-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Break up the cable monopolies? Democrats propose new competition laws
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
Autodidact
Banned
Something something centrist corporatist shills neoliberal hacks
Greigor The Fellhand
Member
guess what? this might also break up amazon and walmart. THank fuck.
Greigor The Fellhand
Member
http://fortune.com/2016/07/21/beer-merger-antritrust-approval/
Brewers Anheuser-Busch InBev and SABMiller received U.S. antitrust approval for their $107 billion merger on Wednesday, bringing the largest-ever consumer products deal a big step closer to completion.
VendettaRed07
Member
Well, tbf, the centrist corporatist shill neoliberal hacks are the ones that fucked this in the first place..
From Wikipedia: Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈɑnɦɔi̯zər ˈbuʃ ˈɪmbɛf]; abbreviated as AB InBev) is the largest beer company in the world. It had 200 brands prior to the merger with SABMiller on October 10, 2016.[1] The combined ABInBev/SAB Miller entity has approximately 400 beer brands as of January 2017.
GregLombardi
Member
Why regulate drug prices when you can just publicly disavow capitalism and set drug prices at cost after a reasonable period of payback and profit? Why the half measure?
Because it has a higher probable rate of success?
Zombie Teddy Roosevelt
LegendofJoe
Member
The Democratic party taking on crony capitalism would resonate with a lot of people. Who will be their Teddy Roosevelt to champion it though?
VendettaRed07
Member
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
I think that was sarcasm
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'm pulling for Sherrod Brown, myself.
No the people who voted for Trump did. Let's not get this twisted.
Oh goddamnit
LegendofJoe
Member
I'm pulling for Sherrod Brown, myself.
No the people who voted for Trump did. Let's not get this twisted.
He'd be damn good at it, I'd approve.
dragonchild
Banned
Meh.
It's old hat for the minority party to propose stuff their constituents actually want when there's no chance of it actually happening. That way they can look like they're doing something, without actually doing something. Vote tallies are also extremely calculated; people like Joe Lieberman (retired now thank FSM) and Sue Collins have made long careers of being "moderates" without ever taking a courageous stand on anything (except when the party secretly wants something to die and they stand to politically benefit from "defecting").
It cuts both ways. Whatever you think of "Obamacare", the grassroots Republicans want it repealed, so the GOP passed repeals something like sixty times while Obama was in office, which of course got vetoed every time. Now that they actually own all three branches of government, interesting how they just can't seem to get the votes to make it happen. I also remember back in the "Dumbya" Bush years, he had all three branches of government and a commanding majority in both legislatures. If ever there was a time to pass a bill killing Roe vs. Wade (if you wanted it dead, anyway) it was then, when his approval was at 90% and the whole country was distracted by war. That was fifteen years ago.
So, wake me up when this proposal grows legs.
It's old hat for the minority party to propose stuff their constituents actually want when there's no chance of it actually happening. That way they can look like they're doing something, without actually doing something. Vote tallies are also extremely calculated; people like Joe Lieberman (retired now thank FSM) and Sue Collins have made long careers of being "moderates" without ever taking a courageous stand on anything (except when the party secretly wants something to die and they stand to politically benefit from "defecting").
It cuts both ways. Whatever you think of "Obamacare", the grassroots Republicans want it repealed, so the GOP passed repeals something like sixty times while Obama was in office, which of course got vetoed every time. Now that they actually own all three branches of government, interesting how they just can't seem to get the votes to make it happen. I also remember back in the "Dumbya" Bush years, he had all three branches of government and a commanding majority in both legislatures. If ever there was a time to pass a bill killing Roe vs. Wade (if you wanted it dead, anyway) it was then, when his approval was at 90% and the whole country was distracted by war. That was fifteen years ago.
So, wake me up when this proposal grows legs.
Greigor The Fellhand
Member
I'm pulling for Sherrod Brown, myself.
No the people who voted for Trump did. Let's not get this twisted.
as a north east Ohioan I like Brown. I think if he works on his voice a little he can be solid snake speaking to the youth of america.
*grumble grumble voice* Brown for president, a Future for you, America, Her allies.
I was looking at cable bills for my parents, trying to cut costs down for them this past weekend. Literally 2 providers in their area. 2. That's it. My best friend's dad lives across the street from them in older homes and only has one provider because fios was never laid down in the homes built slightly before my parent's. Shit's nutty.
Huh? This is way to broad and generates way to much economic inefficiency. Not to mention it has no respect to consumer costs. Also Beer has never been a better, healthier industry in the USA. Airlines suck, but it is a competitive market for the prices people are willing to pay.
Honestly if current anti-monopoly laws were enforced we would be ok.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Good.
You wouldn't have to break up the cable companies you just force cable wholesale at regulated prices like in Europe. Google, Amazon and co would all jump in and you would start getting very very competitively priced broadband.
Effectively all you would be saying is that the FCC should regulate broadband under Title II and use the rate regulation it provides. Broadband in the US is not a market, it is a racket.
Effectively all you would be saying is that the FCC should regulate broadband under Title II and use the rate regulation it provides. Broadband in the US is not a market, it is a racket.
Eyeglasses? Awesome.
Aren't pretty much 100% of all eyeglass companies all owned by the same parent company that forces the prices up?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voUiWOGv8ec
Now that was a monopoly sitting in plain sight that most people didn't realize was as extensive as it was before this 20/20 expose.
Aren't pretty much 100% of all eyeglass companies all owned by the same parent company that forces the prices up?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voUiWOGv8ec
Now that was a monopoly sitting in plain sight that most people didn't realize was as extensive as it was before this 20/20 expose.
Autodidact
Banned
Literally bad ~~~OPTICS~~~.
Yea but, this could be enforced under existing legislation.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
This is pretty much how I see it. I'll give a fuck when they propose this and it has a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening. Talk is cheap.
SwiftDeath
Member
Democrats definitely have to start selling themselves as something more than what they've been the last 15 years or so.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Fuck. Yes. This is the shit Dems need to be focusing on.
So what exactly are they supposed to be doing right now if not proposing ideas? Are they just supposed to sit around and wait to get back into power?
Also, there really should be a broader thread for the Dem's "Better Deal" proposal, or at least the title of this one should be changed to encompass that.
The anti-monopoly laws are post facto, when companies have become too big to fail and have the power to influence politics. This would prevent it from happening to begin with.
Autodidact
Banned
"#bothsides are corrupt. My European friends who know nothing about American politics say we have two right-wing parties. Democrats are bought and sold by corporations, too."
Democrats propose legislation intended to break monopolies and enforce anti-trust laws: "They're just pandering to get votes. They'll never get it done. #bothsides do it."
If they promise to do it, they're lying; if they actually do it, they didn't do enough; if they did enough, they didn't do it fast enough. Repeat ad nauseam. And if they get voted out because of the good they did, they're losers who can't win elections.
Democrats have the misfortune of being the targets of far-left and far-right hatred.
Democrats propose legislation intended to break monopolies and enforce anti-trust laws: "They're just pandering to get votes. They'll never get it done. #bothsides do it."
If they promise to do it, they're lying; if they actually do it, they didn't do enough; if they did enough, they didn't do it fast enough. Repeat ad nauseam. And if they get voted out because of the good they did, they're losers who can't win elections.
Democrats have the misfortune of being the targets of far-left and far-right hatred.
The Albatross
Member
The mention of the 'Beer Industry' seems pretty out of date, like it's ignorant of the last 5 and 10 years. Sure, by volume, Belgian company InBev ships an overwhelmingly large amount of beer, but almost all of the growth in the beer industry in the last 5 years has been in craft, which InBev (and the others) have a very, very poor market penetration into, and a high level of skepticism from consumers. Even as they've tried to penetrate that market (by buying smaller craft breweries), they've been unable to do so, and growth has skyrocketed amongst smaller brewers, while it's stayed flat for the big producers.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
Not saying whats proposed is bad by any means. I'm just skeptical with the Democrats at the moment. I'll continue to vote for them in any case because there is no other sane choice.
I have to ignore people like that. Just....why do people have to shit on everything. If the populace shows an interest with this avenue then Democrats would hopefully be encouraged to go ahead with it.
And so much this.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Your examples are of Republicans. Obama got quite a bit passed when he had Democratic majorities. Not as much as he should have? Sure, but that's what happens when you give him two years to fix everything and then reward him with an obstructionist Congress for the other six.
This is similar to Pelosi's 100 hours plan in the 06 elections and she got everything in that passed, and most of it became law. Of course, Bush was more reasonable than Trump, but then again Trump will probably be so desperate for any kind of win he might go along with all of it.
THIS! My electric bill is outta control and I have no choice unless I move!
Legislation like this is okay only if Bernie proposes it to the far-left.
dragonchild
Banned
Well, I get a few feeds on my FB in the case of Bernie Sanders (or rather his staff) he's been very active in getting out various messages on why he's opposing some bill or other and what the heck is going on in there. Most people are familiar with voter outreach during campaigns, but there's something to be said for constituent outreach. Bernie's not wasting time drafting bills that won't get passed; he's keeping people informed on what's going on.
I'm not playing sides here; OP was an example from the Democrats. But if you insist, Obama's approval rating cratered when he shut everyone out of his health care reform process (later termed "Obamacare") and handed it to a committee. He never supported any variation of single payer when he had the largest Democratic congressional majority of the past two generations. He nerfed a chance at real reform in favor of incremental improvement. We may not see such an opportunity again in my lifetime. And that was supposed to be his signature legislation. Grassroots were screaming that the GOP was never going to accept him (and nine years later there's never been such overwhelming proof of a prediction), they were already sabotaging town halls so might as well push for all you can get, but he squandered most of the leverage the people gave him for some quixotic quest of. . . hell if I know. He didn't appear moderate; he looked naive.
Autodidact
Banned
So he's basically doing what he's been doing for the past twenty-five years?
ThreePiMatt
Member
The beer thing is weird and seems like they're targeting it out of principal if anything. Telecoms make perfect sense since they're so vital to how people work and live that monopolies or duopolies could be a significant burden on the average consumer. But with beer, even the InBev/SABMiller and MillerCoors/MolsonCoors stuff, what exactly do you accomplish by breaking that stuff up? Bud and Miller are already separate, breaking things up further isn't likely going to bring in a third major player. It'll still be the big two, the midrange beers, and then all those microbrews fighting things out. Same goes for like Pepsi and Coke, not every industry necessarily needs the same level of competition.
Bolivar687
Banned
Party of the rich.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Alternatively, the Democrats have contributed to the passage of laws and the spread of ideology that actively harms the American people as we speak.
Folks can continue to stomp their feet and jump around pretending the Democrats are losers because of "the good they did" but holding such a position is too difficult to maintain. Step into reality and realize that the criticisms that the opposition is leveling at the Democrats has merit. That's one of the keys to sustained control over your country's future moving forward.
VendettaRed07
Member
I'm pretty sure the telecommunications act of 1996 had more to do with it than Trump
Similar threads
- Locked