally building factories in China.

By Google and Amazon listing their own products they produce themselves, they then also eliminate other manufacturers (and their jobs).

Added to this, Amazon requires any dispute may NOT be taken to court, only mediated, so Amazon is the trademark, patent and copyright infringement center of the world. You could make 101 complaints that your patented and trademark product is being violated by sales of Chinese knock-offs - and all that will happen is in a week or two, they will remove the listing, but 2 more takes it's place the next day. All you can do is mediate - and in a year or 2 a mediator decides - but knowing if he goes against Amazon that Amazon will strike the mediator from any list in the future.

So...
You pay higher prices for products
Product and brand selection is reduced
Amazon and Google avoids taxes - so you/we have to pay more taxes - or have less government services
You pay higher postage and shipping (including anything you receive from anyone)
You pay taxes to subsidize the Post Office that subsidizes Amazon - billions a year.
Because of Amazon, any patent, trademark or copyright on any product of your's is essentially worthless.
Existing companies and their jobs are wiped out - mostly replaced by Chinese products and jobs.
Increasingly the "news" sources really are just sales and political propaganda for Amazon and Google's interests
The political system is corrupted, because politicians can only go so far against the wealthiest companies on earth controlling a large share of all "news" and information.


There are other inherent problems to massive monopolies that take over a market top-to-bottom. Yes there are other small fries out there, but the definition of anti-trust is not "NOBODY" else. It is that the massive size is corruption and inherently manipulating the market place stifling competition to the harm of the public and fair, free competition.

As a contrast, the government banned Office Max/Depot merging with Staples, though both are really hurting do to the Internet - primarily Amazon and Google. Yet there are lots of small office supply stores, plus most of what they sell you can buy at WalMart or 101 other companies.

Amazon/Google/Facebook/YouTube have become so massively powerful, so astronomically cash rich, so capable of litigating anything forever, and in this so politically powerful that no laws that apply to any other company apply to them.

You are in Congress. Amazon/Google/Facebook/YouTube could feature endless massive political attacks against you by what they put at the top and in their newspapers - plus throw $100 million for your defeat without blinking an eye - OR you can play nice with them and they will protect you online and in the press, while tossing some money for your re-election your way.

Even IF you are brave enough to hold them accountable to law like all other companies, they'll have you voted out of office before you could succeed - but then you'd never get a majority in Congress willing to give up their offices for the try.

The political power of Amazon/Google/Facebook/YouTube in unprecedented in American politics. No corporate giants in the past also set out to take over "the press" (ie new sources). They don't have to take over ALL of the press, just enough to be able to hurt any politician or legislation they don't like.

Look at what Amazon did to AOC in her own district. Why? AOC had the nerve to claim that Amazon should pay the same property taxes everyone else does, while Amazon - owned by THE wealthiest man on earth - demanded hundreds of millions in tax exemptions that no other business or mom-and-pop operation gets.

Literally, billboards went up in AOC's district attacking her for the unthinkable offense of saying Amazon should pay the same taxes as everyone else - and I am NO AOC fan. That is an example of the excessive power monopolies have. They can CRUSH ANYONE and ANY competitor they want to - and increasingly control our political system.

~ Speaking of AT&T ...

Here's how the company that grew so big the U.S. government broke it up - only to see it become even bigger ...

How AT&T became even bigger after the government broke it up

Grand Mal said:

I say that anyone who advocates the government 'break up' corporations who have been brilliant successes because they've been brilliant successes is 'way too trustful of government power and interference.

Click to expand...

So, Teddy Roosevelt should have left Standard Oil and the other monopolies of the day untouched? They were brilliant successes.

joko104 said:

To understand what is REALLY happening to brick-and-mortar businesses and the extreme dangers of these astronomically massive international corporations sucking up everything people should read my messages. I certainly am no socialists and most would tell you I'm pro-business rightwing.

I saw the RAW POWER of money in the marketplace personally via someone I know EXTREMELY well (don't care to say who).

That person started a small business selling on ebay hoping to make some pocket money. Making maybe $50 a week. However, on a per chance meeting, that person met the wife of a gzillionaire of a clan of gzillionaires. She didn't need money, but wanted to earn some money herself so at least she could buy gifts without using her husband's money. So they formed a 50/50 partnership. She would provide the economic resources for advertising, inventory etc.

Her husband thought his wife wanting to make money was cute, so he told his corporate people to help out. They built half a dozen companies - all seeming to compete with each other, rounded up inventory cheap on huge bulk sales - and then thru massive advertising money at it on a surprise weekend Internet launch - selling at below costs - totally capturing the top 6 spots of page 1 of every search engine.

On Monday, all existing companies saw their sales likely had dropped over 90%. For key competitors, they did the same towards other products those companies had - not to sell those products but to literally destroy the other companies - that quickly vanished - for which then they raised their prices having total control of the market.

But they didn't stop there. They contracted with manufacturers for key products to buy their ENTIRE future production for 6 months to a year - wiping out the last of their competition.

Soon, for the highest margin of profit items, they then went into their own manufacturing - using the same raw money-power to wipe out the other manufacturers. Now they controlled:
1. All advertising and the market place
2. All manufacturing.
3. All bulk and wholesale sales.
4. All retail sales.

It was stunning how fast they completely took over markets, products and sales. They used this same model adding product line after product line. They even bought the entire product run of a certain lab made item - controlling ALL of that substance worldwide for a while - then making billions off it. Buy from them, or not at all.

Starting with a business making maybe $50 off a kitchen table within 2 years was grossing BILLIONS of extremely high margin wholesale and retail sales - total control of their markets - with nearly a dozen facilities for office, manufacturing, shipping and warehousing - plus of course both domestic and Chinese production solely for their companies.

It had nothing to do with superior products, better management or better efficiency. Rather, ALL was done by the RAW POWER OF MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY. This is what those gzillionaires do on everything, and at a much greater scale as they also control the raw materials, financing, basically everything top to bottom - so just get richer and richer, taking over anything they want to and wiping out the majority of competitors.

Just routine, a fun little something to do for that guy's wife.

Since this was just a fun thing 2 women were doing, they both had piles and piles and piles of money - and since this was work and wasn't something otherwise of interest being "too small to bother with," they then just shut it down.

Yet in those 2 years they had destroyed dozens of relatively large companies established for decades and probably 10,000 mom-pop online businesses.

And that venture wasn't 1% of the scope of Amazon/Google/Facebook/YouTube - a TRILLIONS of dollars monstrosity. - and worldwide. Sure, around the fringes someone else might make a few dollars here and there. At least until they become targeted too. Then they're finished.

PS... FEW people realize Amazon hides it's retail sales. They do not say it is an Amazon product. So while you look at the Internet and think "but there are hundreds and hundreds of people selling that item !"- in fact 90% of those "companies" may well be actually Amazon/Google/YouTube/Facebook owned, also having bought out the manufacturers in a mass collection of affiliated (but hidden) companies.

Few people even think of any of this. They just think "If I buy it on Amazon, I'll get it 2 days!"

Click to expand...

Yep, and when this type of power is lent to pushing a political and social narrative, it becomes quite dangerous.

LosAngelesAngel said:

~ Speaking of AT&T ...

Here's how the company that grew so big the U.S. government broke it up - only to see it become even bigger ...

How AT&T became even bigger after the government broke it up

Click to expand...

Except that isn't what the recount says. What is says, if you read it carefully, is the AT&T was not held to anti-trust standards, rather the government again and again allowed AT&T to end run around that law.

That's why I so much above mention it is not just massive monetary powerhouses mega monopolies become, but with it comes massive political power leading to exemption from anti-trust, tax and just about every other regulatory law. We don't get news. We get ranting editorials - which nearly all are 100% for the corporate goals of the corporations that own them.

Those corporations want foreign labor sweatshop products - so oppose all tariffs - and want millions and millions of immigrants to keep domestic wages down - because both goals are massively profitable to the corporations owning the networks and press not stop demanding no tariffs and open borders. It is ALL for corporate profit - to shift as much of the world's wealth to them as possible.

Google/Amazon/Facebook/YouTube are adding to that, by buying up and taking control of "news" outlets and new information flow itself. Banning whoever is for what they oppose, featuring who and what they support for their corporate interests.

In my opinion, the TRUE political crisis the the MSM, press and Internet is that it is almost entirely controlled by half a dozen international monstrously huge corporations - and they share common goals plus are all economically intertwined. 95% of "news" isn't news at all. It is editorializing for corporate goals.

Craig234 said:

I'm talking about the administration of social security. Every estimate of 'privatizing' it has the costs of administrating it greatly increase.



On the one hand, that is very refreshing. On the other, damn is it hard to get something done to improve it - in my opinion, the best shot being a Sander or Warren presidency, no one else I see would do much. And even they would have quite modest changes. Basically, we don't have any coherent approach to the issue and the power lies with them.

Click to expand...

I agree on the problem and totally disagree on the solution. Neither Sanders or Warren have EVER pursued what they promise they would. The solution is President Trump - arrogant enough to at least try to fight the impossible fight - and with all of the MSM, all of the press and 90% of the Internet news flow OWNED by those corporations, it takes a totally arrogant person to believe they can take them on and win.

In fact, that is what all the incessant ranting against Trump is about. The corporate super rich hate him, intensely, because he opposes foreign sweatshops via tariffs and opposes mass immigration to minimize domestic wages - while they demand the GOVERNMENT make the balance to make a "living wage" so those companies don't have to.

joko104 said:

Except that isn't what the recount says. What is says, if you read it carefully, is the AT&T was not held to anti-trust standards, rather the government again and again allowed AT&T to end run around that law.

That's why I so much above mention it is not just massive monetary powerhouses mega monopolies become, but with it comes massive political power leading to exemption from anti-trust, tax and just about every other regulatory law. We don't get news. We get ranting editorials - which nearly all are 100% for the corporate goals of the corporations that own them.

Those corporations want foreign labor sweatshop products - so oppose all tariffs - and want millions and millions of immigrants to keep domestic wages down - because both goals are massively profitable to the corporations owning the networks and press not stop demanding no tariffs and open borders. It is ALL for corporate profit - to shift as much of the world's wealth to them as possible.

Google/Amazon/Facebook/YouTube are adding to that, by buying up and taking control of "news" outlets and new information flow itself. Banning whoever is for what they oppose, featuring who and what they support for their corporate interests.

In my opinion, the TRUE political crisis the the MSM, press and Internet is that it is almost entirely controlled by half a dozen international monstrously huge corporations - and they share common goals plus are all economically intertwined. 95% of "news" isn't news at all. It is editorializing for corporate goals.

Click to expand...

~ Yup . Good point . As the saying goes : "The dumbing down of America" It's actually happening worldwide .

veritas1 said:

Yep, and when this type of power is lent to pushing a political and social narrative, it becomes quite dangerous.

Click to expand...

Politicians come and politicians go. But the super rich corporations just keep getting richer and more powerful. They don't care about countries. There is only one ethic - get money, more money, also meaning more power, anyway possible. They have no interest in the success or failure of the USA or equality nor anything else but money and power.

Craig234 said:

And there's the sort of nonsense gibberish that says there's not much point interacting with you. You don't appear to have any idea why it succeeds, including 'agenda ownership' of the stations such as Sinclair and the financial issues and the way people get 'converted' when exposed to a message loudly.

Click to expand...

People get "converted" to right-wing ideas because they match with their lived experience. It's not about money (left-wingers on YouTube tend t make more money per subscriber, despite having a smaller audience), it's about ideas.

jimbo said:

Nope. Government is the greater threat. Corporations that get too large soon are faced with fierce competition. Ma Bell is the classic example. Government decided that it was in the public interest to have only one phone company. The only choice the public had was whether you rented the black phone or paid extra for a different color. Once government got out, dozens of new companies gave the public what they wanted. Today you can buy hundreds of different phones from hundreds of different companies at half the Ma Bell price.

Click to expand...

The government de-monopolized AT&T. While it's true that AT&T had been a regulated monopoly for decades, that regulation was imposed subsequent to it becoming a monopoly through market forces.

The claim that corporations face competition when they get too large is counter-factual. AT&T bought nearly all of its competitors, and the big social media platforms don't face any meaningful competition (the biggest alt-network, Gab, itself has been subjected to deplaforming by domain registrars and web hosting companies).

joko104 said:

The political power of Amazon/Google/Facebook/YouTube in unprecedented in American politics. No corporate giants in the past also set out to take over "the press" (ie new sources). They don't have to take over ALL of the press, just enough to be able to hurt any politician or legislation they don't like.

Click to expand...

Bingo. Those three companies seek to rule this country. And they're not failing.