Amusing to me how liberal politicians are so eager to limit the size and power of corporations in the name of the people but think a giant, all powerful, all knowing, all controlling government is just fine. In fact the bigger the better as far as the size and influence of government with types like Warren.
I'm just going to mention that the last two presidents who actually shrank the size of government where named Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Look it up yourself -- the size of government grew under the Bushes, and typically grows under other Republican administrations. To his credit, Trump has not grown the size of government during his first two years in office, but neither has he substantially shrunk it.
Let’s be honest here: Senator Warren was wrong to lump Apple in with the rest of the gang. And she’s wrong to say or even imply that sheer size defines morality.
But she’s not wrong about tech abuse being prevalent, up to and including it’s manipulation by inimicable foreign powers.
So all this crap about how she’s a lousy choice for President is more down to folks who, for one reason or another, don’t want her to be President. Speaking objectively, compared to a piece of work like Donald Trump she’s as pure as the driven snow.
If folks are truly serious about criticising Senator Warren’s POV, then you’ll know who they are, because they’ll be the ones not attacking her personally.
’Nuff said.
Sen. Warren has been really wrong about big issues, not just this one. Her policies, if enacted, would result in economic ruin for the US. This includes the extremely poorly thought out “Green New Deal”. The swing to far-Left positions by Democrats (not just Warren, but Harris, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and more) is baffling. It seems like they are dead set on offending as many people as they can right now.
No, not as many people as they can, Only ones that believe that corporations are better at governing than the people are.
Ugh terrible article. And naive and ill informed points. Of course big companies need to be broken up, it's good for competition, it's good for consumers, and it's good for workers. Other big companies, energy and Internet access to name two, need to nationalized.
Nationalization is a terrible idea! Internet access needs to have more ... capitalism for it to work. We should never have allowed the companies to merge. mergers are in general _very bad_ and have little not no benefit (in most examples) to anyone except the companies themselves. It's better to let one of the companies to go out of business and let the void be filled by new blood! That's evolution!
You prefer a country where one company could never acquire or merge with or spinoff another company? We have a constitutionally protected right of private property ownership. Corporations/companies are private property.
You need to rethink your position on this.
Not at all, I believe that when a private or public organizations activities (or likely activities) are in direct opposed to the good of the people, the people take presidence. The supreme court agrees with this! See Standard Oil, AT&T (original)... as well as many mergers that were successfully blocked by the government.
Ugh terrible article. And naive and ill informed points. Of course big companies need to be broken up, it's good for competition, it's good for consumers, and it's good for workers. Other big companies, energy and Internet access to name two, need to nationalized.
Nationalization is a terrible idea! Internet access needs to have more ... capitalism for it to work. We should never have allowed the companies to merge. mergers are in general _very bad_ and have little not no benefit (in most examples) to anyone except the companies themselves. It's better to let one of the companies to go out of business and let the void be filled by new blood! That's evolution!
You prefer a country where one company could never acquire or merge with or spinoff another company? We have a constitutionally protected right of private property ownership. Corporations/companies are private property.
You need to rethink your position on this.
Not at all, I believe that when a private or public organizations activities (or likely activities) are in direct opposed to the good of the people, the people take presidence. The supreme court agrees with this! See Standard Oil, AT&T (original)... as well as many mergers that were successfully blocked by the government.
What in the world does “the good of the people” mean, and who determines that?
Ugh terrible article. And naive and ill informed points. Of course big companies need to be broken up, it's good for competition, it's good for consumers, and it's good for workers. Other big companies, energy and Internet access to name two, need to nationalized.
Nationalization is a terrible idea! Internet access needs to have more ... capitalism for it to work. We should never have allowed the companies to merge. mergers are in general _very bad_ and have little not no benefit (in most examples) to anyone except the companies themselves. It's better to let one of the companies to go out of business and let the void be filled by new blood! That's evolution!
You prefer a country where one company could never acquire or merge with or spinoff another company? We have a constitutionally protected right of private property ownership. Corporations/companies are private property.
You need to rethink your position on this.
Not at all, I believe that when a private or public organizations activities (or likely activities) are in direct opposed to the good of the people, the people take presidence. The supreme court agrees with this! See Standard Oil, AT&T (original)... as well as many mergers that were successfully blocked by the government.
What in the world does “the good of the people” mean, and who determines that?
Ugh terrible article. And naive and ill informed points. Of course big companies need to be broken up, it's good for competition, it's good for consumers, and it's good for workers. Other big companies, energy and Internet access to name two, need to nationalized.
Nationalization is a terrible idea! Internet access needs to have more ... capitalism for it to work. We should never have allowed the companies to merge. mergers are in general _very bad_ and have little not no benefit (in most examples) to anyone except the companies themselves. It's better to let one of the companies to go out of business and let the void be filled by new blood! That's evolution!
You prefer a country where one company could never acquire or merge with or spinoff another company? We have a constitutionally protected right of private property ownership. Corporations/companies are private property.
You need to rethink your position on this.
Not at all, I believe that when a private or public organizations activities (or likely activities) are in direct opposed to the good of the people, the people take presidence. The supreme court agrees with this! See Standard Oil, AT&T (original)... as well as many mergers that were successfully blocked by the government.
What in the world does “the good of the people” mean, and who determines that?
The people, who else.
Which people? All of them? That’s not how our political system works.
Ugh terrible article. And naive and ill informed points. Of course big companies need to be broken up, it's good for competition, it's good for consumers, and it's good for workers. Other big companies, energy and Internet access to name two, need to nationalized.
Nationalization is a terrible idea! Internet access needs to have more ... capitalism for it to work. We should never have allowed the companies to merge. mergers are in general _very bad_ and have little not no benefit (in most examples) to anyone except the companies themselves. It's better to let one of the companies to go out of business and let the void be filled by new blood! That's evolution!
You prefer a country where one company could never acquire or merge with or spinoff another company? We have a constitutionally protected right of private property ownership. Corporations/companies are private property.
You need to rethink your position on this.
Not at all. I never said all mergers should be stopped, only the ones that create an environment that is counter to the benefit of the people. Some mergers are fine and work for the benefit of the people. The internet mergers have not worked for the benefit of the people.
Ugh terrible article. And naive and ill informed points. Of course big companies need to be broken up, it's good for competition, it's good for consumers, and it's good for workers. Other big companies, energy and Internet access to name two, need to nationalized.
Nationalization is a terrible idea! Internet access needs to have more ... capitalism for it to work. We should never have allowed the companies to merge. mergers are in general _very bad_ and have little not no benefit (in most examples) to anyone except the companies themselves. It's better to let one of the companies to go out of business and let the void be filled by new blood! That's evolution!
You prefer a country where one company could never acquire or merge with or spinoff another company? We have a constitutionally protected right of private property ownership. Corporations/companies are private property.
You need to rethink your position on this.
Not at all. I never said all mergers should be stopped, only the ones that create an environment that is counter to the benefit of the people. Some mergers are fine and work for the benefit of the people. The internet mergers have not worked for the benefit of the people.
Ugh terrible article. And naive and ill informed points. Of course big companies need to be broken up, it's good for competition, it's good for consumers, and it's good for workers. Other big companies, energy and Internet access to name two, need to nationalized.
Nationalization is a terrible idea! Internet access needs to have more ... capitalism for it to work. We should never have allowed the companies to merge. mergers are in general _very bad_ and have little not no benefit (in most examples) to anyone except the companies themselves. It's better to let one of the companies to go out of business and let the void be filled by new blood! That's evolution!
You prefer a country where one company could never acquire or merge with or spinoff another company? We have a constitutionally protected right of private property ownership. Corporations/companies are private property.
You need to rethink your position on this.
Not at all. I never said all mergers should be stopped, only the ones that create an environment that is counter to the benefit of the people. Some mergers are fine and work for the benefit of the people. The internet mergers have not worked for the benefit of the people.
That’s just you’re opinion, dude.
Well no shit! The same for every post here. Including yours!
Comments
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000021754