Maybe the concentration of wealth is the end result of allowing too many mergers.

[dkf]

You have to wonder if competition is also compromised.

[sadbear]

1. It's the end result of 3 decades of Reaganomics.

[JVS]

2. Or maybe it's the natural result of competition.

Competition requires multiple parties, but results in the elimination of weaker parties.

[Armstead]

4. That is how unregulated capitalism works -- Its fatal flaw

It requires regulation to keep competition alive.

We screwed the pooch on that by lifting anti-trust laws and enforcement

[Johonny]

20. +1

[aquart]

6. That's why the NFL wears helmets.

The free market regulates by death. Death isn't good for your health.

[Armstead]

3. Some of have been saying that for about 30 years -- It IS the central issue

That has been a core issue from which most other ones stem from.

The concentration of wealth, erosion of the middle class, ineffectual regulations,Koch brotehrs type political takeovers often are a direct result of our absolute stupidity since the 1970's of allowing every sector of the economy to be consilidated into a few corporations through mergers, aquisitions, etc.

The chickens have come home to roost from our unwillingness to address these mergers and takeovers as they were occurring.

[dkf]

10. Good points.

Why is this not addressed? We keep on hearing how disparity in wealth is bad, but it seems everyone simply targets decreased taxes when the situation is a lot more complicated than that. I don't recall hearing anyone from Rachel to Katrina vanden Heuval speaking of this.

[Armstead]

12. It's not spoken of enough, but there is information about it

It is a concern among many progressives and others.

[NashVegas]

22. One of the First Industries to Be Consolidated Was Broadcasting

Everyone who is aware of the effect knows about the 1996 Telecommunications Act, but less well known is the deregulation of the 1980s that started in 1984, and gradually was loosened repeatedly.

When the first people who you should have been hearing about it from were the first people to start losing their jobs ...

[shraby]

5. Not only mergers, but after merging the more powerful

company cannibalized the other one, grabbing all the assets, laying off most of the personel then went after another company with the assets gained in order to do the same thing all over again.

[Armstead]

7. It's geometric growth

20 companies become 10 that are much larger by multiples, then 10 become 8 that are even huger by multiples...until it becomes one giganymous company that controls it all

[applegrove]

8. It was deregulation. By forcing corporations to compete with each other in this deregulated

fashion the mid sized corporations get gutted and taken over or destroyed. What is left is a few huge corporations and a lot of tiny ones (they don't compete with each other). Think of the telephone industry or airlines. It happens everywhere there is deregulation.

[ddeclue]

9. umm MAYBE?

no... I know it for sure..

[dkf]

11. When is the last time you heard someone discuss it though?

[Armstead]

17. That is a hiuge frustration -- and the Democratic leadeship is largely to blame

They should have made this an issue long ago. They still should be makinbg it an issue whenever things like the Comcast takeover, AT&T and many others.

You want to see one of the problems with healthcare, for example? Look at the number of takeovers that have occurred and how few companies really drive the heathcare economy these days.

[snot]

13. The oligarchs have work every possible angle at all times. That's one of many.

It's a lot easier to loot more people the bigger your org. is, and not just because you have less competition.

[Armstead]

18. That's how they become oligarchs.

[KT2000]

14. You are absolutely right

When you hear about private equity firms and holding companies - this is the process of buying up businesses to be owned by the one entity. They are then treated as financial instruments for the benefit of the parent company.

They like companies with no debt and lots of cash.
They charge the purchased company high fees for transactions with the parent company - huge fees.
They lay off the workers, move what is left overseas.
They then use the assets of the purchased company as collateral for purchasing more companies. This can put the purchased company heavily into debt. Sometimes bankruptcy follows.

This has been discussed - even in the Wall Street Journal but it is not an issue that catches on. Too bad because this issue and the mergers are indeed concentrating wealth into the hands of a few.

[Rex]

15. Way too late for that kind of thinking.

Needed that in the 80s.

[dkf]

16. We have the AT&T T-Mobile merger coming up.

It can always get worse.

[Armstead]

19. Was needed in the 80's -- needed even more now

[NashVegas]

21. That Thinking Was Around In the 80s

No one in a position of power wanted to hear it then, anymore than they want to hear it now.

[Duer 157099]

23. Ever play Monopoly?

That's how it always ends.