jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (93 posts)

A Perfect Example Of The Freedom Hating Obama Admin

  1. lady_love158 profile image60
    lady_love158posted 5 years ago

    The DOJ has blocked the purchase of T-Mobile by AT&T! So 2 parties that freely entered into an agreement, that would have benefitted customers of BOTH companies and would have added jobs here in America as well as swelled the ranks of the communication workers of America, has effectively been cancelled by our government!  What gives them the right? Who are they to decide what 2 free and independent corporations can do? Who are they to decide what is best for the customers, and workers of these companies? Socialist scum!

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Good. Do you really believe that monopolies are good for anybody but the shareholders?

      1. lady_love158 profile image60
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Where is the monopoly??? We have plenty of wireless competition!

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          But with T-mobile and AT&T combined there would be considerably less.
          Still, you're another turkey voting for Christmas, eh LadyLove?

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Read the reasoning here:-

            http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/08/31/g … bile-deal/

            Aren't three companies owning 90% of the market close enough to a monopoly for you?

            1. American View profile image55
              American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              3 companies does not a monopoly make

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Not even with a 90% share of the market? Though I use the word "share" rather lightly, I think it might be more honest to see a cartel.

                1. American View profile image55
                  American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Really, "share" Funny, I do not see the word share, I see you using the word "owning"

                  "Aren't three companies owning 90% of the market close enough to a monopoly for you?"   HMMMMM

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Owning ashare of the market, a 90% share.

          2. profile image0
            Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Voting for CHRISTmas when did we start doing that?

          3. Ralph Deeds profile image71
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            True, there would be only three instead of four competitors. AT&T is one of the most sinister of the big companies.

        2. Daniel Carter profile image89
          Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Number 2 merging with number 4. That's not a monopoly?

          Further:
          "AT&T and T-Mobile compete nationwide, in 97 of the largest 100 cellular marketing areas, according to the suit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.

          It says AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile would eliminate a company that has been a competitive factor through low pricing and innovation."

          So again, that's NOT a monopoly??

          1. lady_love158 profile image60
            lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Who occupies 97% of the market?  Here is a list if wireless providers in the USA.
            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ … _providers

            So naturally adding all the players together would equal the bulk of the market in any business so your comment is meaningless. The question to ask is who should decide how many companies should make up any market? The government? Or the marketplace itself?

      2. American View profile image55
        American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Monopoly means no competition, or there is one. There are far more wireless companies. Sprint/Nextel I believe is one large company that comes to mind. And no one stopped them from merging

    2. bgamall profile image84
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Did you bet on this and lose Lady? Too bad.

      1. lady_love158 profile image60
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually no, i have no financial stake in the deal that I know of. I do have friends that have AT&T service and its horrible! Dropped calls, and smart phone network access is slow and frustrating. This would have been a perfect match that would gave been good for everybody. Without this deal AT&T customers will be leaving and going to Verizon and maybe Sprint. T-Mobile will be getting a huge influx of cash from A T&T and thats good for them but they're a german company. Both of these companies will remain accquisition targets though.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          " Without this deal AT&T customers will be leaving and going to Verizon and maybe Sprint."

          Isn't that the much vaunted supply and demand operating as it should?

          1. lady_love158 profile image60
            lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Oh my! If the government would mind its own business, then yes it would be supply and demand at work, instead it is government interference and infringement of freedom and free markets ruining everything and likely producing the result they intended to prevent. It would be funny if it wasnt so tragic.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Don't you mean maintaining the free market? There's nothing free about a company owning the lions share of the business.

              I don't see how preventing the merger will end up making the companies merge.

              1. American View profile image55
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I do not care what busuness you choose, there is always a company that owns the "lions share". Thats like saying out of all the doctors, one has to be the worse. Duh. Its like everything, One is in first, one is in last. But when onely one is first last and everything in between, that is a monopoly.

                ATT merger would not have been a problem. Amzingly, there are many other comanies that exist to compete and that is what a free market is. I have T moblie, in reality, with the possible merger, T mobie revamped there programs and offered more  than they ever did before and at a lower price. Now that the merger did not go through, those assest they had acsees to will now dry up, service options will change and the prices will go up.

                Now lets say the merger went through. You argument is they would raise the price. Not likely, Verizon, Sprint/Nextel and the likes will gladly accept all those who leave because their plans prices went up. Happens all the time when someones contract expires.That is called compitition. You cannot get that when there is a true monopoly.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  No, it is nothing like saying one Doctor is worse, nothing at all. It is much more like saying "you will use this doctor".

                  Do you not wonder why T-Mobile revamped and offered lower prices than ever before? Couldn't be to make their competitors unviable could it? And what guarantee that when you had no choice but to use T-Mobile/AT&T they would remain cheap?

                  Verizon, Sprint/Nextel and the likes would no longer exist after a year or two of the big give away, then what would you do?

                  I'm flummoxed here, here's the socialist arguing for capitalist ideals and the capitalists arguing for what they see as socialism!

                  1. American View profile image55
                    American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    John,

                    You should be Flummoxed, for it is you that applies labels to everything and you are alway wrong. I mearly post a thread, you attack it and say I am a righty, which of course everyone that knows me knows I am not. Then I post a different thread, then you attack I am a lefty, another laugh. then I post another different thread  andyou call me  a capitalist, Now I post this thread and you call me socialist. When I show how wrong you are you deflct, now your deflections and name changing has caught up to you.

                    John if you want to argue for the sake of it, go somewhere else. You are wasting all of our time

                    By the way, T moblie made thase changes AS A PART OF THE MERGER. ATT gave them access to technology that Tmobile did not have. Hence why Tmoblie was able to offer things and plans they did not have before. But that will all go away now thanks to people like you who do not believe in capitalism, you just want freebies. Guess you want your government to pay your phone bill to

    3. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Good Day, Lady.  Hope all is well where you are.

      I see you're passionate in your support for big business getting bigger. I’m sure you have some good reasons for disagreeing with the DOJ, but it is a shame you didn’t share them with us.  Instead of a rant and insults, facts and logic would do more for the message that you want to deliver.

      This merger is totally detrimental to the best interests of their present customers. It will deny millions of their wireless customers the benefits of consumer choices between products and services that formerly competed on the basis of quality and innovative features. Competition between T-Mobile and AT&T has always been heated. Consumers as a result enjoyed lower prices, higher quality, and more frequent innovation. Eliminating competition always leads to higher prices.  It reduces pressure from the market place to eliminate waste. Eliminating competition is the major reason corporations merge.
      Under this arrangement, jobs will be lost for sure.  Both firms now have a presence in every potential market place. Combining the sales and retail assets of both firms will lead to redundancy that will be quickly eliminated. You can expect nearly half of the combined sales staffs to be laid-off as leases for retail space expire. Manufacturing jobs, if any, will not be in the US unless American workers can compete with the wages and quality found in foreign labor markets.
      That’s an easy question. I suggest you bone up on the parts of the Clayton Antitrust Act that apply to mergers and acquisitions that substantially reduce market competition.
      Even a civics dummy like me knows “They” is the U.S. Department of Justice authorized by the constitution and the Act to Establish the Department of Justice within the executive branch to handle the legal business of the United States. (http://www.justice.gov/about/about.html)
      This question is even easier than the last.  “They” don’t decide anything! The DOJ would not start this action without convincing evidence this contract violates federal law.  However, a federal judge gets to decide.
      Now is that nice talk coming from a lady? 

      Fortunately, not many Americans believe enforcing the law is “hating freedom” although I’m sure there are some on the fringe that do. Legal issues aside, it seems to me only the stockholders and shills employed to advocate for corporate greed will benefit from this merger.

      My sincere thanks, Lady, for launching this thread. I love simple  questions for my simple mind. I really don't mind taking the time to research data that support my statements.

      1. lady_love158 profile image60
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Even the unions supported this deal! This justice dept is the most corrupt of all!

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You expect the unions to be in favour of their members losing their jobs!
          Get real!

          And wouldn't you be the first to start another anti Obama thread about how his failure to act and prevent this merger had resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs?

          1. lady_love158 profile image60
            lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            The unions were in favor. And the justice dept us corrupt. It has a policy of not orosecuting blacks that violated voter intimidation laws, sold guns to drug dealers in mexico to change gun laws, sued AZ for enforcing immigation laws the feds refused to.

            1. profile image0
              Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              it is interesting to note that starting in March of this year George Soros did not want the deal to go through and worked through his groups like media metters to protect against it.  I did a lot of research and will be writing a piece on it probably today.....

  2. relache profile image85
    relacheposted 5 years ago

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljbggtWxlJ1qcfoo3o1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1314897977&Signature=heUC21g2n22oiE2ij2zrQl%2BVLBk%3D

    1. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Even if that were so, don't you think I could look it up?

    2. bgamall profile image84
      bgamallposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Relache, when the banks get all the profits and the losses are socialized, I don't think that is the historic definition of socialism. I call it crony capitalism.

  3. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 5 years ago

    Please ignore every other anti trust suit ever brought  up during any other adminstration.

    This is yet another thread that serves no purpose but to rail at a system that was in place prior to Obama's entry into the political arena.

    Do you have anything of value to argue, or just mindless rhetoric?

    1. profile image0
      Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I could argue that you bring nothing but mindless rhetoric but then I am a gentleman so I wont......if you think its so bad why bother reading it and taking the time from your busy schedule to post?

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Because I feel the right to exercise my freedom of speech. I've misplaced the rock you asked me to crawl under. smile

        1. profile image0
          Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          well, I am sure you will find it! However, in all seriousness I may not agree with you but you are right and do have the right to exercise you right to freedom of speech.....thanks to conservatives......

          1. profile image0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol So you lied in the other thread. You were directing that comment at me.

            As to conservatives ensuring our freedom, both sides have done their part to not only preserve it, at times, but to chip away at it at others.  Too bad some people choose to be blind.

            This anti trust thread is silly, though. Do any of you remember Ma Bell? Do you know what the average phone bill was before they broke that company up? Competition ensures low prices. That is what the DOJ is attempting to protect. Competition. Freedom for companies to not be choked out by the big boys.

            This  is what they do and have done for many years. It is not a left wing conspiracy.

            1. profile image0
              Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes I am a true liar, a conservative, and just down and out mean.....and I dont like Obama or the DOJ's decision so I must also be a racist....lol

              1. profile image0
                Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No. I wouldn't say you are mean or racist for not liking this, but I don't think the DOJ would have done any differently in this instance, under any administration.

                Sometimes it just appears as if it's a darned if you do, darned if you don't scenario with either the left or the right. Both sides seem to pick at everything.

                1. profile image0
                  Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It is true that both sides pick at everything...I agree!

                2. American View profile image55
                  American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Emile,

                  then why was there no opposition to Sprint/Nextel merger under Bush administration? I am sorry, the current administration has shown they are willing to block and drag companies looking to expand or grow into court if the administration does not want to let it happen. Just ask  Boeing

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Another turkey voting for Christmas!

                  2. profile image0
                    Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I honestly don't know. I'd have to read up on it, but you can't just say that this is unfair because one merger was allowed and another not. It honestly depends on the size and the landscape that will be left afterwards. We don't want a situation where it looks like a monopoly

                    You guys think in little business terms. Trust me. Big business is not you. Given the opportunity for a monopoly prices would sky rocket. They would strong arm anyone that tried to break into the market.

                    This is not infringing on free enterprise. Anti trust laws ensure that free enterprise stays intact.

              2. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Why don't you like the DOJs decision?
                You really want to pay more for your phone?

                1. profile image0
                  Nick Lucasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I just dont like the Gov doing anything in the free market.  Mergers are a part of business....the laws of supply and demand will dictate prices...

                  1. Daniel Carter profile image89
                    Daniel Carterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Not if one company owns the monopoly, thus CONTROLLING supply and demand.

                  2. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Until there is only one company dictating the prices!
                    Funny,I all ways thought that the right favoured competition and those lily livered liberals were opposed to it!

                2. American View profile image55
                  American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  John, Are you aware since the two were thought to have merged their prices on plans went down and optinos went up. I do believe you will see those plans go up in price now

  4. lovemychris profile image80
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    It's called "staccato propaganda". Or "stiletto programming".
    Keep it up and up and up, no let-up.
    Soon, people crack.

    They will start saying..."hey, maybe Obama DOES hate freedom?"
    "A lot of people say so".

    No, it's a few people with a lot of money.

    1. profile image0
      Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, but even with all that money do they honestly think the American public is that ignorant? If so, it's a little insulting.

      1. lovemychris profile image80
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ummm, 2010 midterms.....hello! wink

        1. profile image0
          Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Doh!!! You're right. I guess some Americans are that easily led.

          1. American View profile image55
            American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            THey are, Obama being elected is proof of that

            1. profile image0
              Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I'll admit he has been a disappointment. But, think about it. He was up against McCain. With that race, how could he have lost?

              1. American View profile image55
                American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                True, but at least McCain actualy had experience. I am not saying he could have done better, we will never know.

  5. lady_love158 profile image60
    lady_love158posted 5 years ago

    What these people dont realize is AT&T now has to pay a break up fee that could cost 7 billion. In addition they needed the merger to deal with demand placed on their networks by smart phones. AT&T will now be weaker and may end up going out of business so the intent of having more competition will actually lead to LESS! Idiots!!

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You are of course joking!
      And why do they have to pay a break up fee when they haven't merged?
      And why do they need the merger to deal with demand from smart phones, the merger would not provide them with any more capacity.

      1. lady_love158 profile image60
        lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The fact that you're asking those questions reveals how totally uninformed you are on this issue. I dont have time to explain it all to you.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What, too busy looking for other red herrings?

          I rather think it is you that is uninformed.

  6. Greek One profile image77
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    http://amhist.ist.unomaha.edu/module_files/monopoly%20stake.jpg

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Where do you find this great stuff?

  7. Lindy's World profile image82
    Lindy's Worldposted 5 years ago

    While I think that monopolies in general a bad thing, there are tons of other wireless companies out there.  The government may site they don't want any one company to own the lion's share of the market.  But, in my opinion that is a case of the pot calling the kettle back.  Our, own Federal Government is the biggest monopoly on the block, particularly after all the bail outs.  If for no other reason these companies should be allowed to merge so jobs can be created and the economy can start to grow.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How will merging two companies create jobs? On the contrary, it will destroy jobs, they won't have two sales outlet where one will do, they won't keep two accounts departments where one will do.

      They might fly in the face of experience and create jobs where companies more usually shed jobs, but I would be very surprised and would not like to take that risk.

  8. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    Interestingly, Amazon aim to take over another bookseller. This move has been referred to the Office of Fair Trading because Amazon already has a 75% share of the on line book selling market and is considered to be a monopoly!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14762827

    There are of course thousands upon thousands of other on line book sellers!

    1. American View profile image55
      American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So what is your position, you appear to be against your government interfering in this Amazon taking over a bookseller.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How on earth do you come to that conclusion?

        1. American View profile image55
          American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There are of course thousands upon thousands of other on line book sellers!

          The exclamation on the end of the sentence. As if it was there becuse you could not believe what you gov. wants to do because you exclame there are thousands of other sellers. Of course you are right and hence this is not a monopoly.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, the exclamation mark was at the end of the sentence because some were arguing that because there are other mobile phone companies the T-Mobile/AT&T merger could not be a monopoly.

            I sell books on line and I know exactly what a stranglehold Amazon have on the market.

            1. American View profile image55
              American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I understand your position, but they way you posted it comes across different.
              I do to as I have an Amazon associates store. I have sold just over 100 books in the last month from the back to school college crowd. I am sure you sell there too.

              I do not mean this to be critical so do not take it that way. Amazon started as a small nobody and grew their business. I take it you have a website as your book store. Perhaps if you advertise as they did you could grow as they did. IT would be nice to say we knew you when.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I can not afford to run for five years without making a profit!

                1. American View profile image55
                  American Viewposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Who says you would go 5 years without making money, maybe it will only take 2. My point was only those who make the effort reap the rewards of their work. I do not deprive them reaping the fruits of their labor.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Five years was how long Amazon ran without seeing a profit. Any effort to compete would now take even more.
                    Believe me, Amazon have a stranglehold on on line book selling.

 
working