So according to tallanvor, the solution to a possibly corrupt agency that just approved a merger and had its chief immediately become the new company CEO..... is to abolish the agency whose job it is to police those mergers? So you'd rather have unregulated mergers like in the 1800's? Where companies could form large trusts and not even hide the fact that they were screwing the general public? Seems like people like that don't want to solve the problem, they just want any excuse to bash at the government.
It's supposed to check if the merger will result in a company that will overly harm consumers i.e. form a company that's too close to a monopoly Whether it did check or not and whether there was corruption involved is the issue, but unless one really likes trusts running the market, the solution is to reform the agency, not abolish it. A rubber stamp is still better than no regulation at all. It is clear what your agenda is here.
I don't understand this regulation elimination logic, but I hear it a lot. What stops complete corporate control without governmental regulation?
you can't have a monopoly without force (government involvement). How would one company prevent competition from sprouting up without force? Go read a previous posters idea of one company controlling all the media. How would this be possible? control of what? companies can't use force
Read about the business history of this country from the Civil War to 1900. I really don't think I need to say anything more. But it seems like you would regard that era as a free market paradise.
I think the problem is what stops complete corporate control with government regulation. The answer is nothing. The only difference is that now the corporations must share some of their money with the politicians to get the result they want. Am I too cynical?
That's typically the job of the FTC, not the FCC. After a whole lot of interdepartmental fighting, the antitrust division of the Justice Department reviewed it for monopoly/collusion concerns.
Mostly, competition. There a handful of instances where that's not true, but it is true for the vast majority. And for the instances where that is true, regulation reduces competition.
Didn't AT&T buy out Cingular and T-Mobile? Yes they did! That's called eliminating your competition and creating a monoply. Hell, Comcast is pretty much a high-speed internet monopoly on its own. What? Regulation keeps competition at a balanced level. Too much competition and one side will come up the victor eventually. Monopolies bad.
For someone as bright as yourself, sometimes you say really odd* things. *In this instance, "odd" means "really dumb and historically unsupportable". I just don't like being mean to folks that I think are honest and intelligent, albeit misguided.
I do not think it is what capitalism creates; it is just the result of human nature and people living together as a society. We will never all be equal. There will always be some group that is richer and more powerful than the rest. I prefer the richest people being capitalists, not the leaders of the government. While I agree that some regulation is absolutely necessary (I do not want to return to the days of Teddy Roosevelt or earlier), too much regulation can be just as bad. I feel we have reached the point of too much regulation with some bureaucracies that should no longer exist. Obviously, a lot of other people on this board think we do not have enough regulation.
do you know how many banks there are? thousands, there is virtually no barrier of entry to banking. meanwhile, refining and automobiles have a very large barrier to them, cap costs. ranching? WTF insurance is regulated for a good reason, you don't want to have a bunch of fly by night companies that can't pay when the proverbial crap hits the fan, like AIG? oh wait
Easy. Make the barriers of entry into the market so god damn impossible that you basically scare off any potential entrant. De Beers does this by hoarding diamonds and buying every single diamond mine it can reach. So is this justification for governments NOT to try and help protect those who are foolish and impatient enough to agree to this contracts without reading them first? I would imagine that you should also be against any government guarantee of slip ups or accidents, or just ignorance?
