The Market Ticker
Rss Icon RSS available
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
Top Login FAQ Register Clear Cookie
User Info Facepig, Snapfool and You; entered at 2017-08-08 20:33:00
Posts: 110
Registered: 2017-06-16 Los Angeles, Ca
Perhaps there's never been a bigger opponent of monopolies in American history than Thomas Jefferson (and James Madison), but Louis Brandeis would be a close second if not first.

Louis Brandeis from the Supreme Court Bench argued in 1933 that the government has the right to regulate the concentration of wealth and power if it threatens, NOT consumers, but political freedoms, in his dissenting opinion in the case, Liggett v. Lee, which struck down a Florida law designed to protect local businesses from out-of-state chains.

Here's the thing about monopolies, and eventually if they become virtually the entire market, there is nothing you as an individual can effectively do. You can't even actively boycott them as likely you'd have no choice but to engage with them. Economically, politically, socially, and so on, monopolies have a nefarious effect. And the thing about monopolies, and perhaps the most dangerous aspects: it doesn't even matter the intent of the founder of the monopoly. They can have all the good intents in the world and the nefarious effects still occur.

If Facebook's numbers are believed, then they have essentially admitted to being a monopoly. There's a lot we could go into the ramifications social media has on our behavior and such, but what would it matter. What at this point would or could rise up to challenge them that they couldn't just buy out? This should be prevented, but it won't, not the way things are now. We've had the Bush Administration and the Obama administration, both two terms, and neither conducted any anti-trust cases.

The Microsoft case was under Bill Clinton, but Clinton was no friend of anti-trust causes. The Democrats use to have anti-trust policies as a part of their platform, until the likes of Gary Hart and Michael Dukakis started to change the Dems platform, where it culminated to Bill Clinton removing the mentioning of anti-trust altogether.

It was the Democrats who ousted their own party leader Wright Patman (sponsor of the Robinson-Patman Act) in the 1970s.

At some point, there will be no where to run to. Supposedly there's been a rebirth of the Dems reinserting the anti-trust policies back into the party platform from Chuck Shumer's Op-Ed Piece last month:

Now you may or may not like everything in it, and you'll find it vague. Yes, that's what politicians do. So we need to keep them accountable. But the point is, the door has been opened, and now it's time to call these people up and make them do what they say.

Or you can play party politics, but then you get what you deserve. It has to be about who or which party or whatever tries or does step up first. Democrats will take Republican votes, and vice versa. And no, you won't agree with anyone on every issue, so then you need to decide a hierarchy of values and causes. Because if you're looking for people who only think exactly like yourself, then all I can suggest is you look into the mirror, and repeat: "no, you're the crazy one."

Regardless, someone has introduced it, now it's time for calls to push and refine it and tell Schumer and the other bastards that if they want votes this mid term, they better start doing something now.
2017-08-08 20:33:00