The Justice Department Blocked AT&T from Gobbling up T-Mobile

[Cecilie1200]

yeah thats what you are trying to make the argument about and clearly its not.
See capitalism works best when you have a lot in the pot, and not just a few choices.
See if you are going to constantly argue for free market capitalism, at least you should understand it first.
Its clear you dont.

I can't believe we're being preached to about capitalism by a bunch of liberals who are doing it to cheer on the government controlling the marketplace. It's surreal. I expect Rod Serling to show up in the corner any minute now.

jesus you Stephanie's sister? you understand why we have regulations right?
you only buy lead paint toothpaste huh.

We're not talking about quality control regulations, shitstain, so see if you can possibly manage to stick to one fucking topic for longer than a minute. I realize how hard it is with that toddler-level attention span, but give it a shot.

We're talking about the government telling the private sector who they can do business with, and what kind of business they can do, and who can buy what. It's no more appropriate for the government to tell AT&T what floundering companies it can and can't buy than it is for them to tell me which brand of toilet paper I can stock up on.

Although being a big liberal zit on the ass of life, you probably think the government SHOULD decide between Charmin and Northern for people.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And that's completely leaving aside the fact that there's no way to HAVE a monopoly in a market like the US without government intervention.

Seriously?

Ever heard of Microsoft?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

AT&T has one of the worst customer service rating in US, where as T-Mobile has one of the best. As a T-Mobile customer, I want T-Moble to be T-Mobile.
Also, in a capitalistic economy, competition is good and favors the consumer.

In a capitalistic economy, the capitalism ensures competition, not the government. And there certainly IS competition. Just because AT&T merges with T-Mobile doesn't mean they get to just relax and do whatever they want.

Your assertion that the largest company acquiring one of the next largest companies is something that fosters competition, is frankly, retarded.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And that's completely leaving aside the fact that there's no way to HAVE a monopoly in a market like the US without government intervention.

Seriously?

Ever heard of Microsoft?

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, and never has had one.

Operating system: Linux
Server: Linux
Desktop applications: Apple, Corel, Google, IBM, Novell, Oracle, etc.
Online services: AOL, Google, Yahoo, etc.
Entertainment: Nintendo and Sony

Is there one big company that does all of these things and competes with Microsoft? No, but there doesn't need to be for effective competition to exist and benefit consumers, as it in fact does. Indeed, in some of these areas, Microsoft gets quite soundly and routinely trashed.

That's the point. People talk about "monopolies" and how they "control market share", but the truth is that without government intervention, NO business "controls" anything. All they can do is HAVE the market share . . . for the moment. It is all too easy for a monolithic titan of business to make one misstep and disappear forever, to be replaced by a swarm of newcomers. Go ask Montgomery Ward and the A&P if you don't believe it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And that's completely leaving aside the fact that there's no way to HAVE a monopoly in a market like the US without government intervention.

Seriously?

Ever heard of Microsoft?

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, and never has had one.

Operating system: Linux
Server: Linux
Desktop applications: Apple, Corel, Google, IBM, Novell, Oracle, etc.
Online services: AOL, Google, Yahoo, etc.
Entertainment: Nintendo and Sony

Is there one big company that does all of these things and competes with Microsoft? No, but there doesn't need to be for effective competition to exist and benefit consumers, as it in fact does. Indeed, in some of these areas, Microsoft gets quite soundly and routinely trashed.

That's the point. People talk about "monopolies" and how they "control market share", but the truth is that without government intervention, NO business "controls" anything. All they can do is HAVE the market share . . . for the moment. It is all too easy for a monolithic titan of business to make one misstep and disappear forever, to be replaced by a swarm of newcomers. Go ask Montgomery Ward and the A&P if you don't believe it.

Wrong. Microsoft used to have a monopoly.

WASHINGTON--A federal judge has determined that Microsoft holds a monopoly in computer operating systems, strongly criticizing the company in a decisive statement that could signal the outcome of the landmark antitrust case.

Read more: Judge calls Microsoft a "monopoly" - CNET News

 

[Cecilie1200]

AT&T has one of the worst customer service rating in US, where as T-Mobile has one of the best. As a T-Mobile customer, I want T-Moble to be T-Mobile.
Also, in a capitalistic economy, competition is good and favors the consumer.

In a capitalistic economy, the capitalism ensures competition, not the government. And there certainly IS competition. Just because AT&T merges with T-Mobile doesn't mean they get to just relax and do whatever they want.

Your assertion that the largest company acquiring one of the next largest companies is something that fosters competition, is frankly, retarded.

I didn't say it "fostered" anything, so perhaps the person who can't read is the REAL retarded one here. I said that there is still lots of other competition out there, which there is. Furthermore, the government stepping in and saying, "No, T-Mobile has to continue to operate independently" doesn't "foster" competition, either, since they're apparently ready to go under on their own, or they wouldn't be considering the sale at all. What does forcing them to go out of business accomplish?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seriously?

Ever heard of Microsoft?

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, and never has had one.

Operating system: Linux
Server: Linux
Desktop applications: Apple, Corel, Google, IBM, Novell, Oracle, etc.
Online services: AOL, Google, Yahoo, etc.
Entertainment: Nintendo and Sony

Is there one big company that does all of these things and competes with Microsoft? No, but there doesn't need to be for effective competition to exist and benefit consumers, as it in fact does. Indeed, in some of these areas, Microsoft gets quite soundly and routinely trashed.

That's the point. People talk about "monopolies" and how they "control market share", but the truth is that without government intervention, NO business "controls" anything. All they can do is HAVE the market share . . . for the moment. It is all too easy for a monolithic titan of business to make one misstep and disappear forever, to be replaced by a swarm of newcomers. Go ask Montgomery Ward and the A&P if you don't believe it.

Wrong. Microsoft used to have a monopoly.

WASHINGTON--A federal judge has determined that Microsoft holds a monopoly in computer operating systems, strongly criticizing the company in a decisive statement that could signal the outcome of the landmark antitrust case.

Read more: Judge calls Microsoft a "monopoly" - CNET News

I'm not talking about what some delusional liberal lawyer in a black dress thinks, I'm talking about reality. Are you really this incapable of looking at the facts and drawing your own conclusions, rather than having someone spoonfeed you with what you should think and believe?

Fact: Microsoft has competitors in every branch of business.

Fact: Microsoft always has had competitors in every branch of business. There has not been one period in the history of Microsoft when it has been the only provider on the market in any of its product areas.

See if you can argue the facts, rather than parroting what someone told you.

 

[editec]

The TECH BUBBLE burst because there was far too much debt chasing far too little revenue.

It did not burst because Micro-soft was broken up.

I remember back at the zenith of the TECH BUBBLE, reading about the BIG WEBSITES that were the WINNERS of the internet because they had all the eyeballs.

Then you'd look at how much money they've paid to get those eyeballs and you'd discover that they'd borrwed hundreds of millions of dollars to get an audience, but hadn't developed any revenue streams to pay for them.

I laughed and laughed when those idiots went down.

Of coure the idiots weren't the people who'd borrowed the money because they made a fortune paying themselves to waste other people's money.

The idiots were the investors and angels who lent them the money in the first place.

 

[JoeB131]

I can't believe we're being preached to about capitalism by a bunch of liberals who are doing it to cheer on the government controlling the marketplace. It's surreal. I expect Rod Serling to show up in the corner any minute now.

jesus you Stephanie's sister? you understand why we have regulations right?
you only buy lead paint toothpaste huh.

THere are reasonable regulations and not reasonable regulations.

The problem is we get the toothpaste with anti-freeze in it from China, while the American company that makes toothpaste closes its doors because OSHA slapped it with a bunch of fines because someone didn't fill out the right form for forklift training.

 

[editec]

The problem is we get the toothpaste with anti-freeze in it from China, while the American company that makes toothpaste closes its doors because OSHA slapped it with a bunch of fines because someone didn't fill out the right form for forklift training.

That about sums it up.

Of course the fact that the Chinese can make toothpaste so cheaply, thanks to the fact that their people are so poor, plays a role in this, too.

Easily fixed problem though.

The solution is called FAIR TRADE.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And that's completely leaving aside the fact that there's no way to HAVE a monopoly in a market like the US without government intervention.

Seriously?

Ever heard of Microsoft?

Seriously?

Microsoft was never a monopoly.

FYI, the government alleged that Microsoft used anti competitive tactics by including features in its OS that other companies were trying to charge people for. They were also accused of forcing manufacturers who wanted to use Microsoft products from offering other computers with products from other companies that sold operating systems.

They were trying to stifle competition in some ways, but they were never a monopoly. Now they get the government to help them maintain their market share by forcing companies that a completely free (to them) OS to pay them for the patents they infringe on by using something that no one sells commercially.

Do you honestly want to try to use them as an example of something the government did right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seriously?

Ever heard of Microsoft?

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, and never has had one.

Operating system: Linux
Server: Linux
Desktop applications: Apple, Corel, Google, IBM, Novell, Oracle, etc.
Online services: AOL, Google, Yahoo, etc.
Entertainment: Nintendo and Sony

Is there one big company that does all of these things and competes with Microsoft? No, but there doesn't need to be for effective competition to exist and benefit consumers, as it in fact does. Indeed, in some of these areas, Microsoft gets quite soundly and routinely trashed.

That's the point. People talk about "monopolies" and how they "control market share", but the truth is that without government intervention, NO business "controls" anything. All they can do is HAVE the market share . . . for the moment. It is all too easy for a monolithic titan of business to make one misstep and disappear forever, to be replaced by a swarm of newcomers. Go ask Montgomery Ward and the A&P if you don't believe it.

Wrong. Microsoft used to have a monopoly.

WASHINGTON--A federal judge has determined that Microsoft holds a monopoly in computer operating systems, strongly criticizing the company in a decisive statement that could signal the outcome of the landmark antitrust case.

Read more: Judge calls Microsoft a "monopoly" - CNET News

The judge was wrong.

FYI, that was a finding that allowed the case to proceed. The final verdict never called Microsoft a monopoly, just being anti competitive.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The TECH BUBBLE burst because there was far too much debt chasing far too little revenue.

It did not burst because Micro-soft was broken up.

I remember back at the zenith of the TECH BUBBLE, reading about the BIG WEBSITES that were the WINNERS of the internet because they had all the eyeballs.

Then you'd look at how much money they've paid to get those eyeballs and you'd discover that they'd borrwed hundreds of millions of dollars to get an audience, but hadn't developed any revenue streams to pay for them.

I laughed and laughed when those idiots went down.

Of coure the idiots weren't the people who'd borrowed the money because they made a fortune paying themselves to waste other people's money.

The idiots were the investors and angels who lent them the money in the first place.

Microsoft was not broken up. It actually got bigger after the verdict after the settlement.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly, and never has had one.

Operating system: Linux
Server: Linux
Desktop applications: Apple, Corel, Google, IBM, Novell, Oracle, etc.
Online services: AOL, Google, Yahoo, etc.
Entertainment: Nintendo and Sony

Is there one big company that does all of these things and competes with Microsoft? No, but there doesn't need to be for effective competition to exist and benefit consumers, as it in fact does. Indeed, in some of these areas, Microsoft gets quite soundly and routinely trashed.

That's the point. People talk about "monopolies" and how they "control market share", but the truth is that without government intervention, NO business "controls" anything. All they can do is HAVE the market share . . . for the moment. It is all too easy for a monolithic titan of business to make one misstep and disappear forever, to be replaced by a swarm of newcomers. Go ask Montgomery Ward and the A&P if you don't believe it.

Wrong. Microsoft used to have a monopoly.

WASHINGTON--A federal judge has determined that Microsoft holds a monopoly in computer operating systems, strongly criticizing the company in a decisive statement that could signal the outcome of the landmark antitrust case.

Read more: Judge calls Microsoft a "monopoly" - CNET News

I'm not talking about what some delusional liberal lawyer in a black dress thinks, I'm talking about reality. Are you really this incapable of looking at the facts and drawing your own conclusions, rather than having someone spoonfeed you with what you should think and believe?

Fact: Microsoft has competitors in every branch of business.

Fact: Microsoft always has had competitors in every branch of business. There has not been one period in the history of Microsoft when it has been the only provider on the market in any of its product areas.

See if you can argue the facts, rather than parroting what someone told you.

I think you mean "reality...as I see it"

 

[JoeB131]

And that's completely leaving aside the fact that there's no way to HAVE a monopoly in a market like the US without government intervention.

Seriously?

Ever heard of Microsoft?

Seriously?

Microsoft was never a monopoly.

FYI, the government alleged that Microsoft used anti competitive tactics by including features in its OS that other companies were trying to charge people for. They were also accused of forcing manufacturers who wanted to use Microsoft products from offering other computers with products from other companies that sold operating systems.

They were trying to stifle competition in some ways, but they were never a monopoly. Now they get the government to help them maintain their market share by forcing companies that a completely free (to them) OS to pay them for the patents they infringe on by using something that no one sells commercially.

Do you honestly want to try to use them as an example of something the government did right?

I think there is an important issue that Microsoft became kind of close to a monopoly because the market demanded it.

I write up a spreadsheet on Excel. I send it out to ten vendors. One is using Lotus 1-2-3. Another is using Gnumeric. Another is using Visicalc. The market demanded everyone use the same software..

 

[uscitizen]

Most of the regulations and laws in place on industry is because of their past misbehaving.
They earned most every one of them.

 

[JoeB131]

Most of the regulations and laws in place on industry is because of their past misbehaving.
They earned most every one of them.

Horsepuckey.

Most regluations are in place because bureaucrats like to show the rest of us who is in charge. Don't you dare think you are.

If you don't like how a company conducts business, don't do business with them. Hell, I fire vendors all the time. And there are companies I won't buy from if I hear they are doing something I don't like.

But that should be MY decision, not the governments.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seriously?

Ever heard of Microsoft?

Seriously?

Microsoft was never a monopoly.

FYI, the government alleged that Microsoft used anti competitive tactics by including features in its OS that other companies were trying to charge people for. They were also accused of forcing manufacturers who wanted to use Microsoft products from offering other computers with products from other companies that sold operating systems.

They were trying to stifle competition in some ways, but they were never a monopoly. Now they get the government to help them maintain their market share by forcing companies that a completely free (to them) OS to pay them for the patents they infringe on by using something that no one sells commercially.

Do you honestly want to try to use them as an example of something the government did right?

I think there is an important issue that Microsoft became kind of close to a monopoly because the market demanded it.

I write up a spreadsheet on Excel. I send it out to ten vendors. One is using Lotus 1-2-3. Another is using Gnumeric. Another is using Visicalc. The market demanded everyone use the same software..

That was a big part of the problem, no one wanted to make the various programs compatible. I still remember getting files that were either impossible to open, or incomprehensible if I did get them open, because I did not have the right software. I would thank you for reminding me of those days, but they were a massive headache most of the time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

jesus you Stephanie's sister? you understand why we have regulations right?
you only buy lead paint toothpaste huh.

We're not talking about quality control regulations, shitstain, so see if you can possibly manage to stick to one fucking topic for longer than a minute. I realize how hard it is with that toddler-level attention span, but give it a shot.

We're talking about the government telling the private sector who they can do business with, and what kind of business they can do, and who can buy what. It's no more appropriate for the government to tell AT&T what floundering companies it can and can't buy than it is for them to tell me which brand of toilet paper I can stock up on.

Although being a big liberal zit on the ass of life, you probably think the government SHOULD decide between Charmin and Northern for people.

Well no government is telling the private sector they cant merge and own 100% of the market. We dont allow these things most of the time because it hurts capitalism.

See the best way our market works is if you have plenty to choose from. This would kill choice and the free market for the private sector. You get one step closer to these people controlling the rates and nobody else can do shit about it.

Let me guess? You live in a town with one Pharmacy, Restaurant and one gas station right?
Now the local eat and poop might be the only thing around for miles, and they charge 10 bucks for a soda, but hey its all good right? They are the private sector an therefore can do what they like!

I was right, you are fucking stupid. Let me guess you are one of those people who get drunk off mouth wash right?

How would this kill choice? The FCC estimates that most Americans have access to at least 5 different cell providers. They would have access to more if most cities did not work to keep WalMart out of them, but politicians only care about people with money, like unions, not the actual poor people who would benefit from having a WalMart near them.

 

[JoeB131]

jesus you Stephanie's sister? you understand why we have regulations right?
you only buy lead paint toothpaste huh.

THere are reasonable regulations and not reasonable regulations.

The problem is we get the toothpaste with anti-freeze in it from China, while the American company that makes toothpaste closes its doors because OSHA slapped it with a bunch of fines because someone didn't fill out the right form for forklift training.

i'm sorry america has standards..If you dont like our standards feel free to move to china.
Just dont complain when you get sick from the toothpaste

No, the problem is that we have unreasonable standards, but the chinese have no standards. So companies (like the one I work for) just find it easier to move my JOB (not me) to China. But I've got standards, man. That's the important thing!

As for the toothpaste, the toothpaste ends up here, anyway. Usually in a dollar store.

I think I'd rather have a job than unreasonable standards like "You didn't properly document your forklift training, so we are going to hit you with a $50,000 fine."