You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)||
User: Not logged on
|User Info||Jail. Now. Not Bailouts; entered at 2017-07-15 07:08:26|
Registered: 2017-06-16 Los Angeles, Ca
@azengrcat. In the case of the tobacco industry, the lawyers who did get paid out big time though were representing states, primarily the states that filed their claims early. So it's nice to have a big money client when fighting these huge battles, and no one has more money than governments. |
In the case of antitrust law, the real money is representing the defendant against the government, as since the defendant is likely a monopoly, they tend to have deep pockets.
Let's say some average person wanted to sue for damages against a particular medical company based on antitrust law. First, you'd have to establish that that particular company has a commanding market position. Obviously it's unlikely you'll be able to demonstrate that a particular hospital has market domination to be deemed a monopoly. Because it's the field itself, not a particular company, that's causing the monopolistic practices.
This is why Karl's two points are so vital, 1. Collusion. I don't know the medical field in detail, but likely this would have to be aimed at the AMA, the American Medical Association, which have lost antitrust cases in the past, primarily their barring or chiropractors. But the collusion is vital.
Then there's damages, and that's a tough thing to establish, hence the second point: price transparency. Then damages can be objectively established.
In a situation like this, you'd need the resources of the government to tackle this on and I'm sure the AMA has turned themselves into a labyrinth.
But there's always people that do fight for these things, but there's really no money to be made, for the most part. These people do it out of a sense of moral outrage.
For example, the Center for Digital Democracy, run by Jeffrey Chester, has been fighting tooth and nail to handcuff Google, now Alphabet. Chester has many issues with Google, but primarily he focuses on privacy as that's likely the only issue the public might understand or care about. But in 2007, he pressed the FTC to reject Google's proposed merger with Double Click. Obviously in the end it failed. Alphabet is a company with about $90 billion in annual revenue. The Center for Digital Democracy has an annual budget of about $600,000. Any guess as to which side to be on to make money.and as for a name, who and the hell has heard of Jeffery Chester?
So I agree with Karl the only realistic solution is a political one where the power of the government has to intervene since they have the resources. As for the fame of it, well, that's for the public to decide on whether they'll put pressure on the government to do anything.
Politicians and these monopolies are closely tied, but that's because the monopolies are an active power. Politicians will side with wherever their power base comes from. So if the public turned on the politicians and forced their hands to keep their own power, sure they'll do it, in the end, what do the politicians care as long as they stay in power.
Same with the banks. You want that stopped, well, once the public threatens to put Mitch McConnell's and Paul Ryan's head on a platter they'll turn around and figure out how to put Diamond's and Blankfien's head on that platter instead.
But I don't know, I don't hold much faith in the public doing anything. The comedian Bill Burr was asked whether he thought there'd be some kind of social revolution because Americans have been pushed too far and he said no. Then he was asked, what would convince him a revolution was coming. He said, when the average American loses forty pounds.
Supposedly the public is outraged over ISIS, well, YouTube still allows ISIS produced videos to appear, which of course Google says it's technically very difficult to stop it....except, how much porn do you see on youtube...exactly.