In October 2016 AT&T announced that it intended to buy Time Warner Cable for $84.5 billion. The merger would create one of the biggest media companies in the history of the U.S. The announcement sparked criticism from Congressional Democrats and Republicans who argued that huge corporate mergers create monopolies which prevent competition. Since President Obama took office his administration has prevented several mega-mergers from taking place including Sprint and T-Mobile, AT&T and T-Mobile and Allergan and Pfizer. In 2015 $3.8 trillion dollar’s worth of mergers and acquisitions occurred which made it the largest year for corporate consolidation in the history of the U.S. Proponents of mergers argue that the government should not interfere with corporations and the free market should be allowed to run its own course.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
County:
City:
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes
@9F7XRLC1yr1Y
Large Corporations are how America has always developed, they provide jobs, and mergers allow technology and resources to pool and allow for innovation.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No, and the government should not interfere with the free market
Monopolizing markets only allows for unfair increase upon materials, and doesn't allow for any entrepreneurship or competition among businesses, and competition is what makes markets
@9FM6L2V1yr1Y
These people are godless and are most likely corrupted if they gain monopolies over vital, day to day services like transportation, food, and communication, if those things happen they can induce slavery. If one company has all the power over global communication for example, and our hypothetically corrupt government sees that, they’ll hijack it for their own interests.
@9F68TS81yr1Y
Companies should not be able to monopolize markets as it puts the rich at an advantage while putting the poor at a disadvantage.
@9F7XRLC1yr1Y
The free market can hurt consumers, and people can take advantage of others. The government should regulate the market to keep consumers safe.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes, and the government should break up existing mega corporations
@9S3752W7mos7MO
These “mega corporations” have not created the market deficits remniscent of a monopoly. I also dont believe they are big enough to warrant breaking up.
@585W43RLibertarian4yrs4Y
No, this is an obstruction of the free market (it lessens competition and drives up prices) and a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
@6P7X5DD3yrs3Y
“a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act”
How is this a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act?
I think you're confused about mega-mergers and the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The Sherman Antitrust Act is an antitrust law. Antitrust laws in the United States regulate the conduct and organization of businesses to promote competition and prevent unjustified monopolies (there are plenty of attempted mega-mergers that can be used as examples of unjustified monopolies).
"Mega mergers" are often anticompetitive in nature therefore the action of preventing mega-mergers is an action that comes as a result of antitrust laws (such as the Sherman Antitrust Act)Read more
@5P39V6Y4yrs4Y
Success is success. This is America the land of opportunity so if someone does really well for themselves then great! They shouldn't be limited or further taxed
@5PS3CTY4yrs4Y
End of lobbying confirmed, then legislation should be removed that benefits the larger established corporations and stifles start-up companies. That way the market will manage itself as the small guy can offer a cost effective solution free from endless laws and red tape that is unnecessary and costly to both services and jobs
@5P54YPW4yrs4Y
Yes, this should be considered carefully because monopoly power is important in a democracy, and "natural monopolies" appear to be increasing.
@9FGCG261yr1Y
No, but they should be increasingly taxed so smaller companies can compete
While I understand your point about levying higher taxes on larger corporations to level the playing field, it's important to consider the potential drawbacks of this approach. For instance, heavily taxing these companies might discourage them from further investing in research and development, which could impede innovation. In fact, many breakthroughs in technology, healthcare, and other sectors have been made possible thanks to investments from large corporations.
Moreover, higher taxes could also lead to job cuts, as firms might try to offset their increased financial burden. For exam… Read more
I see where you're coming from, but let's flip the pancake for a second. Yes, big corporations have made significant contributions to innovation. However, wouldn't you agree that monopolies can stifle the innovative spirit of smaller companies who can't compete with mega-corporations' vast resources?
Also, consider the Scandinavian model. They have some of the highest corporate taxes globally, yet they consistently rank among the most innovative countries. It's like having your cake and eating it too - high taxes don't necessarily kill innovation or lead to… Read more
Oh, I do admire your creative thinking! Turning Goliath into David's venture capitalist is a fascinating idea. Still, an air of caution looms over this concept. Mega corporations, driven by profit, might seek to control or influence these smaller entities to their advantage, possibly even stifering the very innovation we seek to encourage.
On the Scandinavian model, it's true they rank high in innovation, but it's also worth noting these countries have unique socio-economic structures that might not be replicable everywhere. They have a strong social security system, excellent… Read more
In the grand tapestry of economic history, we find patterns of ebb and flow, where the presence of larger entities either nurturing or stifling smaller ones is not a new phenomenon. While your cautionary note on mega corporations potentially manipulating smaller entities is valid, I propose we weave in stringent regulations and transparency mechanisms to prevent undue influence and ensure a healthy symbiotic relationship.
Your point on the uniqueness of Scandinavian economies is well taken. However, isn't the very essence of progression the ability to learn, adapt, and adopt best practice… Read more
@5PDC4WB4yrs4Y
this is a trick question; we already have sufficient anti-trust laws in place to prevent monopolies; the media blitz is not altruisticaly revealing that the current attempt at a merger is simply being put through the paces of those very same anti-trust laws. so in this case "the government" is actually doing what it is supposed to
@5NNHLMT4yrs4Y
No, Monopolies are a result of government intervention
@5NN4KJR4yrs4Y
the government is the result of the mega merger. Fascism is when the government and business crawl in bed together. We, our parents and most of our grandparents have only experienced Fascism.
@5PGCZ8K4yrs4Y
Having a large share of the market is fine as long as the buisness in control is being conducted ethically and does not make major moves to deny others into the market.
@5LK9Q594yrs4Y
No, but measures should put in place to prevent monopolizing
@5NN9JHX4yrs4Y
The government should consider the impact, rather than having a hard and fast rule.
@5PZJTQ54yrs4Y
@B2JVTTG1mo1MO
Yes, in order to prevent monopolies so that smaller businesses are able to gain traction and become successful.
@9YDTSTF4mos4MO
Small businesses are very important and bigger corporations should not be allowed to fully take over.
@9W95LQPRepublican5mos5MO
It doesn't matter if the government denies a company to merge most companies will just think outside the box and do it a different way.
@9W3FGXC 5mos5MO
No, but make it so other smaller businesses can still compete & only break them up if they get out of control or if they take out opposition.
@9HCMCKF1yr1Y
No, unless the circumstances come to a monopoly occurring and that monopoly taking advantage of their power.
@9GJBH7YRepublican1yr1Y
No, but the government should stop letting the top 5 data/wifi providers have a monopoly on the industry, that is the only monopoly that truly affects everyone in the country.
@9GBGZHC1yr1Y
Yes, this goes against the spirit of anti trust laws already in place and we need to adapt our anti trust legislation to combat current mega-corporations like Nestle, Meta, and Amazon
Yes, and require companies to publicly display the nature of their ownership to increase consumer knowledge and corporate transparency.
@9DXRDTW1yr1Y
yes like BlackRock, and vanguard
@9DX79WD1yr1Y
Yes and nationalize the private sector.
@9DMBYPM2yrs2Y
The Government Is a Monopoly Itself Before It Could Do Anything It Has To Fix Itself
@9DL3KCM2yrs2Y
Give them an offer to become worker owned if they want to grow bigger if they refuse prevent it.
@9DG7FDN2yrs2Y
Governments should not prevent mergers but rather regulate them to ensure the smooth functioning of the market and retaining of business morals and values.
@9D7F9XN2yrs2Y
Yes, if analysis showed it would have a substantial negative impact on the market, overall economy, or consumers
@9D75LRF2yrs2Y
No, but they should be very highly scrutinized.
@9D6JRC62yrs2Y
No, if government would let businesses fail and equally apply the prevention of monopolies.
@9D644FS 2yrs2Y
Yes, if the merger would result in draconian monopoly
@SniperElitestLibertarian 2yrs2Y
no, and abolish intellectual property so no one has control over innovation.
Yes, abolish private property and ban wealth accumulation
@8G9CSK6Republican4yrs4Y
Yes, as monopolies are antithetical to free markets
Yes, and the government should nationalize existing mega corporations
@8HTTQMXIndependent4yrs4Y
Yes, if the merged corporation would have more than 25% of the market share, and the government should break up existing mega corporations.
@9SM383S6mos6MO
Yes, break up existing mega corporations and the new companies have to retain its current employees. New owners cannot be related whatsoever to the previous owners
@9RW3JGY7mos7MO
It’s a free concert build on freedom and the belief we are free so they can do as they please there Americans
@9QZHCP8 8mos8MO
Yes, but it would be better to eliminate all of the taxes and regulations that incentivize mega-corps in the first place.
@9QYY2LB 8mos8MO
No, Why are we even Interfering in letting companies merge together? Congress shouldn’t vote on that
@CurvyletterConstitution 8mos8MO
Yes, as it safeguards fair competition, prevents monopolies, protects consumer interests, and maintains economic and political balance
@9QBTLRG8mos8MO
Depends on the industry, and also how much money they are bringing in from outside the country/how important global market share is.
@9P7DYSX9mos9MO
Unions and the public should be allowed to break up large corporations, without government involvement.
@9MDD3XT10mos10MO
Not initially, but it should be tightly regulated and highly taxed and broken up at a certain point (30-50%?)
@9LTS5NL 10mos10MO
No, but if it does become a monopoly, then break it up. Not too much though, so as to not upset the economy beyond repair
@9LCPJSN11mos11MO
I don't love the idea of "mega mergers". Allowing big companies to merge and monopolize the market puts the rich at an even greater advantage which doesn't seem right.
@9L39XL312mos12MO
If a free market were in place, and more competition were in place, then “mega merge” type monopolies would become less common.
A mega-merge would instill that the corporation would have more assets under control. In order to mitigate the issue of market share, the government should impose a large tax rate on to said corporation, to limit their power.
@9KG9KSM1yr1Y
We need to be doing more to support small businesses. Big corporations buying out all the competition is unethical. We need to make sure everyone has a fair chance in the free market without being too controlling to private companies. Anti trust laws and laws to prevent monopolies should be revised.
@9KD4JS61yr1Y
Yes, if the merged corporation would have more than a certain percentage of market share dependent on it's industry.
@9K4MVZFRepublican1yr1Y
Any mega merger should be considered dangerous, because without competition, there's going to be inflation. I think it would be wise to prevent such mergers, however, it would require us to give up some rights. It's honestly dependent on whether or not I am willing to give up my rights to get security. Which, with that stance, I'd have to say no.
@9JBZ3CCIndependent1yr1Y
I'm against mega-corporations and the government as well, so anything that would decrease power and control from both would be nice, but if the government has to do that then it would suffice as long as the they aren't getting more control
@9GVR7DW 1yr1Y
No, as long as they give compensation to their workers and don't make them work at starvation wages. Exploitative corporations should be broken up regardless of size
@9G2ZQV3 1yr1Y
If the corporations have a significant impact on the economy alongside large mergers it should be nationalized.
@9FQP2Y21yr1Y
Monopolies are inevitable under capitalism. The only way to get rid of monopolies is to get rid of capitalism.
@9FP6SKWIndependent1yr1Y
Yes, given the market HHI is over 2,500
@Yaunti2 1yr1Y
Yes, abolish private companies
Only If It's A Non-State Owned Company
@9FGNNSKLibertarian1yr1Y
Only if the merger would impede our free market economy and unduly stifle competition.
@9FDD7ST1yr1Y
We need to support small business's instead of worrying about drama with larger competition
@9FD364P1yr1Y
If the prices are fair and there's many job opportunities with fair pay, then monopolies are fine.
@9F7X6GP1yr1Y
I don't understand this matter.
@9F7SNL51yr1Y
Government shouldn't be the answer to this question.
@9F6FCKH1yr1Y
yes but only if they would be more than .1% of GDP
@9F5XM8J1yr1Y
Would need to do more research
Yes, if the merged corporation controls more than a quarter of the market share. Enforce anti-trust laws on current mega-corporations and monopolies.
@99MFTPG2yrs2Y
Yes, but the government should nationalize megacorporations instead
@9BXCHQB2yrs2Y
A good example of this is the big tech industry and the power and corruption that has taken place because of them merging together into a corporate giant, killing creativity, human behavior traits, and free speech.
@9B2QP982yrs2Y
No, but with an exception of if it could cause a monopoly.
Yes, and nationalize all corporations, transition them to well-regulated, unionized worker cooperatives, and ban the private sector
@99XQG5KIndependent2yrs2Y
No, the government should only interfere if the merged corporation would have more than 50% of the market share
@98N8FTS2yrs2Y
What is a mega merger???
@97YBR4P2yrs2Y
No, but taxes should be raised on the rich.
@96NSVQ82yrs2Y
No, the Government should only interfere in the free market very rarely
@MyraMedchan2yrs2Y
If you could tell a monopoly no I'll pass then they would fall apart. Nowadays very few people have self sustainability. And much of that has to do with capitalism.
@96CXLD22yrs2Y
under special dangerous circumstances.
@96CPH9Q2yrs2Y
we already have this in the anti trust and monopoly laws
@96C7P8K2yrs2Y
The government should not interfere with the free market until it begins to harm other corporations considerably.
@968SD5G2yrs2Y
Yes, under the stipulation that it is a monopoly. In all other cases, No.
The government should socialize the private sector and make it operate as one public utility
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
