Democrats Propose New Competition Laws That Would 'Break Up Big Companies If They're Hurting Consumers' (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Senate and House Democratic leaders today proposed new antitrust laws that could prevent many of the biggest mergers and break up monopolies in broadband and other industries. "Right now our antitrust laws are designed to allow huge corporations to merge, padding the pockets of investors but sending costs skyrocketing for everything from cable bills and airline tickets to food and health care," US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wrote in a New York Times opinion piece. "We are going to fight to allow regulators to break up big companies if they're hurting consumers and to make it harder for companies to merge if it reduces competition." The "Better Deal" unveiled by Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was described in several documents that can be found in an Axios story. The plan for "cracking down on corporate monopolies" lists five industries that Democrats say are in particular need of change, specifically airlines, cable and telecom, the beer industry, food, and eyeglasses. The Democrats' plan for lowering the cost of prescription drugs is detailed in a separate document. The Democrats didn't single out any internet providers that they want broken up, but they did say they want to stop AT&T's proposed $85.4 billion purchase of Time Warner: "Consolidation in the telecommunications is not just between cable or phone providers; increasingly, large firms are trying to buy up content providers. Currently, AT&T is trying to buy Time Warner. If AT&T succeeds in this deal, it will have more power to restrict the content access of its 135 million wireless and 25.5 million pay-TV subscribers. This will only enable the resulting behemoths to promote their own programming, unfairly discriminate against other distributors and their ability to offer highly desired content, and further restrict small businesses from successfully competing in the market."

Comments

We have laws for this already

[JoshuaZ]

We already have anti-trust laws. The primary point of them is to break up companies that are too big, or to prevent the formation of companies that are too big. The solution is to enforce those laws seriously not to add more laws on top.

Re:We have laws for this already

[gfxguy]

The primary point of anti-trust laws is not to break up companies, but seek remedies against companies when they violate the laws. If a company is deemed a monopoly, that could possibly be one of the remedies, but it's not the goal of anti-trust laws to break up companies because people "feel like" they are too big.

I don't like AT&T. I don't like Comcast, either. But lately Comcast has been pushing HBO, trying to get subscribers to pony up for the premium channel, citing shows like the new season of Game of Thrones. HBO is a Time Warner property. They have also spent quite a bit promoting that you can watch Netflix on their X1 platform. Apparently, despite how much I dislike Comcast, they are not forcing their own (NBC Universal) content on me.

Point being that large companies are actually capable of not violating anti-trust laws, and there's nothing inherently wrong with being enormous conglomerates until they actually start violating the law. I agree they simply need to be enforced, and like any effective deterrent, they need to be enforced swiftly and with commensurate punishments.

Re:We have laws for this already

[bobbied]

The democrats are searching for a reason, any reason, no matter how crazy or ill-advised that will hopefully get people to the polls to vote for them. This is but a trial balloon to test the political winds aloft.

They already know that the Anti-Trust laws exist, they don't care. They NEED a cause (other than bashing Trump or keeping Obamacare which is for their base) to recapture the middle. This is a good as any I suppose..

I figure this trial won't gain much traction..

Re: We have laws for this already

[guruevi]

The thing is that Democrats allowed these mergers they are decrying. Obama allowed not just one but two of the biggest mergers in media history and left office with a third one pretty much approved.

The main reason this is happening is because Dems are finally noticing that they created this media mess that got Trump elected and most likely reelected. Now that it's no longer working in their favor must it be abolished. It's just a repeat of the Nixon administration and the Bell breakup.

It's all just politics in the end.

Re:We have laws for this already

[spacepimp]

They do this already. Then the claims of Transparency and protecting your rights disappear once the vote is cast. Because there is no accountability or recourse.

Re:We have laws for this already

[rogoshen1]

You mean it might be a bad idea to give politicians the power to break up companies over potentially vague, ill defined precepts like "hurting customers"? Shocking, shocking I tell you.

Where were the anti-trust regulators when Comcast bought NBC? ...

"We won't enforce the rules already on the books, but you should totally give us more regulatory power to use at our complete discretion. Also, just ignore the billions of dollars spent by lobbyists, we're totally immune from outside influence and have the little guys -- your needs at heart. double pinky swear, honest!"

Re:We have laws for this already

[Jack9]

> there's nothing inherently wrong with being enormous conglomerates until they actually start violating the law.

That's a philosophical determination, not a factual claim. When talking about "the good", it's important to set a standard so that it might be measured and some sort of determination can be made. The common good in terms of retaining or growing economic power for the average individual of a population? or what? In practice, the concentration of wealth has shown to have a negative impact on all strata of economic systems for many definitions of common good. Even when redistribution occurs, it's usually applied in a regressive manner, so it's hard to say what the proper remedy would even look like.

There is commensurate political power that comes with economic power, as with every economic system in history. This will never go anywhere for the political reason, not because politicians will come to their senses about some quasi-morality like "it's ok for the super-powerful super-wealthy organizations to be super wealthy".

Re:We have laws for this already

[jedidiah]

There's a difference between crass bribery and sound public policy presented in a rational fashion.

That said, this kind of thing should focus on "too big to fail" rather than harm to consumers. The former seems much easier to quantify versus some notion of harm.

We already have an anti-trust act that's largely ignored. The existence of "too big to fail" or "abusive oligopolies" are simply are result of the failure to enforce what laws we have already.

It's your classic "let's create another worthless scrap of paper and pretend that that alone will fix the problem" approach. Half ass it (or less) and then blame everyone else when it fails.

Then hysterically push for some more useless nonsense.

Re:We have laws for this already

[DuckDodgers]

Both parties love to promise the world when they're in the minority, and then nothing gets done when they have the majority. The Republicans spent six years promising they had way better ideas than Obamacare. The American voters gave them control of Congress and the White House, now it's time to show their cards... and it looks like they have nothing.

But don't be too hard on the Republicans. The Democrats are now playing the same game. They're going to fix broadband, and education, and Obamacare, and probably give us all unicorns and cotton candy that makes you lose weight too.

Just until they get into power.

Re:We have laws for this already

[drago177]

The primary point of anti-trust laws is not to break up companies, but seek remedies against companies when they violate the laws....

Well, that's one way to describe anti-trust law goals. A better one would be "to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers." I hope everyone will admit that these mega-corps could really benefit from more competition.

Re:We have laws for this already

[ShanghaiBill]

Shouldn't all politicians seek to find policies which resonate with their constituents?

No. Politicians should have principles, and stick to them. They should stand up for things they believe in, and try to convince voters that they are right. What they should NOT do is find out what a plurality of voters want, and then just bend their principles to give it to them.

Re:We have laws for this already

[acrimonious howard]

But lately Comcast has been pushing HBO, trying to get subscribers to pony up for the premium channel, citing shows like the new season of Game of Thrones.

I can see their angle here. GOT is huge, and the bigger it is, the more people willing to pay to watch, the easier it is to buy cable. If you rope in a chord-cutter with HBO, and then get them paying for one or two more channels, bundle in some internet, and all of a sudden, customer is thinking why am I paying all these seperate bills that add up to close to regular cable anyway? And now there's a 6 month promotion where I'll actually save money. 6months later, 'ya, I need to cancel, but it's freaking convenient, and I'm lazy.'

They have also spent quite a bit promoting that you can watch Netflix on their X1 platform.

Netflix is no secret - everyone - ev-er-y-one - knows about them. Chord-cutters are leaving, and most are watching Netflix. This keeps some from leaving without informing anyone new about Netflix. Also, see above.

Point being that large companies are actually capable of not violating anti-trust laws

True, I'm not arguing with this part. But I've dealt with Comcast support before, and anyone who has will tell you that they don't really value their customers. They could really use some competition.

they need to be enforced swiftly and with commensurate punishments.

Here's the problem, and why what the Dems are doing is actually a good thing. How easy is it to regulate the deep pockets? It's not, the Reps get the most donations and are blatant about it, but Dems get $ too. So anything is better than nothing, and if you break up the huge companies, it's pushing the line in the right direction, because you can't completely count on regulatory teeth.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Politicians should have principles, and stick to them. They should stand up for things they believe in, and try to convince voters that they are right.

Hmm, not one word to suggest that a politician should change their minds, rethink their positions, or let the people convince them of anything.

That seems quite dogmatic.

What they should NOT do is find out what a plurality of voters want, and then just bend their principles to give it to them.

Why not?

Re: We have laws for this already

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the problem with wealth accumulation?

Six thousand years of historical examples.

Re:We have laws for this already

[s.petry]

What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy? What matters is the average quality of life and whether or not the average person is content. Who cares if someone has more than you. Worry about if you have your needs met. And your needs to not include every luxury under the sun.

Nothing like shallow fallacy logic.

The problem with accumulated wealth goes back to the first recorded Democracy and ideas recorded in Plato's "The Republic". Paraphrased for convenience, The problem with people becoming extremely wealthy is that they are free to fuck with everyone else to gain more and more wealth. The same is true for any form of power really, but money is the easiest for people to understand.

People on the Right don't hate Soros because he has money, they hate him because later in life much of his money came questionably and he funds people who he believes benefits him and his agenda in politics. People on the Left don't hate the Koch brothers because they have money, they hate him because they fund people who they believe benefit them and their agenda in politics.

Have another weak ad hominem you wish us to correct?

Re:We have laws for this already

[fustakrakich]

test the political winds aloft..

Hard to do with a lead balloon.

Don't listen to the rhetoric, it's unbelievable. Always check the party's voting record, and of course where the money that fills the coffers comes from.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Kohath]

Democrats: We had Whitehouse for 8 years, and now that we lost it, here are our ideas (that we're totally really committed to, not faking at all, honest).

Re:We have laws for this already

[Dutch Gun]

chord-cutter

Chord-cutter: n. One who decides to stop listening to music.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Obfuscant]

Somehow Democrats and Obama did this while Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.[1]

The DOJ, FCC, and FTC are executive branch agencies, controlled by the Chief Executive. A decision by the DOJ not to prosecute under anti-trust law, or the FTC/FCC to allow a merger, are executive branch decisions.

Republicans controlled the House for the last six of Obama's eight years in office, and the Senate for the last two.

And every time they tried to oppose something Obama wanted they were called racist or obstructionist.

Re:We have laws for this already

[interkin3tic]

What's the problem with wealth accumulation?

(gestures broadly at recent political history)

Re:We have laws for this already

[interkin3tic]

The democrats are searching for a reason, any reason, no matter how crazy or ill-advised that will hopefully get people to the polls to vote for them.

Wait... wait... a political party... trying to get... people... to vote... FOR... THEM?

HOLDTHEFUCKINGPHONEOMGWTFBBQIJUSTSHITMYPANTS!!!!!

You've done it. I've soiled my pants and my heart has stopped and I ruptured my vocal cords screaming in shock at this upsetting insight. I'm literally dead and covered with feces. That's what the shock of what you just said has done to me. You need to introduce things slowly, you can't just drop "Political parties in democracies seek to get votes" on us like that.

They NEED a cause (other than bashing Trump or keeping Obamacare which is for their base) to recapture the middle.

No, Obamacare was for the middle. Single payer like the rest of the civilized world is for their base. "Lets make the US an actual fucking democracy where 1 citizen = 1 vote instead of 1 redneck vote = 100 city votes" is for their base.

"How about we don't let huge corporations rule the country" maybe could be considered for the middle, but personally I think the average voter is far too stupid for that to catch on, so I'm almost more convinced it's just because it's a smart idea.

We have antitrust laws right now, but that's like saying "We have antibiotics right now, what do we need to develop new ones for?" We need new antitrust laws because banks, telecoms, and media companies are still getting too big and powerful compared to real citizens.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing like shallow fallacy logic.

The problem with accumulated wealth goes back to the first recorded Democracy and ideas recorded in Plato's "The Republic". Paraphrased for convenience, The problem with people becoming extremely wealthy is that they are free to fuck with everyone else to gain more and more wealth. The same is true for any form of power really, but money is the easiest for people to understand.

I'm in full agreement. In short, Absolute Power tends to corrupt absolutely, if not this generation, then the next.

Inheritance taxes are a good thing. They are in fact an essential thing as a check on absolute power. If there is a single thing republicans want that must be stopped above every other thing it is that.

A democracy can be manipulated, until it barely resembles a democracy. Control enough wealth and power and you can manipulate enough of the inputs that the outcome can be shaped.

Over and over they repeat on TV that Trump won the election fair and square. I don't buy that. Russia simply attacked the weaker nodes of our democracy by feeding them raw sewage and from all accounts tried to attack voting databases and such as well.

Why did the attack work? It worked because our own politicians have been hacking at those same nodes (people) for a long time. Anti-Intellectualism is rampant. People are conditioned to drink the cool aid they are given and like it. Hell a common refrain for sites like Drudge Report is it is perfectly fair since it just aggregates links, but as with anything, you can pick and choose.

The only solution is a better informed electorate. It does no good that people are slowly noticing Trump's lies. People have to spot them in real time.

An electorate that believes that Obamacare is the root of all evil is not compatible with a democracy. Any time one side or the other wins by lying it weakens us. Hell, Obama did a form of it by oversimplifying. "If you like your plan you can keep it" was true, but only if you add, ", if your plan meets the new minimums."

What do we need?
1. Run offs if an election is close, so we remove the spoiler effect. (Other methods could work as well.)
2. An electorate that actually actively rejects the liars.

In some ways we just need (1), and some of the rest will take care of itself. Sure I'll vote for the lesser of two evils every time, since not doing so is the greater, but I'd surely have loved to vote for the best choice with a backup of the lesser of two evils.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Anonymous Coward]

The democrats are searching for a reason, any reason, no matter how crazy or ill-advised that will hopefully get people to the polls to vote for them. This is but a trial balloon to test the political winds aloft.

A corporation is an artificial construct. If the people decide that artificial constructs like that do not have a right to get so big that they hurt the, well, the actual people, then that is how democracy works. How is that crazy or ill advised? Corporations growing without limit risk destabilizing our union, since power gets concentrated and abused. Nice try with the insult and dash though.

They already know that the Anti-Trust laws exist, they don't care. They NEED a cause (other than bashing Trump or keeping Obamacare which is for their base) to recapture the middle. This is a good as any I suppose..

I figure this trial won't gain much traction..

There is not much to argue without some hard details on what the new law solves that the old law didn't. Still, politicians, almost by definition have causes. It is supposed to be why they get into politics.

As far as bashing Trump goes, well he is a lying sack of crap who seems to care about himself, what people think of him, and his family. I could go on with the bashing, but really, I'm sure the quota has been met. As far as Obamacare goes, it was and is a remarkable step in the right direction, and I could fix it pretty quickly. Here is the plan.

1. Make slight changes such that it doesn't make sense to wait to get insurance. Perhaps a 3 month pre existing condition exclusion or something, if your not currently enrolled.
2. Allow buying across state lines, but keep the minimum requirements. An insurer would still have to offer to sell across state lines, and even if they did medical care is more expensive in some places, and hence so would the insurance be.
3. Offer a medicare buy in as an option. The books must balance, but they still can use subsidies. If the republicans insist, limit the offer to states with less than 3 providers.
4. Get rid of the fine and replace it with part of your income tax. That way everyone has to pay into the system, so you don't have just a few healthy people subsidizing all the sick people. Technically this makes 1 redundant, but anyway...
5. Offer deductions in taxes for meeting reasonable health goals. Yea, I don't like this one either, but it is probably necessary.
6. Be careful that the minimum policies do not get too padded.
7. Stop subsiding corn so much. HFCS is not a good thing.
8. mandate reduced sugar in foods, and encourage more low sugar foods and more whole grain foods.
9. Try to find ways to encourage people to just walk more. It helps.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Anonymous Coward]

So, to weaken the power of wealth, lets give more vaguely defined powers where it is easiest to abuse, the government.

Fucking morons.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Boronx]

He probably assumed you were educated.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Boronx]

You are also free to starve to death in the open.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Boronx]

"That said, this kind of thing should focus on "too big to fail" rather than harm to consumers. The former seems much easier to quantify versus some notion of harm."

There's really no such thing as too big to fail for a cable company. The country would not go down the drain should every cable company fail at once.

"We already have an anti-trust act that's largely ignored. The existence of "too big to fail" or "abusive oligopolies" are simply are result of the failure to enforce what laws we have already."

It's your classic "let's create another worthless scrap of paper and pretend that that alone will fix the problem" approach. Half ass it (or less) and then blame everyone else when it fails.

You are perhaps being too cynical. The current anti trust laws may merely be inadequate. It's possible they could use some beefing up.

It's possible to do good with legislation. Obamacare generated a lot of noise from the right wing, the left wing and from cynics. Many of their criticisms were on point, but the system is still an improvement over what we had.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Boronx]

Decisions made, possibly, because the laws are too weak?

Re: We have laws for this already

[PaulRivers10]

It's all just politics in the end.

That's true but that's how politics works. Parties lose favor with old themes, so they go looking for new ones that will get people to vote for them. That's the purpose of your vote, to (theoretically) kick them out for not doing what people want.

Re: We have laws for this already

[BlueStrat]

He probably assumed you were educated.

Well, you've proved you aren't, despite any schools you may have attended.

Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty & starvation, has raised the average standard of living higher and faster for more people, done more to advance science and technology, done more to empower the poorest and provide a way out of poverty, and has provided more charitable assistance worldwide than any other system yet devised by Man. And that's just a partial listing.

As the saying goes, capitalism is a deeply flawed system but it beats anything else that's been tried.

Strat

Re: We have laws for this already

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you paint too rosy a picture of Capitalism, let's not forget that it also had quite the relationship with slavery, company towns, and child labor, among other things.

Re:We have laws for this already

[gravewax]

ummm no, the primary goal of the anti-trust laws is to prevent companies from using their position of strength to exploit users or leverage themselves into other markets, it has noting to do with breaking up companies though that sometimes is a remedy sort during an anti trust trial.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Z00L00K]

With a large conglomerate it's not a question of IF, it's a question of WHEN. And those companies can move slowly to remain undetected for a long time until they finally get discovered, but at that time they may have infiltrated the world so tight that they are hard to remove. Look at Facebook - you can hardly browse the web without getting Facebook cookies poured into your browser.

Re: We have laws for this already

[PaulRivers10]

As the saying goes, capitalism is a deeply flawed system but it beats anything else that's been tried.

The economic defense of capitalism is premised on the ubiquity of competitive markets, providing for the rational allocation of scarce resources and justifying the existing distribution of incomes. The political defense of capitalism is that economic power is diffuse and cannot be aggregated in such a manner as to have undue influence over the democratic state. Both of these core claims for capitalism are demolished if monopoly, rather than competition, is the rule.

Re: We have laws for this already

[BlueStrat]

Both of these core claims for capitalism are demolished if monopoly, rather than competition, is the rule.

Quite true.

A functioning capitalist economy/society must have Rule of Law to make certain laws, contracts, etc etc are not broken or violated. There must be laws against predatory monopolistic actions and the must be enforced, and enforced equally.

Most of the laws to restrain such predatory monopolistic actions are already on the books. There is no lack of laws under which to prosecute such crimes, or prosecute anyone for almost anything, there are so many laws and regulations with the force of law on the books.

No, what is lacking is the willingness, nothing else. This is because as government gets larger, the difference between government and large businesses and financial interests becomes less and less. This is one of the main reasons why it is wise to keep the central government weak and relatively small. First, a weaker government is less attractive to the corruptible/corruptors as the risk/reward ratio is narrowed and pushed into the red, and second, what corruption that occurs can only inflict a minimum of damage. Less bureaucracy in which to hide corruption, incompetence, and to avoid accountability hiding within the faceless ranks.

Strat

Re:We have laws for this already

[skam240]

Much more like Democrats: We had control of congress for 2 years and passed Obama Care. The presidency is meaningless if the party in power in congress has a clearly stated goal of opposing everything the president supports.

The Republicans can't even keep their own party in order long enough to repeal Obama Care under similar circumstances. Meanwhile more and more people are realizing that "hey, being poor shouldn't mean I should have to go massively in debt just because I'm unlucky enough to get sick".

Re: We have laws for this already

[skam240]

"And every time they tried to oppose something Obama wanted they were called racist or obstructionist."

And yet the republican party built their last six years of governance on opposing Obama. Mitch McConnell made things pretty clear when he made the Republicans stated goal defeating Democrats rather than governing responsibly. I mean, how many times did congress vote to repeal Obama Care under Obama? A shameful amount of time wasted when so many Americans go bankrupt due to health costs.

Re:We have laws for this already

[istartedi]

This is a nice reply, and the only thing I can add is something I posted on Slashdot in 2012 in which I use a light-speed analogy for wealth accumulation.

Re:We have laws for this already

[WaffleMonster]

What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy?

Currently in the US trillions of dollars of value are being "hoarded" and simply made to sit idle. Trillions more are being parked outside the US for tax purposes.

Think of a country where everyone owns a money vacuum. Those with more wealth have better vacuums able to more efficiently suck up cash. Those with less wealth can't suck up as much.

In a world where what is sucked up is spent there is always money in the system even for those with less efficient vacuums because those with more efficient suckers also happen to be blowing money out at the same rate there is a useful gradient allowing even the poorest of suckers to get ahead.

In a world where what is sucked up is disproportionately hoarded by the rich each cycle of sucking and blowing means less and less is available to be sucked by those will less efficient suckers... people who themselves have less or no choice but to blow at the same rate as they suck simply to continue to exist.

This is a gross oversimplification. The real world is much more complex, importantly more value is created with each cycle yet underlying dynamics are still applicable.

Being rich isn't a problem. Being rich while failing to spend your riches on consumption and or useful "means of production" is hurting everyone who isn't rich.

What matters is the average quality of life and whether or not the average person is content.

There are about 15 million food insecure households in this country.

Re:We have laws for this already

[jandersen]

What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy?

As many others have already pointed out, with great wealth comes great power, which is invariably abused. Perhaps the obscenely rich don't intend to hurt anybody and destroy the environment, but they don't see the consequences of their actions and they don't care. People around the world live in extreme poverty as a consequence; we in the West are isolated from the reality of this, but there is a clear line from wealthy people and corporations seeking more wealth, through local corruption in 3rd world countries to extreme poverty, so calling it petty jealousy when people object to this state of affairs is at best, simply uninformed.

What matters is the average quality of life and whether or not the average person is content.

The average is all that matters? So, if you live in a room that is 50 degrees centigrade half the day and 0 the other half, you will be confortable in shorts and a t-shirt, because on average the temperature is 25 degrees?

Who cares if someone has more than you. Worry about if you have your needs met. And your needs to not include every luxury under the sun.

Isn't 'caring if someone has more than you' what drives capitalism? Ambition, in other words - the constant drive to do better, have more, acquire luxuries; why else would anyone work hard to make more money rather than just hang around in an armchair, beer in hand? What you are saying is nothing more than the shallow excuses for inequality, oppression and slavery, as they have been used throughout the ages. It's the sort of nonsense that goes along with saying "we're better of being poor".

Re:We have laws for this already

[WaffleMonster]

Point being that large companies are actually capable of not violating anti-trust laws

I suppose after capturing lawmakers and regulators this could be a true statement.

there's nothing inherently wrong with being enormous conglomerates until they actually start violating the law.

It's not really about the law as it is but rather promoting structures that reinforce good behavior rather than betting against reality while incentivizing bad behavior. When you fail to do this you inevitably end up with Ajit Pai heading FCC, Scott Pruit at EPA and consumers with bills for telecom services that are multiples of what they cost in other countries with comparable standards of living.

The primary point of anti-trust laws is not to break up companies, but seek remedies against companies when they violate the laws

I agree they simply need to be enforced, and like any effective deterrent, they need to be enforced swiftly and with commensurate punishments.

This is a fools errand. It is not reasonable to expect government to prevent monopolies and massive corporations from "unfairly" leveraging their market positions. Regulators will either be captured or companies will find ways side step restrictions with same or similar outcomes.

Re:We have laws for this already

[TheRaven64]

The founders of the USA created a system of checks and balances to restrain the government. This included splitting powers between the state and federal governments and splitting the power of the federal government between the legislature, executive, and judiciary, all of which were appointed by different mechanisms.

They didn't feel the need to provide similar checks and balances on the power of rich people or corporations, because neither was particularly powerful in the US at the time of founding (if they'd looked at the East India Company a bit more closely, they might have done things differently).

Re:We have laws for this already

[Namarrgon]

If you think power is easier to abuse in government than it is in a corporation or private individual with a few billions, you really haven't been paying attention.

If you think corporate regulation is bad, have a look at all the red tape the bureaucracy has to fight through to get anything done. Have a look at all the public scrutiny on the higher levels of government. Have a look at how many people have to sign off on everything for even inconsequential actions.

There's no need for elections, no worries about limited terms, and public opinion is almost irrelevant to any diversified individual or corporation. And if they want more power than their money already gives them, they can lobby to get the rules changed to suit them more, or simply move to a more favourable jurisdiction.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Kjella]

Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty & starvation, has raised the average standard of living higher and faster for more people, done more to advance science and technology, done more to empower the poorest and provide a way out of poverty, and has provided more charitable assistance worldwide than any other system yet devised by Man. And that's just a partial listing. As the saying goes, capitalism is a deeply flawed system but it beats anything else that's been tried.

Pure capitalism is an extremely ruthless and egoistic system and far from the "best we've tried". We've chained the beast in a ton of laws for it to treat the consumers decently, the workers decently, the competitors decently, the environment decently, pay their share of taxes for public education, infrastructure and so on but it's a slippery eel when it comes to anything that affects the bottom line. A few philanthropists who've accumulated so much wealth they'd like to create a legacy, allegedly for charity but I suspect just as much for vanity doesn't make up for the fact that to most capitalists you're only worth anything as long as you're useful. Pretty much every concession for the weakest in the form of consumer rights, worker's rights and so on have been fought long and hard using the most heavily marketed lie in capitalism, that the invisible hand of the market will fix it.

The "invisible hand" wants to get rid of troublesome people as cheaply as possible, because usually you're not in a position to create a big enough stink to matter. As in, it's cheaper to put you on a support line with a heavily accented Indian reading a script until you give up than to actually fix the problem. You're an economic problem to be solved, solving it to your satisfaction is not necessarily the plan. That's why you have terms of service that are absolutely horrible and nobody reads or cares because usually you get the service you want. If you make any kind of "trouble" though the terms are effectively a kill switch. The gig economy is perfect for this, if you drive for a taxi company you call in sick. If you drive for Uber you don't get paid. It's the capitalist dream, a sick worker is a useless worker so why should he get paid? It's back to the old days of working in the coal mines until you got sick/injured, then you pick the next in line...

Re: We have laws for this already

[mjwx]

And every time they tried to oppose something Obama wanted they were called racist or obstructionist.

No it wasn't. As far as obstructionist oppositions went, the Republicans were pretty successful. You really need a better lie.

Now it says a lot about how good the Obama government was when the best you can do is drag out this old lie. The worst thing you can say about them is that you pretended someone called you a bad word.

It also says a lot about how bad the Trump government is because instead of bringing up the accomplishments of the current administration, you're still having to talk about how bad you imagined the last one was.

Re:We have laws for this already

[mapkinase]

You did not address the very important clause of "hurting the customers".

Importance of this clause is in its nebulousness: it can be used to crack down on the companies you do not like and it could be completely ignored.

I hate laws like this. They plague every Western or wanna-be-Western "democratic" system like ... plague.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Anonymous Coward]

Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. Wealth is nothing more than the accumulation of the results of labor. Labor is the action of creating value. Since labor creates, wealth is constantly increasing. that being the case others having more wealth does not specifically limit your ability to accumulate wealth. We're not talking about cutting up a pie here.
Any wealth "hoarding", especially the maintenance of wealth overseas, is a direct response to unreasonable seizure of wealth through taxes. Why would anyone who could prevent it willingly give the U.S. government one more cent than required? It would be different if one could be certain the money would be used for necessary purposes, but since most of it seems to be p**sed away, why would anyone voluntarily throw their money away in that manner?
There are 15 million food insecure households in this country because a lot of people insist on making bad choices. Sometimes, hell most of the time, they make those choices in ignorance, but they made the choice. The real problem is that for every adult who decided to make bad choices they've dragged a couple of kids, who had not choice in the matter, into their consequence.

Re:We have laws for this already

[parkinglot777]

And that's begging a question. Though, GP didn't offer any solution but rather made a complaint. I have no solution or suggestion of how to break the power of wealth either. But for sure, enough money will get you power. Enough power will get you wealth. It is a vicious cycle.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Namarrgon]

As the GP actually said, "where it is easiest to abuse". Obviously governments have more power, they control entire armies - but they're certainly not the easiest place to abuse power, short of a full military dictator.

Re: We have laws for this already

[deathguppie]

capitalize first happened I think much farther back than 6k years. More likely when Og realized that being bigger than anyone else in the tribe, he could get more meat from every shared meal and more women if he beat the crap out of every other male in the tribe. Thereby Og provided a "service" by not beating the crap out of people in exchange for getting what he wanted. Capitalism works the same today for the most part. Bullying people into paying an extra share of whatever for whatever you have if you have the bigger club.. you get more.

Re:We have laws for this already

[kilfarsnar]

What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy? What matters is the average quality of life and whether or not the average person is content. Who cares if someone has more than you. Worry about if you have your needs met. And your needs to not include every luxury under the sun.

If wealthy people just did that, they wouldn't be wealthy now would they? So maybe there's something else at play.

Taking issue with concentrated wealth is not about jealousy; though many rich people like to think that because it makes the issue easy to dismiss. No, it's about out-sized power. With economic power comes political power. The very wealthy have access to government that regular people don't. They are able to have their voice heard and influence policy for their own ends; sometimes to the detriment of the overall population. They are also able to buy media companies that broadcast or feature viewpoints that are pleasing to the owners. In this way they are able to shape the culture and societal attitudes.

In short, if you have enough money you can have a strong influence on business, culture, and government, without much constraint or accountability. As such the concentration of wealth becomes a threat to democracy itself, because one-man-one-vote is distorted when a few of those men have a billion dollars and the rest do not.

It's not about jealousy. It's about power and who wields it and to what ends. In a democracy the government's power is legitimized by the will of the people. That legitimacy is undermined when a handful of billionaires can call the shots without the consent of the people.

Re: We have laws for this already

[liquid_schwartz]

Pure capitalism is an extremely ruthless and egoistic system and far from the "best we've tried".

Gods above and below, you are completely daft.

Feel free to demand each according to his needs, and quickly find out your need is a moldy potato.

There is a middle ground between these two extreme positions. A restrained capitalism keeps the peace while still allowing the rich to be quite rich. An effective inheritance tax is even more inline with capitalism. Let each generation earn their own way on their own merits. The rich will still be able to help influence at least two generations. The concept of trusts and other tax shelters need to be done away with. The wealth card should not renew automatically forever.

Re: We have laws for this already

[jbengt]

That's a strawman argument. He never said anything about communism, he never said any capitalism was bad. He said " pure capitalism is ruthless & egoistic." [emphasis added] His point is that laws are needed to restrain the rich and powerful.

Re: We have laws for this already

[kilfarsnar]

As the saying goes, capitalism is a deeply flawed system but it beats anything else that's been tried.

Capitalism has also moved against any system that looks like it might be threatening to Capitalism's supremacy. So it's not like there has been fair competition among various economic systems. See the history of Central and South American left-wing governments for more info. I wonder how Jacobo Árbenz feels about the United Fruit Company, or Mohammad Mossddegh about British Petroleum.

Re: We have laws for this already

[kilfarsnar]

No, what is lacking is the willingness, nothing else. This is because as government gets larger, the difference between government and large businesses and financial interests becomes less and less. This is one of the main reasons why it is wise to keep the central government weak and relatively small. First, a weaker government is less attractive to the corruptible/corruptors as the risk/reward ratio is narrowed and pushed into the red, and second, what corruption that occurs can only inflict a minimum of damage. Less bureaucracy in which to hide corruption, incompetence, and to avoid accountability hiding within the faceless ranks.

It's a reason to keep business interests relatively small and weak. The government has to be the biggest kid on the block because it has to be able to enforce its laws and regulations.

Re: We have laws for this already

[kilfarsnar]

Also a small goverment aint powerfull enough to stopp big corp to controll Everything

Yes, this is the part Libertarians leave out.

Re:We have laws for this already

[jbengt]

Hell, Obama did a form of it by oversimplifying. "If you like your plan you can keep it" was true, but only if you add, ", if your plan meets the new minimums."

Actually, my plan didn't meet all the new minimums, but the company I work for kept it, as it was grandfathered in. Problem was, almost no health care providers wanted to accept it anymore.

Re:We have laws for this already

[martyros]

The problem with accumulated wealth goes back to the first recorded Democracy and ideas recorded in Plato's "The Republic".

It goes further back than that. Way back when Moses set up the first nation of Israel, it was legally impossible to permanently sell land: every 50 years, there was a "reset" event that made all property go back to its original owners or their legal heirs. The effect was that you didn't really sell your land, so much as lease it to somebody for some period of time. The obvious purpose of this was specifically to prevent the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a small number of people.

Most conservatives would be pretty shocked if they knew the anti-rich and pro-poor provisions the Bible contains.

Re:We have laws for this already

[jbengt]

Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. Wealth is nothing more than the accumulation of the results of labor. Labor is the action of creating value. Since labor creates, wealth is constantly increasing.

But entropy says wealth is constantly decreasing. (e.g. consumables, like food) So a good amount of wealth-creating labor is required just to stay even.

Re:We have laws for this already

[jbengt]

The "to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers" standard was a Reagan-era watering down of anti-trust enforcement. Before that, it was sufficient to show that you were hurting competition in order to get some anti-trust action going. Since Bush 2, it seems very difficult for any company to run afoul of anti-trust regulators, no matter what they do or who they merge with to do it.

Re:We have laws for this already

[kilfarsnar]

There are 15 million food insecure households in this country because a lot of people insist on making bad choices. Sometimes, hell most of the time, they make those choices in ignorance, but they made the choice. The real problem is that for every adult who decided to make bad choices they've dragged a couple of kids, who had not choice in the matter, into their consequence.

Or maybe there are 15 million food insecure households in this country because labor is not fairly compensated for the value it creates. As you say, wealth is nothing more than the accumulation of the results of labor. Very wealthy people have accumulated the results of other people's labor. Sure, sometimes people make poor decisions. However, when a rich person makes a poor decision, they are insulated from the consequences by their wealth. A poor person might be out on the street for the same poor decision.

I know an anecdote isn't data. But as an example, I know a guy who has been married twice, divorced twice, and has three children, two from his first marriage and one from his second. He has no job because he quit, and cannot pay his child support. You'd think he would be out on the street, or collecting SNAP, because of his poor decisions, right? No, he lives in a brand new condo and drives a new car, and has spent tens of thousands on lawyers fighting his ex-wives, because he comes from a rich family. His assets are in his parent's name, so his ex-wives can't touch it. He's an unemployed, deadbeat dad with multiple baby mamas, but you won't be holding him up as some example of bad choices because he's rich and insulated from the consequences of his actions. But you'll carry on thinking poor people are poor because of their bad choices.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Ryanrule]

PURE capitalism? I don't think so.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Ryanrule]

Yes, keep the govt that might enforce such rules weak. That will work. Totally. Hold my beer.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Shotgun]

The part the non-Libertarian leaves out is that the big corp OWN big gov. Isn't that what everyone is railing on about when they're calling for campaign finance reform/anti-lobbying laws/"Special interests"/etc?

Re:We have laws for this already

[Ryanrule]

lol you really want to break out that line, at this point in history?

Re: We have laws for this already

[Shotgun]

...and the wisdom to distinguish between the two.

Re: We have laws for this already

[BlueStrat]

If I can't bequeath my wealth to my children or family why would I let you have it?

More to the point, why would you break your back and struggle to create a business and work hard enough to create any significant amount of wealth under those conditions in the first place? "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us."

Strat

Re: We have laws for this already

[sjames]

And?

Since you are an expert on capitalism, you will surely be aware of Smith's warnings about handing out corporate charters and the importance of a well regulated market. You will also be aware of the need for all parties to have some reasonable parity of economic power in order for markets to work as they should.

Knowing that and being a supporter of capitalism, you should well understand the importance of limiting wealth accumulation and be all for it.

Re: We have laws for this already

[BlueStrat]

Yes, keep the govt that might enforce such rules weak. That will work. Totally. Hold my beer.

Yes, because prioritizing reducing/eliminating the ability to enforce laws is mandatory when reducing the power of government, It's really the only area where we can start to make cuts. Too bad we don't have the ability to selectively reduce some areas while leaving others untouched or even bolster them.

Oh, wait...

Strat

Re: We have laws for this already

[sjames]

Your argument for weak government is along the lines of: We cannot allow our sons to be taken as slaves any longer. We shall sever their spines at birth since nobody will want a paraplegic slave.

But if a government is smaller and weaker than the various large corporations, who will enforce their contracts?

Re:We have laws for this already

[bobbied]

Guess you got triggered there.... Sorry... Not!

Look, you have to get a bit less thin skinned to play this political game well. All the tantrums and rioting is not helping your cause and I suggest you tone down the rhetoric a bit.. I suppose that the political reality will kick in mid-winter when the mid terms get started and your side will have to dial it back a bit to stay in contention or lose big again, but that's up to you. At least that's how it seems from over here on the right.

Re:We have laws for this already

[eth1]

Shouldn't all politicians seek to find policies which resonate with their constituents?

No. Politicians should have principles, and stick to them. They should stand up for things they believe in, and try to convince voters that they are right. What they should NOT do is find out what a plurality of voters want, and then just bend their principles to give it to them.

No, GP was right. You're talking about a *leader*, not a politician.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Whorhay]

My memory in that area is pretty hazy, but would that system really favor the poor? I would think it would favor whoever had the land first. So established families formed from concentration of heirs would end up being the rich and powerful. It also strikes me as being strongly anti-foreigner, as they'd not be able to own property in the long run until they've been so thoroughly absorbed as to be indistinguishable.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Attila Dimedici]

This is because as government gets larger, the difference between government and large businesses and financial interests becomes less and less.

While this is more or less true, the situation is much worse than that. Bigger government PREFERS large businesses and financial interests. It is much easier for those who control the levers of power of a big government to maintain control of those levers if they can use their power over a single company to deny access to say electricity* to anyone who attempts to pry those levers out of their hands (*electricity is just one example).

The point is that big government LIKES and empowers big business. In other words, big government is a cause of big business not a control over it.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Attila Dimedici]

The government has to be the biggest kid on the block because it has to be able to enforce its laws and regulations.

The problem with your thought process is that, whenever it is allowed to grow, government prefers one, or a few, big business over multiple small businesses. As a result, government encourages the formation of monopolies. The original AT&T did not become a monopoly because the telephone system is a "natural" monopoly. It became a monopoly because the government wanted it to be a monopoly.

Re: We have laws for this already

[liquid_schwartz]

More to the point, why would you break your back and struggle to create a business and work hard enough to create any significant amount of wealth under those conditions in the first place? "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us."

You can enjoy your wealth while you are alive. It's not "taken" from you until you are dead, at which point you won't need it. Why shouldn't your kids have to earn their own way? Or your grand kids, or their grand kids? They are little better than welfare recipients if they can't produce something of value and earn their own way.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Attila Dimedici]

If the large corporations lose the ability to use the government to harass and shut down competing businesses and business models, they will lose their power. Large corporations do not exist despite the efforts of big government to control them. They exist BECAUSE of big government efforts to control businesses.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Attila Dimedici]

Without the support of the government, monopolies ALWAYS come apart after a short time.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, inheritance taxes result in wealthy men setting up trust funds to manage their money in such a way as to make it harder for their heirs to lose the wealth they accumulated. Or, have you never heard of the DuPonts, the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, and the numerous other families whose wealth was made by an ancestor when inheritance taxes were much higher than they are today?

Re:We have laws for this already

[Attila Dimedici]

If you reduce the power of the government, that increased access to power is of little value, which is the basic point of the argument made by those who favor limited government. IF the government has limited ability to influence a rich person's economic well-being, that rich person has limited incentive to manipulate the government. If the government has extended ability to influence a rich person's economic well-being, it has extended ability to be used by that rich person to handicap his competition, especially when that competition has little wealth in comparison.

Re:We have laws for this already

[wyHunter]

Then I guess these new proposed laws are to break up companies the lawmaker doesn't like 'cause he or she has stock in competitors.

Re: We have laws for this already

[wyHunter]

As opposed to socialism and communism which has committed genocide, polluted the environments, and enslaved entire peoples for decades at a time. it isn't perfect or even "good" (which is a personal definition), it's just better than other things we've tried. If you cannot have a "what's in it for me?" in life, you don't really care to try and make circumstances, yours or anyone else's, better.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Phydeaux314]

If the government is gone, then there's nothing stopping the rich person from directly screwing with threats to his wealth.

If there are no courts to enforce contracts and no police to enforce the law, then we fall back on the oldest paradigm of "might makes right" - which quickly degenerates into tyranny of some form.

Re: We have laws for this already

[wyHunter]

Indeed. Look at FDRs expansion of power of the federal government, and policies designed to make things hostile to small business, the idea being that a few big companies are easier to shivvy than many, many small ones. The only problem is at one point these companies get big enough to influence the federal government to a disproportionate degree aka Wall Street and Pharma influence in government.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Attila Dimedici]

Why is it that those who want to expand the power of government think that anyone who wants to LIMIT the power of government is in favor of there being NO government?

I am arguing for reducing the power of government NOT for eliminating the government. Yet, every time I make arguments for reducing the power of government, the counter is to claim that no government is worse than a tyrannical government.

You argue that if we have no government it would lead to a tyrannical government in an effort to defend expanding the powers of a government which is already tyrannical.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Obfuscant]

No it wasn't. As far as obstructionist oppositions went, the Republicans were pretty successful. You really need a better lie.

Reading comprehension much? I didn't say they were or were not successful. I said what names they were called.

It also says a lot about how bad the Trump government is because instead of bringing up the accomplishments of the current administration, you're still having to talk about how bad you imagined the last one was.

Now I know you didn't read what I wrote and are knee-jerk reacting to the word "Obama". I pointed out what branch of government the regulatory agencies are under. I made no value judgements about that branch or its leader.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Rakarra]

What's the problem with wealth accumulation? Other than petty jealousy?

Because it's still mostly a zero-sum game, unlike what economists with a stake in the current system like to tell you. The people at the top control the wages of the lower and middle, and what we've seen in the last forty years is the top wealth earners using their economic power to squeeze the money out of the middle class. The rich grow much richer, and everyone else grows much much poorer. We were told that by allowing the wealthy to do this, their wealth would "trickle down" to everyone else, but while we've gotten pretty good at allowing the former, the whole trickle down part turned out to be bullshit.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Rakarra]

I haven't seen any evidence of a direct attack on voting databases or voting booths outside of raw unfiltered information of Clinton and the DNC.

If an electorate is split pretty close to 50/50, you don't need a direct attack on voting databases. All you need is to weaken one side while leaving the other alone. Both sides have their secrets, and when you give one side a pass while exposing all the secrets of the other, you're going to throw off the balance. Donald Fucking Trump should have been easy prey for any appealing candidate, that Hillary barely lost a tie just proves my point that we had the two worst candidates I've ever seen in a Presidential election.

Re: We have laws for this already

[BlueStrat]

You can enjoy your wealth while you are alive. It's not "taken" from you until you are dead, at which point you won't need it.

But my family will need it, which is the reason why most people strive to be successful and create more wealth than just what they themselves need/want personally. Any wealth I did happen to accumulate I'd blow it all on whatever struck my fancy rather than allowing the government to confiscate it because I can't stop them when dead. Nobody lives their lives with the goal of advancing the State except those at the top of the State.

Strat

Re:We have laws for this already

[gfxguy]

Hmm. It's not facebook's fault every site feels they need to include facebook links.

The point being that, at an admittedly vastly different level, what you're suggesting is akin to thought police. "We think you are thinking about doing , so we are going to break you up." You cannot punish people when they committed no crimes - you should not punish businesses that have committed no crimes. WHEN they commit a crime, then you can come up with a remedy. That those remedies are often little more than slaps on the wrist is a fault of the government, not the companies.

Re:We have laws for this already

[bobbied]

Meanwhile more and more people are realizing that "hey, being poor shouldn't mean I should have to go massively in debt just because I'm unlucky enough to get sick".

No, Obamacare means the poor must decide if they 1. Want to pay the tax/fine for not having insurance or 2. Buy insurance they couldn't hope to actually get any benefit from before they go bankrupt paying the deductible AND the premiums.

What good is insurance if you cannot afford to pay the premiums and food at the same time? What good is having coverage if you cannot pay the required deductible? THIS is the problem of Obamacare, because it hammers the poor with HUGE costs up front when they pay just their premiums, even if they don't get sick, then hammers the sick again with huge deductibles on top of that when they have to use their coverage.

Obamacare is failing and is fast becoming unavailable and hugely expensive.. But that was the whole plan. It was SUPPOSED to fail, AFTER Obama left office, to create a crisis to be used to sell a new and bigger program to the now entitled to healthcare masses... It's how democrats do things..

Re:We have laws for this already

[penandpaper]

IIRC hackers tried the RNC and failed. It doesn't speak to the ability of the DNC or Clinton campaign to fall for a phishing link. If exposing dirty laundry is enough to "weaken the other side" to the point of losing, you are not on strong grounds to begin with and it isn't the fault of the person that aired your dirty laundry that your laundry stinks.

Donald Fucking Trump should have been easy prey for any appealing candidate, that Hillary barely lost a tie just proves my point that we had the two worst candidates I've ever seen in a Presidential election.

So what? Yes, when given two crappy choices people rationalize a different result. Go figure that the divide between rural and urban is the foundation of most comprises codified in the Constitution and that that divide still exists today because each has different needs, wants, and perceptions of the federal government. That doesn't mean anything considering the original comment I was responding to.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Rakarra]

The drive to do better has very little to do with what other people have.

That's a sentiment that comes from actually having wealth. When you're destitute, the drive comes when you can't afford to eat well, when your can't afford to fix your car that you need because you can't afford to live close to your job. Unfortunately for many, the bar for just surviving and raising a family is high enough that they can't afford to think of tomorrow either -- just getting through today is a struggle.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Rakarra]

If these companies stop providing product that people want, they'll be gone tomorrow.

Not always, not if they force out the competition through their monopoly power or the high barriers to entry.

Utilities for example have high barriers to entry because companies should not be able to tear up existing infrastructure. Yahoo is a decent example in that the barriers to entry for competition aren't too high. For the most part, I don't have a problem with Amazon despite their questionable practices and purchasing power, because anyone can set up a store to "sell stuff on the Internet." But ISPs have extremely high barriers to entry, at least when it comes to real high-speed Internet (which rules out microwave, satellite, wireless, etc), barriers that keep competition low or nonexistent.

Re:We have laws for this already

[tendrousbeastie]

Trillions of dollars are not being "parked" outside the USA. They may be being put into bank accounts in companies outside the USA.

I'm British, so I don't know too much about USA dependencies (or territories or whatever they are called), but I am certain that the situation will follow one of two sets of logic:

1) The dependency will not use the USD as their currency

2) The dependency will use the USD as their currency, but their domestic GDP is significantly lower than the value of their financial services industry's USD trade.

In either of these cases you have a country which is holding significantly more dollars than it can use. It will have to do something with these dollars. The only place that these dollars are useful is the USA, so this basically means it must send these dollars to the USA.

A very few of these will be used to buy goods from the the USA (cars, TVs, etc.). But we are talking about billions of dollars in a tax haven, where not much import activity happens. So most of the trade flow is going to be in investment products - stock, bonds, real estate, etc.

To summarise, in reality these tax issues simply add to the USA trade deficit. The same is true of the UK with its slightly weird dependencies - what else are they going to do with a load of pound sterling other than dump them back in the UK, where else can they spend them.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Rakarra]

No, Obamacare was for the middle. Single payer like the rest of the civilized world is for their base. "Lets make the US an actual fucking democracy where 1 citizen = 1 vote instead of 1 redneck vote = 100 city votes" is for their base.

Hey, having a small geographic section of the country control policy for another larger section of the country isn't cool either. Fortunately, it's a balance. The whole point of that is because the USA was founded on the principle that power should be shifted to local control -- IE, communities rule themselves, they should not be 'ruled' by people who live hundreds or thousands of miles away. For that reason, people who live outside the major population centers get more of a voice, because it's their land that others are making choices about.

Re:We have laws for this already

[MooseMiester]

It's pretty much beyond the pale given that the new "Better Pizza, Better Ingredients" slogan and associated press is exactly the platform known as "Make America Great Again"

Look, squirrel!

Re:We have laws for this already

[MooseMiester]

Hey it worked for the housing crisis, didn't it?

Re: We have laws for this already

[suutar]

Which implies there's room for improvement.

Re:We have laws for this already

[nephilimsd]

Because in practice, when you reduce the size and scope of government, you also reduce its effectiveness in enforcing the rules that remain. The typically paltry penalties that currently exist for massively screwing over the commons becomes even further diminished. This is in effective dismantling the protective element of government along with the pesky regulations that are supposed to be preventing companies from running roughshod in the first place.

Re: We have laws for this already

[suutar]

is a weak government capable of enforcing the laws?

Re: We have laws for this already

[Qzukk]

And now it stays a monopoly because it cost Google over one billion dollars to try to compete in a single city (Kansas City). And that was WITH the government bending over backwards to wipe out regulations and restrictions in order to become the very first Google Fiber city.

The only way to beat the telecoms without government intervention is to have pockets both deep enough and full enough that you could have just bought the company outright in the first place, in which case you'd become the new monopoly.

Re: We have laws for this already

[sjames]

Further weaken and shrink the government and the megacorps will shove it aside and become the government.

Re: We have laws for this already

[suutar]

what would keep big corp from owning small gov?

Re:We have laws for this already

[Attila Dimedici]

Except of course what those regulations do is keep the incumbent businesses from facing competition from newcomers to a much greater effect than they actually limit their running roughshod.

As you reduce the size and scope of the government you reduce the scope that incumbent businesses have to keep newcomers from competing. AND you reduce the degree to which employees are bound to their employer. One of the biggest impacts of government regulation is to make it harder for an individual to test a business idea while still holding down a job.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Attila Dimedici]

Further weaken and shrink the government and the megacorps will shove it aside and become the government.

What do you mean "Further weaken and shrink the government"? In my lifetime the government has gathered ever more power to itself and grown ever larger. The government has not shrunk or gotten weaker in the last 100 years and probably much longer than that. Good grief it has gotten so bad that people think that the government growing at a slower rate than was projected is cutting.

Re:We have laws for this already

[bobbied]

LOL... Nice jab.... "Hope and Change" and "I'm with her" back at you...

I'm surprised you didn't bring up Cain's "999" slogan in his last failed campaign bid. THAT was more pizza than pizzazz if you ask me.

Campaign slogans are pretty much ALWAYS going to be pithy and trite. You do realize that "make America great again" slogan was used by Ronald Regain (1980), and Bill Clinton used the phrase a couple of times in his 1992 run. (Hillary used it in 2008 in her failed attempt) Which makes it a oldie but a goodie given that three campaigns won using it and only Hillary lost using it.(But she's a two time presidential loser anyway).

Re: We have laws for this already

[PlaynBass]

"And every time they tried to oppose something Obama wanted they were called racist or obstructionist." Perhaps because they WERE being racist and obstructing the will of the people! Or perhaps that was just the media clap-trap that was foisted upon the dumbed-down public in the 30 second sound bytes that get repeated over and over again by the media that is controlled by a few mega corporations, which take on the shifting roles of protagonist and antagonist as the political winds demand. It all becomes a battle of the spin-masters, and bad feelings seem a lot easier to generate than good feelings, especially when the public is content to watch sports masquerading as reality-show circuses, and unaffordible bread and organic recipies are the grist of the mid-day cooking shows for every major network. No wonder the viewing public is so easily deceived by Breitbart's fake news! No wonder Hillary's comprehensive plans for reform were derailed by Russian-provided Wikki-leaks, repeated by the AM radio alt-right lies repeated ad nauseum on many rural talk-radio shows. The electoral college should serve as some leverage for the smaller rural populations against the tyranny of the more populous urban and suburban areas, but it should be up to bipartisan negotiations to arrive at good laws that take those disparate demographic needs into account. Instead, we have the tyranny of the minority throwing our elections.

Re:We have laws for this already

[interkin3tic]

My sarcastic response is "tantrums and rioting?" I need to tone down the rhetoric? I'm the triggered one?

At least that's how it seems from over here on the right.

Sir, from here at the left of center, it's pretty clear that the left wing jumping off a bridge, instead of setting ourselves on fire, would meet with right wing disproval.

Re:We have laws for this already

[interkin3tic]

I understand the excuses for it. It was in reality passed for political purposes, not for any higher philosophy. And, it's still saying "Your vote gets counted for less" to the majority of the population. Which is inherently anti-democratic.

On top of that, as of late, the rednecks with the outsized voices are proving themselves incompetent at making rational decisions, staying informed of the issues, getting educated, and not hating the majority of the country.

If you're spouting that nonsense about people shouldn't be ruled by cities as theory, that's goofy.

If you're saying it was right that in this past election that idiots in southern and flyover states outweighed New York and the majority of voters who recognized Trump is a national security disaster, then you're simply insane.

Re:We have laws for this already

[bobbied]

Nice try leftie... You cannot spin out of this one... Which side has a history of rioting over election results? Who was rioting in DC on the 20th of January? It wasn't the conservatives on the right.... LOL Maybe I'm wrong though... Do you have any examples of right wing riots? (Perhaps at some pervious January 20th where our candidate didn't take office?)

I'm not the one posting expletives in all caps... (See two posts up which came from you..) Who's triggered? My job is done here, anything more would be trolling you (which might be fun, but I don't have the time to play)....

Have a nice day, what ever is left of it where you live..

Queue the trolling post which I will likely just ignore.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Rakarra]

If exposing dirty laundry is enough to "weaken the other side" to the point of losing, you are not on strong grounds to begin with

No one in politics is on strong grounds.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Rakarra]

The Supreme Court nomination alone is a triumph. 30 years of liberal ideology lies in ruins.

Yeah, thank God we replaced that liberal parasite Scalia with a conservative!

Re:We have laws for this already

[Rakarra]

I understand the excuses for it. It was in reality passed for political purposes, not for any higher philosophy

Many of them hated rulings coming down from England. Their political philosophy was crafted from their lifetime experience of not wanting to be a colony any longer. After that, folks not in the northeast weren't too thrilled in the idea of the same thing happening with Philidephia or DC.

Re:We have laws for this already

[skam240]

Oh, please, peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere. It's true the Affordable Care Act isnt working perfectly but you have no evidence that it was designed to fail. You're just making up a fantasy scenario to smear people whose politics you dont like

Also the poor get their healthcare subsidized under Obama Care with many getting access to medicare.

Re:We have laws for this already

[interkin3tic]

Sure, less populated states back in the day had their covers for why it shouldn't be an outright democracy. It was still a hostage negotiation back then, not the best idea, and either way, it's completely broken now that it gave us president Trump.

Re:We have laws for this already

[interkin3tic]

As always, when a conservative criticizes others, he describes himself.

Re:We have laws for this already

[penandpaper]

Then run for office if you are any better.

Re:We have laws for this already

[MooseMiester]

Thank You. One would think they could dip into the bribe fund and pay a marketing agency to come up with a set of colors, fonts, logo, slogan, and theme song that wasn't so over the top PATHETIC as what we've seen the last few years....

Re: We have laws for this already

[kilfarsnar]

Central and South American left-wing governments self-destruct without any aid from capitalism, thank you very much. Without capitalism, they probably would implode faster.

Oh, but they have help from the CIA, which is the enforcement arm of global Capitalism.

Re:We have laws for this already

[penandpaper]

Some are worse than others. It's on the electorate who is on strong grounds. I am glad Clinton was rejected because she normalized corruption to a whole new level that would have been a detriment to the Republic.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Rakarra]

Then run for office if you are any better.

Mmmm, I'm not on solid ground either.
I haven't done anything illegal or corrupt, but most people wouldn't like my porn history, and sadly for a vast majority, that sort of thing really matters.

Re:We have laws for this already

[martyros]

would that system really favor the poor?

Well that particular rule wasn't so much about the poor; I meant other ones, like Deuteronomy 23:24-25, which says you can walk onto anyone's land and eat whatever crops you want, as long as you don't use a basket or tools. (Matthew 12:1 demonstrates Jesus' disciples taking advantage of this rule.)

I would think it would favor whoever had the land first. So established families formed from concentration of heirs would end up being the rich and powerful.

That's an interesting point. I'm a bit less interested in the actual effect than the intention behind it. When they first showed up in Israel, there was already hundreds of thousands of them (maybe close to a million? I forget), and there was a big to-do about dividing things up evenly; so at some point there were nearly a million people each with their own little plot. Secondly, normally women didn't inherit property, unless their father had no sons; so it was highly unusual to be able to 'combine' two estates by marriage. Finally, the tradition was that if you had N sons, you'd divide your property N+1 ways, and give two shares to the first son, and one share to everyone else.

So it seems to me like the "revert to the original owner" rule was part of a whole system designed to counteract the "concentration of ownership" effect and make sure all citizens had a "portion" of land they could call their own. But I could well be wrong. And in any case, I don't think there's any mention of this "revert to the original owner" event actually happening, so it may have been little more than good intentions.

It also strikes me as being strongly anti-foreigner, as they'd not be able to own property in the long run until they've been so thoroughly absorbed as to be indistinguishable.

That's certainly true. There were a lot of exhortations not to oppress "the foreigner among you", but I don't think they were apologetic about favoring citizens over immigrants.

Re:We have laws for this already

[penandpaper]

Would be certainly stronger than Clinton because "haven't done anything illegal or corrupt". Give it a second thought and keep your fap folder private.

Re:We have laws for this already

[Rakarra]

Would be certainly stronger than Clinton because "haven't done anything illegal or corrupt".

I think I would need standards higher than that. :-(

Give it a second thought and keep your fap folder private.

Unfortunately I was young, naive, and stupid in my college days, and when you post to Internet Usenet newsgroups, it's forever. A decent investigative journalist could fairly easily link my RL name with online aliases and then find fun dirt. I've left a lot of that behind and covered my tracks well enough to deter co-workers doing casual Internet searches, but that lets me have a normal life, not one in a very high profile spotlight, which is how I somewhat prefer it anyway.

Re: We have laws for this already

[sjames]

We have been weakening and shrinking the parts that regulate business. The growth is the parts that regulate individuals.

Re: We have laws for this already

[sjames]

At one time, the Libertarians opposed corporate charters, but they seem to have forgotten.

Re: We have laws for this already

[Attila Dimedici]

You apparently have not heard of the Dodd-Frank law and the CFPB which it created. As with most other laws which create regulations, it was sold as being designed to prevent banks and other financial institutions from getting "too big", but resulted in small banks being forced to sell themselves to bigger banks. It turns out that it is designed to get rid of all but the biggest financial institutions. The government has not weakened the parts that regulate business...big business would not like that.

Rather pointless....

[KGIII]

I get that they want to put on a good show, but it's not like they actually have the votes to accomplish a damned thing without help from the other side of the aisle. I don't see Republicans actually supporting this idea. It just seems rather unlikely.

Re:Rather pointless....

[Alok]

Well, for now its just a show - will be interesting if they actually attempt this when they're in power, since the 2 parties do keep on alternating at the reins quite often.

Hopefully Comcast gets split into 3 or more parts that compete in the same markets, and don't insist on TV connections to get deals that are better than standalone internet plans.

Re:Rather pointless....

[Chas]

The Democratic Party: Because We Want To Appear To Care More...

Re:Rather pointless....

[Moof123]

So long as large companies can buy their own senators it is useless to put laws in place that will get passed with semi-truck sized loop holes and with key provisions watered down to homeopathic levels. Unfortunately it is also futile to try to pass campaign finance reform while big corporations and billionaires control congress, as those laws will have loopholes and be toothless as well.

I fear that basically we have lost control of our own governance at this point. We'll get to pick the color of the paint on congress, but are mostly powerless to actually wrestle control back again.

Re:Rather pointless....

[Gravis Zero]

I get that they want to put on a good show,

What makes you so sure that it's only a show?

but it's not like they actually have the votes to accomplish a damned thing without help from the other side of the aisle. I don't see Republicans actually supporting this idea.

Here's the thing, people may change their vote at the next election based on what their representative won't support. Then they may get the power to actually pass the law.

Re:Rather pointless....

[PopeRatzo]

I don't see Republicans actually supporting this idea.

That's OK, just get them on the record as being opposed to it. Build a case. Republicans in Congress currently have a 20% approval rating (28% among Republican voters and 12% among Democratic voters). In January, they had a 50% approval rating among Republican voters. Tomorrow, after they vote (again) on a health care bill that no Republican member of Congresshas even seen yet, I expect that rating will go down again if the bill doesn't pass and down even further if the bill passes.

This "Better Deal" from congressional Dems is just a way to put your knee on the back of your opponent when he's face down in the mud.

Re:Rather pointless....

[rickb928]

Comcast doesn't have to be split up.

0) Permit local municipalities to form utility-style ISPs.
1) Permit companies such as Google to light up dark fiber.
2) Watch as T-Mobile turns up 600Mhz wireless broadband.
3) Figure out how to prevent ISPs with competing businesses diminishing various streaming services.

Ok, what did I miss here?

Re:Rather pointless....

[youngone]

...will be interesting if they actually attempt this when they're in power...

I'm going to guess not, as when the Democrats have the whip hand, they will be a better target for all those campaign contributions the telcos seem to offer.
The basic problem here is that the US Government sells itself off every year, it's just the buyers and the sellers that change.

Re:Rather pointless....

[youngone]

I'm pretty sure you have lost control of your Government.
It amazes me that a country the size of the US has only 2 serious political parties.
Even the UK (which has first past the post electorates as well) managed to elect 9 different parties in the 2017 election.
I understand the argument that the two US parties are "Big Tent" parties, I'm just not buying it.

Re:Rather pointless....

[DuckDodgers]

and don't insist on TV connections to get deals that are better than standalone internet plans.

As far as I can tell, that's a fallacy. I am only buying internet from Comcast, and they'll sell me cable for just $5 more but not less. Except of course, between added local channel fees, sports, fees, equipment rental fees, etc... it's actually $45 more. So fuck 'em.

Re:Rather pointless....

[KingMotley]

Watch NBC or Universal content that gets bundled into your Comcast service for "free", and doesn't count against your data cap.

Then those on AT&T DSL (or suddenlink, verizon FIOS, google fiber), get to pay $15/mo for the same. It's a double threat because not only does it hurt any competing ISP offer, but it also tries to lock in comcast customers from other competing video on demand services (Netflix). Of course, they will license the same content to Netflix for $30/mo/user if they want it.

Re:Rather pointless....

[fustakrakich]

I don't see Republicans actually supporting this idea. It just seems rather unlikely.

Don't think about. The democratic party doesn't support it either, but the voters fall for the act every time.

Re:Rather pointless....

[fustakrakich]

Approval ratings have no relation to the actual vote, which reflects a 98% approval rating. Approval ratings are entirely subjective, like the chill factor and heat index. Numbers to create a story.

Re:Rather pointless....

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast doesn't have to be split up.

0) Permit local municipalities to form utility-style ISPs.
1) Permit companies such as Google to light up dark fiber.
2) Watch as T-Mobile turns up 600Mhz wireless broadband.
3) Figure out how to prevent ISPs with competing businesses diminishing various streaming services.

Ok, what did I miss here?

You missed enforcing net neutrality in such a fashion that any ordinary individual internet user is capable of hosting their own torrent seed with their own original content, and having that traffic treated on equal terms with all youtube traffic. I.e. the vision of global individual empowerment that the early internet evangelists liked to tout. If anybody can be a truly Independent Artist with Free Speech on The Internet, the establishment enterntainment industry should just about get disrupted out of existence (or disrupted to a small fraction of its historical size). Of course there are some special interest groups that might not want to see that happen for various rea$ons. As long as ISPs get to arbitrarily forbid servers, the status quo will keep winning its fight to cling to existence a bit longer.

Re: Rather pointless....

[rickb928]

That was point 3.

Re:Rather pointless....

[PopeRatzo]

Approval ratings are entirely subjective, like the chill factor and heat index.

Of course you're right. But in this case, subjectively lower is better than the alternative.

Re:Rather pointless....

[KGIII]

I am kinda sure I should say sorry to you. That's not because you're right, it's because you're deluded.

What did the last group do? What did they cement so that it can't be broken with ease?

I am sorry that you felt obligated to respond with that. That's the best I can offer you. In my defense, I only get one vote.

Re:Rather pointless....

[KGIII]

Umm...

I'm pretty stoned. I'm not that stoned.

Re:Rather pointless....

[fustakrakich]

It just doesn't matter. Approval ratings are a silly metric. It is a total waste to consider them at all, in this case (which is not special anyway), or any other.

Re:Rather pointless....

[Gravis Zero]

What did the last group do?

There's the ACA, which needs some fixes but is a step in the right direction.

What did they cement so that it can't be broken with ease?

Despite claiming they want to, Republicans cannot seem to undo it. "Who knew healthcare was so complicated? Nobody knew!"

Re:Rather pointless....

[Ryanrule]

So what did the repubs do the last 6 years?

Re: Rather pointless....

[KGIII]

Have patience. They'll change it, wanted or not.

Re: Rather pointless....

[Gravis Zero]

LOL! They have had controlling power of the entire government for half a year and Mitch McConnell said this was the last go at it. Even so, the people have made it very clear that they want the ACA. Should it be repealed, there will be a huge political backlash resulting in it's reinstatement or something like it. Before healthcare it was repealing social security and we see how well that turned out for Republicans. The irony of all this is that the ACA helps Republican voters more than anyone else.

That said, the ACA isn't perfect and it does need more funding so modifying it to have heavier taxes would be an improvement. However, if they got their asses in gear, they could replace the ugly healthcare patchwork with a single healthcare program that covers everyone. That's where this all ends because it's what people want.

Re:Rather pointless....

[bluefoxlucid]

They don't seem to have any idea on how economics works, either.

The cable and telcos have regional monopolies. Airlines, food, eyeglasses, and the beer industry? Seriously? These are all industries rife with healthy competition!

I keep thinking maybe I need to move into the Democrat party to make change; and I keep thinking I don't want to give them the victory. This shit is why. Maybe I should try to spearhead social progress using their party's favor to back me, and use the effort to crush their broken leadership.

Not that we need to crush Hillary at this point; she's not going to survive the next election, and the Democrats can't run her again and hope to win. Hopefully they don't run that fool Sanders.

Define "hurting consumers"

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon is making things cheaper and easier to obtain, but it is going to kill Mom and Pop stores. Is that "hurting consumers"?

I feel like that definition solely depends on much those big companies donate to Democrats.

Re:Define "hurting consumers"

[bobbied]

I feel like that definition solely depends on much those big companies donate to Democrats.

EXACTLY THIS!

Re:Define "hurting consumers"

[mike2006]

Any website can do the same thing as Amazon. It is not rocket science. Add them to the list to be broken up into pieces, along with Google, Facebook and Microsoft.

About time

[Anonymous Coward]

Salaries stagnant since the 70s and the growing wealth gap is clear evidence that companies are finding it too easy to put pressure on common employees. About time someone is looking at increasing competition to obtain good workers.

Force Facebook users to Google+ and MySpace

[jfdavis668]

Force Facebook to give up users to Google+ and MySpace. Maybe even bring back Friendster.

Cable, Banks, Wifi, Phone - TRUST BUST

[WillAffleckUW]

We need to trust bust not just cable and wifi providers - and get rid of non-compete agreements and municipal-exclusion provisions - but also trust bust banks and phone companies.

All of them.

With zero payouts to the top execs on the dissolution of their anti-capitalist combines.

Re:Facebook, Google

[mike2006]

Absolutely. Looks like Facebook, Google and Microsoft shills (likely employees) are modding you down and out in force as usual.

Re:What about "charities" and "foundations"?

[rickb928]

Perhaps we could just stop funding them on the backs of consumers?

Oh, wait. Done that.

Re:Weird

[rickb928]

And so the UniParty is exposed.

The Dems know this

[rsilvergun]

the party is stacked with "Corporate Dems" like Chuck Schumer & the Clintons who are really just Republicans that think pot should be legal, immigration is fine and maybe we should leave the gays alone (but don't let 'em marry, that's icky).

They're searching for an issue they can use to differentiate themselves from the Repubs. They can't do Medicare for All, College for All, End the Wars, real infrastructure bills (aka the "New New Deal") or even really end the war on drugs since their donors don't want any of that. So we get crap like this. Meanwhile they keep losing seats because what the hell's the point of voting for Republican Lite?

The Bernie Democrats (a wing of which is calling themselves "Justice Democrats") is trying to kick 'em out of the party. If you want to see the country move to the left you need to join 'em and get voting in your primary.

Re:The Dems know this

[HanzoSpam]

Maybe what we need is a law to break up the Democrats.

Re:The Dems know this

[doctorvo]

the party is stacked with "Corporate Dems" like Chuck Schumer & the Clintons who are really just Republicans

Don't blame Republicans for the corruption and crony capitalism of Democrats.

Re:The Dems know this

[s.petry]

the party is stacked with "Corporate Dems" like Chuck Schumer & the Clintons who are really just Republicans that think pot should be legal, immigration is fine and maybe we should leave the gays alone (but don't let 'em marry, that's icky).

Sorry, but that is backwards. "Progressives" are Democrats almost exclusively, and they have infiltrated the Republican party starting right around the Reagan era. You know, that guy with a R in front of his name? or maybe Eisenhower? We could go back further but I'd hate to embarrass you by showing you all of the "Progressives" who were Democrats. (It would also bring out all of the racists, segregationists, and Jim Crowe supporters. You don't want to go there.)

The Bernie Democrats (a wing of which is calling themselves "Justice Democrats") is trying to kick 'em out of the party. If you want to see the country move to the left you need to join 'em and get voting in your primary.

Yes please! The far Leftists has done such a great job for us Constitutional Conservatives over the last couple years I can't wait! I didn't want Trump, but you guys made that possible. I'd much rather have sober politicians in the Republican party who actually believe in the Constitution, instead of the mass we have now that hides their "D" with an "R" sticker.

Re:The Dems know this

[Tablizer]

Maybe what we need is a law to break up the Democrats.

Close: break up the party system(s), or at least weaken them.

Re:The Dems know this

[Tablizer]

I disagree with some of your "they're the same" points.

Hillary, Bernie, and Martin O'Malley were for expansion of higher education subsidies/loans. Almost no main Republican candidates were.

And the Obama Administration did pass infrastructure spending as part of the stimulus. Although, it was light in "big iron" projects, largely because those were seen as ramping up too slow to help the slump. If we didn't have deficit issues, there may have been more big-iron projects.

(The wars in Iran & Afghanistan sucked about $4T already. Too bad that couldn't be USA infrastructure. Sigh.)

And I've seen more complaints about telecom oligopolies from Democrat representatives than Republicans.

I agree these are informal metrics; but to settle it, both sides would need more formality.

Re:The Dems know this

[Frank Burly]

the party is stacked with "Corporate Dems" like Chuck Schumer & the Clintons who are really just Republicans that think pot should be legal, immigration is fine and maybe we should leave the gays alone (but don't let 'em marry, that's icky).

You grossly understate the difference between the parties, even while the party that controls all three branches of government plots (in actual secrecy) to strip healthcare from the poorest Americans to give tax cuts to the top 1%.

Hillary's FCC would not be dismantling net neutrality and her Supreme Court nominees would not say that corporations are people, or that forced arbitration terms must be obeyed. And hawkish as she is, it is a safe bet Hillary wouldn't let generals kill as many civilians in 6 months as Obama did in two years.

So if you wanted to see daylight between "corporate" Dems and Repubs there you have it.

Hillary lost because did didn't make the 99% (or bottom 33%) feel that she felt their pain or their resentments. Hillary acknowledged that the Earth is flat for capital and practically parabolic for labor, but she didn't provide a clear and compelling solution so a critically located minority of voters opted for the guy who said he would bring coal back.

Finally, Dems don't keep losing seats: Dems picked up 6 house seats and 2 Senate seats in 2016, and the special elections that Dems lost this year were all in Republican territory. In Georgia the winning Republican candidate said expressly "I do not support a livable wage"; I don't see how tacking left would have helped there.

Re:The Dems know this

[houghi]

Why stop there? The real reason you arte in this mess is because of the 'winner takes all' that will lead, by design, to a bi-party situation.

Re:The Dems know this

[mapkinase]

>but don't let 'em marry, that's icky

That have been embraced almost universally now by both parties.

Re:The Dems know this

[Shotgun]

I'd be happy with legislation that simply left the Rs and Ds off the ballot. Is it to much to ask that a person actually KNOW who they are voting for?

Re:The Dems know this

[Rakarra]

The candidate who accepted $400k speaking fees from big banks?

I'm trying to figure out what it is about this that is supposed to be so negative. Why does it matter if she accepted $400k in speaking fees from banks? Do you think that somehow makes her beholden to them? That they might agree with everything she says? That she aligns perfectly with their wants? She's a person of influence, they definitely are interested in her regardless. If they offered me $400k I'd speak to them too. That doesn't mean I'd pass the "let's give banks all the money act of 2017" either.

Big Mistake

[OrangeTide]

What will Pelosi's corporate masters think? They might break up the DNC in retaliation.

funny

[superwiz]

Industries missing from the list:

• -- Entertainment companies.
• -- State Bar associations (private organizations controlling access to law licenses!!! which act as gateways to petitioning the government!!!)

In other words, we'll make life difficult for the companies which haven't paid us off, but will leave you alone if you are a big Democratic donors.

Re:funny

[psmoot]

But on the list is...beer companies?!? There are more breweries and good beers available today than in any time in human history. OK, I'm being elitist because all the beers I drink are expensive craft beers. But the point is, there's an enormous range of beer quality and price available. There's no way you can argue the beer market isn't healthy and thriving. Well, other than oppressive beer distribution regulations in some states (*caugh*New York, Chuckie*caugh*).

What are Schumer and Pelosi looking for, a way to pander to red-state rural Trump voters?

Citizen's United

[OrangeTide]

Regulations that were effective in the past is no longer so. Much of what used to protect the American people has been torn away over the last 40 years. And now we have the ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which neither the Democrats or Republicans wish to address. The status quo is profitable for the current oligarchy, and DNC posturing that they'll break up the "big bad corporation" lacks teeth because multinational corporations can reorganize so quickly under the same set of shareholders and board. Such measures by the DNC are unlikely to pass, and will be quickly forgotten. You can consider this the opening salvo for mid-term elections. I'd argue if the DNC was serious about going after corporate behavior that harms Americans, there would be talk from the main-stream Democrats to deal with the Citizens United ruling, but I really haven't seen anything but hot air.

Re:Citizen's United

[doctorvo]

Much of what used to protect the American people has been torn away over the last 40 years

If by "protecting the American people", you mean the proto-fascist regulations from the progressive area and the WWII economy, guilty as charged and good riddance.

there would be talk from the main-stream Democrats to deal with the Citizens United ruling

The "corporation" in Citizens United was a non-profit making a political movie critical of Hillary. That's what we are talking about here: non-profit political organizations engaging in political speech, not Coca Cola advocating for oil pipelines. That's what you and Hillary Clinton want to see restricted: political speech.

Re:Citizen's United

[Obfuscant]

Much of what used to protect the American people has been torn away over the last 40 years. And now we have the ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which neither the Democrats or Republicans wish to address.

You mean the decision that the First Amendment was important enough to allow people to exercise their right to political speech despite unconstitutional attempts to restrict it? A decision that protected the First Amendment is tearing away protections? Huh?

Yes, those people happened to have formed a corporation, but by doing so they did not abdicate their First Amendment rights. And you might want to note that the same decision that said that the people forming the corporation called Citizens United had First Amendment rights said that people who form labor unions also do not give up their rights. It was a decision that took the venue of paid political speech away from exclusive control of the media and allowed the public to band together to pay for speech they would otherwise be unable to afford.

I'd argue if the DNC was serious about going after corporate behavior that harms Americans, there would be talk from the main-stream Democrats to deal with the Citizens United ruling,

Yeah, Democrats would get a lot of political mileage by angering the labor unions that spend a lot of money on political speech supporting Democrats, and by becoming the party that opposes the First Amendment rights of the people.

but I really haven't seen anything but hot air.

I've see a lot of hot air about CU vs. FEC, but I've also read the decision and know the truth. Trying to claim that CU hurts Americans is only one warm front amongst many.

Re:Citizen's United

[OrangeTide]

The shills are out in full force tonight.

Re:Citizen's United

[Attila Dimedici]

No, people are saying that people should not be able to band together to create and distribute a movie critical of Hillary Clinton because THAT is what the CItizens Untied case was about.

A bunch of people, who did not want Hillary to ever be President, pooled their money and made a movie critical of her, intending to screen that movie in theaters shortly before the 2008 presidential elections (this was when everyone was sure that Hillary would be the Dem nominee in 2008). The FEC told them that election laws said that this was a violation of a law passed by Congress (The FEC was correct). Citizens United (the name the group of people gave themselves) challenged that law in court. The Supreme Court ruled that the statement in the Constitution which says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." applied to movies as well as to things published using a printing press.

Re:Citizen's United

[Obfuscant]

The fact that some old fucks decided it is speech does not change that.

That's not what the decision says. The decision comes to the quite reasonable conclusion that money is required to have effective speech. The days of someone standing on a soapbox for free in the public park being able to have his speech heard are long gone. It takes money to buy airtime and print -- money which the media has ready access to because they own the airtime and print, but which the common citizen does not because he cannot afford it. CU says that people like you and me have First Amendment rights to speak, and that we can combine our money (even under the legal entity of "corporation") to make our speech at least as effective as the corporations collectively called "the media".

This is a Good Thing, not the End of All That is Good And Decent.

Re:Citizen's United

[OrangeTide]

Citizen's United ruling was in 2010. Trump announced he was running in 2015. You have a lot of balls applying revisionism bullshit to make this about Trump vs Hillary election when the ruling was an issue 5 years before any of that. I can only assume that you're a liar or a moron.

Re:Citizen's United

[OrangeTide]

I'm not sure how I'm expect to respond to your deceptive comments. I could see how you might take what I said as a personal attack, but I really did expect you to embrace being a liar or a moron.

also creimer's id is quite a bit higher than mine, if I'm his alt account he's running the longest con in internet history. Maybe I'm the original and he's my alt?

Re:Citizen's United

[sundarvenkata]

Yeah. The non-existent labor unions will have the same resources as a billion-dollar corporation. So, Citizens United for the win! Either you are a paid shill or a seriously deluded person.

Re:Citizen's United

[Rakarra]

No, people are saying that people should not be able to band together to create and distribute a movie critical of Hillary Clinton because THAT is what the CItizens Untied case was about.

A corporation is hardly "people banding together." That's a big miss. You think if people put it to a vote that they would pass the hat to pony up $300m for Hillary's SuperPAC? Bullshit. Corporations are power structures with a very uneven power distribution. The vast majority of corporate employees have little knowledge and no say in how much money the corporation donates. And that doesn't get into non-employees, like shareholders, most of whom have no idea they even own stock in the company.

Re:Citizen's United

[Attila Dimedici]

The corporation named "Citizens United" IS a case of people banding together, so are many other corporations. For example, I am part of a corporation called Society of Creative Anachronism. It is a group of people who have banded together to do historical re-enactment. They formed a corporation (I use third person because the corporation was formed before I joined) because government regulations made that the most efficient way to organize their activities.

It is NOT the employees who are the people who have banded together. You appear to think that "corporation" means "profit making company". The Society for Creative Anachronism and Citizens United are both non-profit organizations.

Re:Facebook, Google

[GrumpySteen]

Posting conspiracy theories that can be disproven with a single click doesn't make you look good.

Nobody modded the AC down. You're logged in, so you can click score in the title of the post. if it's been modded up or down, you'll see the initial posting score and a summary of the mods applied. As I post this, it was posted at zero and there's no history to show..

Re:What about "charities" and "foundations"?

[MightyMartian]

I completely agree. We can start with the Heartland Institute...

Re:Facebook, Google

[Kjella]

Posting conspiracy theories that can be disproven with a single click doesn't make you look good. Nobody modded the AC down. You're logged in, so you can click score in the title of the post. if it's been modded up or down, you'll see the initial posting score and a summary of the mods applied. As I post this, it was posted at zero and there's no history to show..

Pretty sure that if you post to undo a moderation it magically disappears.

Re:Facebook, Google

[GrumpySteen]

Pretty sure a bunch of shills who were paid to mod down comments (the conspiracy being pushed here) wouldn't suddenly have a change of heart and see the light and come back and post as AC to remove their mods.

This cuts both ways

[ErichTheRed]

On one hand, the companies this would be targeting are big enough to hold either de facto or explicit monopoly power, which isn't good for competition. On the other, in this new zero-slack, tiny-margin economy that looks like it's upon us, large companies would be the only ones making enough profit to pay their employees well.

I was just reading this article 2 minutes before reading the linked article. Companies that are being squeezed to the point where they can't make any more money are certainly not going to make life easier for their employees. If you optimize the system 100% and remove all inefficiencies, you could have a situation where nobody can provide enough value to sell their labor anymore. I know that sounds very Luddite-y, but IMO we're at the point where the vast majority of people can't simply move up the job ladder to the next better position when theirs is eliminated. There are too many people employed in middleman positions who will no longer have work, nor have any way to get new work.

Sure, no one wants monopolies with unlimited pricing power. But should the alternative be a hyper-efficient world where no one of average skill and intelligence can find work?

Re:DNC calling Trump black

[MightyMartian]

This was already tried. The Articles of Confederation were a failure.

Does anybosy here actually know any US history?

Re:LMAO...'beer, food & eyeglasses'

[unrtst]

The eyeglasses bit surprised me as well. Is there really just a couple big companies making them?

Re:Facebook, Google

[mike2006]

Either they were there and now gone or my bad I was looking at the wrong post or window I had up.

The point is shills that worship at the altar of these companies are always out in force in comments across sites like this regardless that I thought I saw neg points to that post at that time.

Um... when did I do that?

[rsilvergun]

I'm saying we've got some right wingers in our party who are soft on a few social issues. If I want to blame the Republicans for something I've got multiple wars, the 2008 economic crash (though Clinton gets some of that Blame for starting the deregulation that led to it), our awful healthcare system, the war on drugs and all the horror it brings, decades of institutionalized racism being used to drive a schism between members of the working class so wages could be suppressed.

When I've got no shortage of awful things to blame the Republicans for that they actually engineered why bother with something they had nothing to do with?

Re:Um... when did I do that?

[doctorvo]

I'm saying we've got some right wingers in our party who are soft on a few social issues.

Yes, the kind of people that actually represent what the majority of Americans want: small government, low taxes, individual responsibilty, and individual liberties. When the Democrats had more of those kinds of politicians, they were winning. On the other hand, when even a fairly tepid progressive like Hillary can't win against someone as unlikable and incompetent as Donald Trump, you'd think people would figure out that the problem with the Democratic party is their actual policies and directions. Yet, it looks like Democrats are going to double down on stupid and nominate a loser like Warren or Booker next time.

If I want to blame the Republicans for something I've got multiple wars, the 2008 economic crash (though Clinton gets some of that Blame for starting the deregulation that led to it), our awful healthcare system, the war on drugs and all the horror it brings,

You're a bloody fool if you blame Republicans for that, but I guess that kind of folly and ignorance is typical for 21st century Democrats.

decades of institutionalized racism being used to drive a schism between members of the working class so wages could be suppressed.

The majority of African Americans in the US are living under institutions and in communities dominated for decades by Democrats, Democratic policies, and businesses, civil rights organizations, and charities close to Democrats. So, there is institutionalized racism alright, but it is the creation of Democrats. Republicans, on the other hand, simply don't give a fuck either way about African Americans or their problems.

Re:LMAO...'beer, food & eyeglasses'

[AceViper]

Yes, Luxottica. Per Snopes "Eyewear retail giant Luxottica owns a number of high-profile eyeglass and sunglass brands, as well as several optometry chains and the second-largest vision care insurer."

Re:Bravo sir

[s.petry]

What a troll. I don't think I've ever seen a better one. You tick all the boxes, referencing my post while ignoring it to make a nonsensical point that passes the truthiness test (Leftist gave us Trump, which is so silly I'm not going to bother).

You don't believe that if the Democrats ran a better candidate Trump would have lost? You can't run a basic Google search and find all of the Presidents, Senators, and Congress people and find their ideologies and influences? Oh, I get it. You just don't like facts.

You should go work for one of those Russian outfits that engineered the Trump presidency. Shoot Jared and email, I'm sure he'll meet with you (he meets with _everybody_). Say hi to Paul Manafort for me.

Oh, I see. It wasn't that Trump won the Electoral college with a better message for Middle Class Americans and looked cleaner than Clinton. It was all those damn Russians who did it.

You do realize that that narrative lacks any facts, and was completely dismissed by the Obama Administration's head officials right? Oh noes, more of those things called "facts"! Show me one single fact of Russia hacking the election. I will personally write my Senator, Congressional Rep, the AG, and President and demand that Comey, Kerry, and Clapper be tried for Contempt of Congress since they lied.

I'm pushing back against the Marxist tactics the far left has engaged in since Trump won the election, you are promoting them. Who exactly works for the Russians between the two of us? If you are lost on the "Marxist tactics", see how other totalitarian governments attack opponents and their families.

We can debate facts, but facts in political threads tend to be moderated "troll" on Slashdot. While your allergy to facts is bothersome to rational debate, it's actually sensible on Slashdot. FWIW, I'm not pro-Trump at all. That does not make me for the BS that the far left and media have been spreading for the last year.

The Federal Government is too big!

[TimSSG]

The Federal Government is too big! So, we need to break it up. Tim S.

Re:The Dems know this [correction]

[Tablizer]

Correction: should be Iraq war, not Iran war (although it might become one under the New Guy.)

'Hurting Consumers'?

[PPH]

Well, there goes my business plan for a BDSM dungeon.

Hilary just wanted to make it easier

[rsilvergun]

to borrow more money. Whoop de do. When I was a kid college had massive federal subsidies. That's why it was affordable. Then Clinton started slashing those subsidies under the banner of 'Fiscal Responsibility'. The money was translated into tax cuts which in turn won him the donations he needed to get elected.

The Dems never really _do_ anything about those oligarchies. Obama did, but he was a president so as soon as he was out it didn't matter. If the Dems had at least run somebody anti TPP (e.g. somebody who didn't flip flop when she realized it was going to cost her the nomination) maybe I'd cut a little slack.

Kick the corporate Dems to the curb. Let them go back to the Republican party and move them to the left instead of moving the Dems to the right.

Re:Hilary just wanted to make it easier

[Tablizer]

You are focusing too much on party. Corporations use big money and big lobbying to heavily influence ALL politicians. It's harder to win without campaign money. We'd have to change our campaign system to fix that.

At least Democrat politicians seem to feel guilty kissing up to corporations, while Republicans wear it as a badge of honor: "unleash the job creators! Let wealth trickle down!"

Re:DNC calling Trump black

[clovis]

This was already tried. The Articles of Confederation were a failure.

Does anybosy here actually know any US history?

Uh, the Articles of Confederation was not an attempt to break up the Federal Government because there was no Federal Government (or USA) before then. The Articles of Confederation was the beta version, so to speak, and ratified before the war with Great Britain was even over.

Are you thinking of the Confederate States of America? Or their Articles of Secession? That was a different thing.

The party that can do nothing ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The party that is not in power at the moment and can't do anything always wants sweeping changes ... As soon as the party gains power they want to keep things as they are.
Republicans wanted to repeal obamacare very badly when they were out of power. Now when they are in power, not so much.
Democrats want to break up big corporations when they know nothing like this will pass.
The hope is that the dumb populace will vote for the "party of change" next time.

Re:LMAO...'beer, food & eyeglasses'

[PaulRivers10]

"Today more than 80% of major eyewear brands, including the world’s No. 1 seller, Ray-Ban, are designed and retailed (over 7,000 stores US alone) by Luxottica"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/deancrutchfield/2012/11/27/luxottica-sees-itself-as-king-raising-questions-about-brand-authenticity/#2cf8a02213cb

They own most eyewear retailers. They own the 2nd largest vision insurance company. And it's actually gotten worse since then - they merged with essilor the number one manufacturer of lenses and contacts, who also previously bought out most of their competitors.

If you've tried to buy glasses lately it is awful. You will run into the skeeziest smarmiest sales techniques I've ever seen.

Break your glasses and need a new pair asap? They'll claim they "can't" make a new pair until you pay them for a new eye exam, which they'll do whenever they happen to have time available.

You can't see without them? Who cares, fuck you.

And I tried at least 5 different places. They all clearly run the same skeezy sales con. You "can't" get anything new without paying for an eye exam. The place I actually had an up to date eye exam tried to tell me I'd have to get another one in order to buy glasses through them.

And lenses - the lens material with the best optical quality is CR39. It's also the cheapest. You can expect huge theatrics about how they'll be super thick, heavy, your children will contact the plague and die if they come into contact with CR39 instead of "high index" lenses. So I bought both. Guess what? High index makes me dizzy, it's harder to see, I can't see to the sides. CR39 on the other hand, no issues. CR39 was about a mm thicker...whup de do.

I can't really describe the emotional hysteria you run into as they run one skeezy sales technique against you after another.

They do this because they own everything - if you get pissed and leave, that just means you buy from another shop that also sells glasses from the same people.

muh Russians

[Anonymous Coward]

No deal Shumer unless you stop "resisting" any attempt to repeal Big Opharma care.

Re:LMAO...'beer, food & eyeglasses'

[unrtst]

Thank you for taking the time to provide all of that. I've only been wearing glasses for a few years, and haven't really done my homework. I thought I had a good experience where I went, but I needed an eye exam anyway, and I had no idea most brands had the same parent company. (I got a pair made by Hackett... wouldn't surprise me if they're in that group, but they're based in London, so maybe I got lucky?)

Hilary lost because she didn't campaign

[rsilvergun]

in the rust belt and because Trump ran on a populist message while she ran, well, without one. She couldn't say anything that would piss off her corporate donors so she had to shy away from anything better than "we'll take a few percentage points off your college loans and let you borrow more money, and oh yeah health premiums are gonna skyrocket about 20% less". That's not a message _anyone_ could get behind. It didn't help that she was for TPP until it became clear it would cost her the primary.

Never mind the fact that the Dems should never has nominated somebody with 20 years bad press. But she could've weathered all that and won if she had just stopped being so damn arrogant and campaigned in the rust belt. She was off wasting time in Arizona while Trump's people were pounding the pavement in Ohio and Wisconsin. There's interviews with Dem party leaders in swing states talking about how they never once saw any of her people. When one of the key issues is that voters feel like their being forgotten and/or taken for granted and you're taking them for granted well, you're just out of touch.

Hilary was everything everybody hates about the Democrats. Not just in theory but in actuality. She's the real thing. A genuine right wing democrat. And just as useless.

Re:Trump won campaigning a progressive plank

[s.petry]

Something that both offical parties and the republican supporters ignore. His "better message for Middle Class Americans" *** WAS A PROGRESSIVE MESSAGE ***

No, it was a Nationalist message. Addressing illegal immigration probably being the number one issue with many voters, an issue dating back to the 70s. Most candidates claimed they would fix the issue (Clinton gave some good speeches on the topic) but no politician has dared to actually work on it. Trump was seen as the _only_ candidate who would have addressed that issue.

We could say the same for fixing our tax system, addressing political corruption, and a few other hot button topics.

The "Trillion dollar infrastructure" came pretty late and was not an issue for his base, but trying to get progressives under the tent. Same with a couple other more progressive items which his base voter does not like. But a partial win is better than no win to people ignored over the last 30 years of politics.

And, no, he wasn't cleaner than Clinton, not even appearing to be so. Clinton lost her voters because they cared about the clean stature of their candidate whilst Trump lost very few voters because they *don't* care about the clean stature of their candidate.

I don't believe Trump is virtuous or of high morals and would never pretend as much, but Clinton is and was downright sleazy in terms of corruption. Your statement is not true, at any level. The whole NeverTrump movement out of the R side is because of his lack of morals and virtue. Clinton was seen as worse, and all you have to do is look at the red/blue map for proof. Compare 2016 to 2008.

Certainly this is not a single item selection and many factors went into the votes. None of those factors are what the Dems have been claiming for the last year.

Makes sense!

[OrangeTide]

They say that Putin is a high-quality person.

Re:Too Big to Fail = Too Big to Live

[Rakarra]

It's not necessarily that the investment banks themselves were too big to fail, it's that so many assets from common citizens were tied up in them, such that the collapse of the banks would have destroyed the retirements of many many average Americans.

If wealth is the accumulation of LABOR

[PlaynBass]

If wealth is the accumulation of LABOR, then why aren't LABORERS wealthy? The flaw in the argument is that wealth is the accumulation and overvaluation of the role of CAPITAL in the social contract between the owners of capital and the laborers hired to do the actual work of production. As the gap between the wealthy and the accumulation of non-productive wealth (ie, playing financial games with the symbols of wealth, things like unearned capital gains and huge stockpiles of funds in the control of fewer and richer individual entities (super corporations and super rich individuals) the rules of capitalism break down, and the mythical invisible hand of the market no longer provides for the needs of real people. Instead, we ge a government that reinforces and serves the needs and desires of the wealthy while providing only minimal lip-service to the needs of the more numerous providers of labor. This effect is further compounded by the advances in robotics and AI into every facet of our technology and by the pre-eminence of the financial industry, which can enrich itself by playing games with the imaginary symbols of value (AKA money), while using the resultant political (governmental) power to prevent labor from forming unions, to capture the regulators in government to limit and quantify the cost of pollution to their corporations, and to ignore such things as the inequality of the distribution of the basic needs of life for clean water, pure whole foods, and unpolluted air. Democracy and the rights of the workers (LABOR) are messy, difficult to control things, and do not have the binary certainty of machine-driven trading of financial assets. Suppressing competition is one of the ugly facts of capitalism, and the bigger or more wealthy the capitalist entity, the more power they can wield in the halls of government, especially when the most wealthy use the topmost echelons of the upper middle class to insulate them from the unwashed masses, through the use of zoning codes, school vouchers, and high tuitions to the best schools for their progeny, who have the best access to the best jobs, due to their lifelong access to better schools (a symptom and result of the reliance of public schools on the tax base of the real estate values of each school district. Federal funding for schools is fought over as the funding mechanism of last resort for the poorest of public schools, while for the richer neighborhoods, that same funding is merely icing on their already privileged cakes. I could go on but the truth of what I write should be apparent to any critical thinking person.