@suzianne saidBut, you, on the other hand, say nothing? What do you mean by help? Maybe you cant define what you mean when you help someone?
... said the sociopath.
If i say i will help my neighbor today, it could be to help him build his barn, or help him carry his groceries into the house. So, i would tell you how i would help him. So, now, you tell us what you mean?
You said the business of helping people is done by the government. It would be a fair question....what help would they provide? To whom? You left it wide open for me to encourage you to shine with your comment.
But you will not answer it.
169d
@no1marauder saidNexis is never wrong, but you simply cofirm that each case is different. The issue at hand is one corp owning several different sandwich purveyors. AvJoe's Nexis says that is not a monopoly. What it is is good business. Should the government tell them to stop growing and providing sustenance to the masses?
US anti-trust law does not require an entire market to be owned by one firm for it to be considered a monopoly under the Sherman Act and other more than 100 year old laws:
"Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — [b]that is, the long ter ...[text shortened]... learn something rather than gullibly swallowing every piece of right wing propaganda you gaze upon.
@earl-of-trumps saidWhat about defense? Should government break up that little monopoly as well??
Liberals are soooooo concerned about private monopolies but have much love for government monopolies like ObamaCare.
You want to get down to it,, the government has sole rights to the Registry of Motor Vehicles, and the set high rates
Want another..? Gambling. The state will arrest anyone running a lottery or gaming business, giving the state a monopoly
169d
@kmax87 saidGood one,….see? Kmax has fun in the forum. And he writes something one can respond to, unlike links stating obvious facts of government policy. Class101.
What about defense? Should government break up that little monopoly as well??
I would respond that military ‘works better’ if it has one owner, the government. Whereas, a capitalist society works better, and as intended, when its factions compete with each other.
So, in the first instance, you want a monopoly. In the second instance, you do not want a monopoly, so that each enterprise can work independently of others, making life better and less expensive for all of us.
@averagejoe1 saidAnd I say you're too ignorant, uneducated and gullible to make that call.
Nexis is never wrong, but you simply cofirm that each case is different. The issue at hand is one corp owning several different sandwich purveyors. AvJoe's Nexis says that is not a monopoly. What it is is good business. Should the government tell them to stop growing and providing sustenance to the masses?
It's the FTC's job to enforce antitrust law. Let them decide whether this acquisition will or won't "substantially lessen" competition.
169d
@no1marauder saidMarauder goes deep!! He could convince us that an elephant is very small.
The whole concept of private property is based on State coercion and force.
169d
@no1marauder saidOf course. Who said that they shouldn’t?
And I say you're too ignorant, uneducated and gullible to make that call.
It's the FTC's job to enforce antitrust law. Let them decide whether this acquisition will or won't "substantially lessen" competition.
169d
@averagejoe1 saidWell if all this thread is is a complaint about Senator Warren being somewhat imprecise in using an economic term, then it's trivial.
Of course. Who said that they shouldn’t?
But you seemed to be objecting to the FTC reviewing the acquisition in the first place. If you're not, then I don't know what we are "debating".
169d
@no1marauder saidOf course they do review applications for one corp to acquire another. They apparently did, and found no monopoly. So yes, how can the acquisition be a monopoly issue, it clearly is approved, So, no monopoly. That means this thread is apparently about this pitiful screeching flower-club child with a mike.
Well if all this thread is is a complaint about Senator Warren being somewhat imprecise in using an economic term, then it's trivial.
But you seemed to be objecting to the FTC reviewing the acquisition in the first place. If you're not, then I don't know what we are "debating".
You are a lib......can you explain what in the hell she is on about.
168d
@averagejoe1 saidNo, you idiot, no final decision by the FTC has been made:
Of course they do review applications for one corp to acquire another. They apparently did, and found no monopoly. So yes, how can the acquisition be a monopoly issue, it clearly is approved, So, no monopoly. That means this thread is apparently about this pitiful screeching flower-club child with a mike.
You are a lib......can you explain what in the hell she is on about.
"The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is investigating whether Roark Capital's purchase of Subway for $10 billion is legal under antitrust law given that the private equity firm already owns Jimmy John's and Arby's, Politico reported Tuesday."
"The FTC is investigating whether buying Subway would give Roark too much power in fast food, the report said, citing sources familiar with the matter. Roark controls Inspire Brands, the owner of restaurant chains including Jimmy John's, Arby's, Baskin-Robbins and Buffalo Wild Wings."
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/us-ftc-probes-10-bln-deal-subway-politico-2023-11-21/
So you, as usual, don't know what you are talking about.
