When are we going to prove whether or not consolidation of industries are good for consumers? Do we have enough data on this question since Milton Freedman passed?
And yet, we are going back to that same idea. What caused those companies to break up? Oh yeah, law were made. Why did were the laws made? Because a lot of union work stoppages and protests were happening across the country.
And railroads still screw up the nation to this day.
Like, random fun fact, to this day, the mineral rights under many homes in the west were owned by the railroads and owned by….someone to this day. Buy your house, the land underneath it is owned by someone else and if they want to mine or frack they can.
For consumers. It the justification given to allow mergers that feel like monopolies to occur. The companies put up the argument that the combined companies will provide better goods or services to consumers then as competitors and the judges sign off on it.
The juwhat? Is that when we give them their own courts? I thought that was the text formatting thing but I think that’s just on screen and a judge wouldn’t be able to sign off if they don’t have judges yet.
It’s not their own courts. But federal and state attorneys will sue the merger deal on antitrust grounds. So the judges are either federal or state appellate judges that hear the arguments. The trend in the past 40ish years to allow the merger because of the consumer good arguments.
When are we going to prove whether or not consolidation of industries are good for consumers? Do we have enough data on this question since Milton Freedman passed?
In like the 1800s with the railroads. Turns out it’s bad.
And yet, we are going back to that same idea. What caused those companies to break up? Oh yeah, law were made. Why did were the laws made? Because a lot of union work stoppages and protests were happening across the country.
Union Pacific exits the chat
And railroads still screw up the nation to this day.
Like, random fun fact, to this day, the mineral rights under many homes in the west were owned by the railroads and owned by….someone to this day. Buy your house, the land underneath it is owned by someone else and if they want to mine or frack they can.
For what’s?
For consumers. It the justification given to allow mergers that feel like monopolies to occur. The companies put up the argument that the combined companies will provide better goods or services to consumers then as competitors and the judges sign off on it.
The juwhat? Is that when we give them their own courts? I thought that was the text formatting thing but I think that’s just on screen and a judge wouldn’t be able to sign off if they don’t have judges yet.
It’s not their own courts. But federal and state attorneys will sue the merger deal on antitrust grounds. So the judges are either federal or state appellate judges that hear the arguments. The trend in the past 40ish years to allow the merger because of the consumer good arguments.
Do you mean slop hogs?