"Approved July 2, 1890, The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was the first Federal act that outlawed monopolistic business practices. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was the first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts." - Wikipedia
Characteristics of a Monopoly: A monopoly market is characterized by the profit maximizer, price maker, high barriers to entry, single seller, and price discrimination. Monopoly characteristics include profit maximizer, price maker, high barriers to entry, single seller, and price discrimination.
For the reform DBQ, I used the Clayton-Antitrust Act which was in 1914. Would that work. I did not want to use the Sherman anti-trust because it was a very flawed anti-trust act.
Is it okay to use the Clayton Antitrust Act to reverse the subsidies to ISPs, break them up and create a market in ISPs?
I think it is the only way to actually insure Net Neutrality. Bribing MAFIAA ISPs with our tax dollars doesn't work because we can't trust them and we can't trust bad behavior of our representatives or public servants constantly. The only thing we can do that is sustainable is to force them to give us back the power to fire ISPs for misbehaving by giving us the ability to hire other ISPs.
CONTACT RELEVANT AGENCIES TO VOICE YOUR OPINION
This merger may very well be in violation of the Clayton Act. Contact these agencies & let them know how this merger will raise rates for GSM device holders. Write a short email & send it to DOJ, FTC, FCC - further info on what DOJ or FTC can do (and how you can best present your case) can be found on those pages.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/index.shtm
http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html
You may also want to let your Senators know as well. (I don't know what the FCC can actually do).
Ok,
So because I am a massive nerd i was reading the bill and came across Section 4 and had a question.
Section 4 is found here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/225/text#id328d7addd7c344f78dad2ccb5132c97b
Basically it says that the any firm/person who has greater than 50% market share and seeks to acquire more is seen as someone who "creates an appreciable risk of materially lessening competition" and that it amends the Clayton Anti-trust act (section 7 specifically), replacing the term to "substantially lessen competition" with, "creates an appreciable risk of materially lessening competition". I read section 7 of the Clayton Anti-trust act as well and it says:
No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.
So basically, it outlaws acquiring stock market share that substantially lessens competition, and Klobuchar's bill says that anyone who "creates an appreciable risk of materially lessening competition" qualifies that condition.
So does that mean that controlling more than 50% market share would effectively be illegal? Am I interpreting this correctly? Thanks!
Also, yes this is how i spend my free time and yes I know i should go outside more lol.
This bill, S.673, will remove antitrust oversight in an attempt of saving local and national US media organizations. It also changes the way online organizations will display and require payments for news content.
https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/3/senator-klobuchar-and-representative-cicilline-introduce-legislation-to-protect-journalism-in-the-united-states
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/673
!
Now I don't even think I have 1 single wrinkle in my smooth brain but I can still see the bullshit right in front of me. I mean when it smells like shit and looks like shit it must be shit right?
IMO what needs to happen is representation for the retail investor. Let me make a case point for the argument sake. With the pandemic going on what types of business where able to evade political theater and stay open in full force? It was business that have lobbyist and a real voice / influence at the table. I could go on but let's refocus.
Something needs to happen here as we keep relying on government to come in and slap the wrist of the Melvin's alike, but only to realize that apart of doing business is paying fines and or settling out of court cases. We can not let what happened in 2008 happen again and let this crooks get away with these crimes that hurt everyday people.
One thing that got brought up to me was that every broker has a compliance department. How do we contact this compliance team and make these reports, or is it just again the SEC? So again here brings my issue we need someone as representation for the retail investor. I don't know how we can do it but we need to figure this out, and the only way to win this is to band together, stay strong and diamond hands .
Below is some links for what i think we can do other then the SEC.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sherman-antiturst-act.asp
https://preview.redd.it/bormdl57bgo61.png?width=531&format=png&auto=webp&s=f0f6dbd953bf41f24152c09cbfa741296deb79c1
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
https://preview.redd.it/or41spajbgo61.png?width=1007&format=png&auto=webp&s=6d529d3891b1d889b0f3d52245cc27b3164a216a
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/
https://preview.redd.it/qrddgvjrbgo61.png?width=1213&format=png&auto=webp&s=2ff24772fccf819934d8163f315631e1e4dee214
Also, what do you think Bostock v. Clayton County means for Trump's ban on transgender individuals serving in the military?
A BILL To reform the antitrust laws to better protect competition in the Kentucky economy, to modify the standard for an unlawful acquisition, to deter anticompetitive exclusionary conduct that harms competition and consumers, to enhance the ability of the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Com- mission to enforce the antitrust laws, and for other purposes.
OUR FINDINGS Decades of unchecked mergers in the agricultural industry have left many farmers struggling. One study estimated that the mergers of Dow with DuPont, and Bayer with Monsanto, would mean an initial jump of more than $1,000 in corn-seed costs for the average U.S. farmer.
SOLUTION Raise the Federal Trade Commission to 500,000,000 dollars from its previous 330,199,000. We will also break up the mergers of Dow with DuPont, and Bayer with Monsanto.
CONTACT RELEVANT AGENCIES TO VOICE YOUR OPINION
This merger may very well be in violation of the Clayton Act. Contact these agencies & let them know how this merger will raise rates for GSM device holders. Write a short email & send it to DOJ, FTC, FCC - further info on what DOJ or FTC can do (and how you can best present your case) can be found on those pages.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/index.shtm
http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html
You may also want to let your Senators know as well. (I don't know what the FCC can actually do).
x-posted from r/tech by request
Ok,
So because I am a massive nerd i was reading the bill and came across Section 4 and had a question.
Section 4 is found here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/225/text#id328d7addd7c344f78dad2ccb5132c97b
Basically it says that the any firm/person who has greater than 50% market share and seeks to acquire more is seen as someone who "creates an appreciable risk of materially lessening competition" and that it amends the Clayton Anti-trust act (section 7 specifically), replacing the term to "substantially lessen competition" with, "creates an appreciable risk of materially lessening competition". I read section 7 of the Clayton Anti-trust act as well and it says:
No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.
So basically, it outlaws acquiring stock market share that substantially lessens competition, and Klobuchar's bill says that anyone who "creates an appreciable risk of materially lessening competition" qualifies that condition.
So does that mean that controlling more than 50% market share would effectively be illegal? Am I interpreting this correctly? Thanks!
Also, yes this is how i spend my free time and yes I know i should go outside more lol.
