Media company frenzy

[MU82]

I shudder to think why.


It appears Disney has upped the ante again for Fox.

They have. DIS has deeper pockets than CMCSA and will win this thing unless CMCSA is willing to go deep, deep, deep into hock for it. Which CMCSA might be. Desperate times, and all.

[Efficient Frontier]

AT&T and Time Warner merger approved.

Comcast allegedly will attempt to buy Fox next.

Remember when there were anti-Monopoly laws? Pepperidge farms remembers

I’ll just drop this here - the market does its job just fine in weeding out companies which are too big.

If government REDUCED regulation you would, in fact, see fewer bohemoths maintain dominant market share for as long as telecom giants.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ge-to-spin-off-health-care-business-in-latest-revamp-1530005401?emailToken=39b44ff3349944b473c20f5c61696975XBdivE1kLViSg+eYx4nCbaeFUWVacoKLHfIb/qAt351+ju4MAtj1WMs52yX3z23eP7aA70ff3ItPdG4t3+5bAO4bJ46ysMdcVMyGSkEPGls%3D&reflink=article_copyURL_share

[mu03eng]

I’ll just drop this here - the market does its job just fine in weeding out companies which are too big.

If government REDUCED regulation you would, in fact, see fewer bohemoths maintain dominant market share for as long as telecom giants.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ge-to-spin-off-health-care-business-in-latest-revamp-1530005401?emailToken=39b44ff3349944b473c20f5c61696975XBdivE1kLViSg+eYx4nCbaeFUWVacoKLHfIb/qAt351+ju4MAtj1WMs52yX3z23eP7aA70ff3ItPdG4t3+5bAO4bJ46ysMdcVMyGSkEPGls%3D&reflink=article_copyURL_share

Government regulation as a moat to competition is one of the reasons I'm a Whig. Theoretically, using regulation to ensure fair play and a level playing field makes sense. However, the associated cost of compliance with regulation actually results in fewer companies starting up or smaller companies trying to go toe to toe with the big boys in established markets.

[Efficient Frontier]

Government regulation as a moat to competition is one of the reasons I'm a Whig. Theoretically, using regulation to ensure fair play and a level playing field makes sense. However, the associated cost of compliance with regulation actually results in fewer companies starting up or smaller companies trying to go toe to toe with the big boys in established markets.

Exactly.

[jesmu84]

I’ll just drop this here - the market does its job just fine in weeding out companies which are too big.

If government REDUCED regulation you would, in fact, see fewer bohemoths maintain dominant market share for as long as telecom giants.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ge-to-spin-off-health-care-business-in-latest-revamp-1530005401?emailToken=39b44ff3349944b473c20f5c61696975XBdivE1kLViSg+eYx4nCbaeFUWVacoKLHfIb/qAt351+ju4MAtj1WMs52yX3z23eP7aA70ff3ItPdG4t3+5bAO4bJ46ysMdcVMyGSkEPGls%3D&reflink=article_copyURL_share

Maybe, maybe not.

Regulation is good and bad, in that regard.

I sure remember how corporations were so good at self-policing pollution before government stepped in to protect citizens....

[Efficient Frontier]

Maybe, maybe not.

Regulation is good and bad, in that regard.

I sure remember how corporations were so good at self-policing pollution before government stepped in to protect citizens....

Idk - I think that's pretty murky ground. Pretty unclear evidence to support that?

[Babybluejeans]

Idk - I think that's pretty murky ground. Pretty unclear evidence to support that?

Do you remember CFCs and freakin' hole they ripped in the o-zone layer?

[jesmu84]

Do you remember CFCs and freakin' hole they ripped in the o-zone layer?

Not to mention how well corporations were already adhering to their own protocols and policies that mirrored the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act (among dozens of other regulations). Yet, for some reason, those had to be enforced by our government.

I think the evidence isn't murky here at all.

[Pakuni]

Idk - I think that's pretty murky ground. Pretty unclear evidence to support that?

Residents of the Love Canal neighborhood say 'Hi!'

[GGGG]

Yeah I don’t really get when we decided that the primary role of government was to make sure the economy operates efficiently. Yeah that’s part of it, but sacrificing efficiency for the sake of consumer or environmental protection is just fine by me.

[Efficient Frontier]

Residents of the Love Canal neighborhood say 'Hi!'

Firstly: you’re adorable.

Second: This is a case where laws did not prevent pollution. Is that the point you’re trying to make?

[dgies9156]

Has the Cuyahoga River burned lately through downtown Cleveland?

Does GM build Vegas anymore? Or, do subcompact gasoline tanks explode on contact?

Maybe the private sector would have demanded safer cars. But, as we have found so often lately, we would sell our own mothers for an extra couple of cents off a product or service. If safety or clean air and water cost a few cents extra on a product, we'd be polluting and killing each other unless there was regulation.

The problem is that regulation has moved from protection, such as environmental laws and regulation, where the people have a vested interest in a clean environment, safe cars, buildings that don't fall down and airplanes that don't fall out of the sky, to picking the winners and losers.

Tax laws, incentives and regulations that are arbitrarily or inconsistently applied to create jobs, save industries, build stadiums and arenas, foster benefits to some but not others go beyond protecting people and begin to use government power to guarantee returns. That's the part of regulation and government that's scary. I know Wisconsin has benefited mightily in recent years from taxpayer supported and subsidized arenas, baseball parks and football stadiums as well as a certain technology investment in Racine/Kenosha on which our very own orange-haired hero broke ground today. But I struggle to believe that's the role of government and prefer to believe we've screwed up our government so much that we have to do that to attract investment. It's sad.

[mu03eng]

Has the Cuyahoga River burned lately through downtown Cleveland?

Does GM build Vegas anymore? Or, do subcompact gasoline tanks explode on contact?

Maybe the private sector would have demanded safer cars. But, as we have found so often lately, we would sell our own mothers for an extra couple of cents off a product or service. If safety or clean air and water cost a few cents extra on a product, we'd be polluting and killing each other unless there was regulation.

The problem is that regulation has moved from protection, such as environmental laws and regulation, where the people have a vested interest in a clean environment, safe cars, buildings that don't fall down and airplanes that don't fall out of the sky, to picking the winners and losers.

Tax laws, incentives and regulations that are arbitrarily or inconsistently applied to create jobs, save industries, build stadiums and arenas, foster benefits to some but not others go beyond protecting people and begin to use government power to guarantee returns. That's the part of regulation and government that's scary. I know Wisconsin has benefited mightily in recent years from taxpayer supported and subsidized arenas, baseball parks and football stadiums as well as a certain technology investment in Racine/Kenosha on which our very own orange-haired hero broke ground today. But I struggle to believe that's the role of government and prefer to believe we've screwed up our government so much that we have to do that to attract investment. It's sad.

[Efficient Frontier]

Not to mention how well corporations were already adhering to their own protocols and policies that mirrored the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act (among dozens of other regulations). Yet, for some reason, those had to be enforced by our government.

I think the evidence isn't murky here at all.

For CFCs - you’re saying there were laws in place that were broken, which resulted in pollution/damage to the environment?

And jesmu84’s statement above is the farthest thing from clarity. What are you referring to? Your strategy of flinging general statements into cyberspace mimics taking a position without applying any structured thought or argument.

[jesmu84]

For CFCs - you’re saying there were laws in place that were broken, which resulted in pollution/damage to the environment?

And jesmu84’s statement above is the farthest thing from clarity. What are you referring to? Your strategy of flinging general statements into cyberspace mimics taking a position without applying any structured thought or argument.

Dgies gave some more concrete examples. As if you don't understand what I've been saying all along. You're a bright guy. You're just too entrenched in your mindset to consider other alternatives.

[jesmu84]

Has the Cuyahoga River burned lately through downtown Cleveland?

Does GM build Vegas anymore? Or, do subcompact gasoline tanks explode on contact?

Maybe the private sector would have demanded safer cars. But, as we have found so often lately, we would sell our own mothers for an extra couple of cents off a product or service. If safety or clean air and water cost a few cents extra on a product, we'd be polluting and killing each other unless there was regulation.

The problem is that regulation has moved from protection, such as environmental laws and regulation, where the people have a vested interest in a clean environment, safe cars, buildings that don't fall down and airplanes that don't fall out of the sky, to picking the winners and losers.

Tax laws, incentives and regulations that are arbitrarily or inconsistently applied to create jobs, save industries, build stadiums and arenas, foster benefits to some but not others go beyond protecting people and begin to use government power to guarantee returns. That's the part of regulation and government that's scary. I know Wisconsin has benefited mightily in recent years from taxpayer supported and subsidized arenas, baseball parks and football stadiums as well as a certain technology investment in Racine/Kenosha on which our very own orange-haired hero broke ground today. But I struggle to believe that's the role of government and prefer to believe we've screwed up our government so much that we have to do that to attract investment. It's sad.

Like mu03eng, I'm right on board with this.

The thing I hate is those private and public organizations that would seek to eliminate the "protection" regulations for the sake of a penny.

[Efficient Frontier]

Dgies gave some more concrete examples. As if you don't understand what I've been saying all along. You're a bright guy. You're just too entrenched in your mindset to consider other alternatives.

If it's obvious, do me the kindness of a repost of the specifics you're referencing.

Can you summarize the mindset in which I'm entrenched?

[Pakuni]

Has the Cuyahoga River burned lately through downtown Cleveland?

Does GM build Vegas anymore? Or, do subcompact gasoline tanks explode on contact?

Maybe the private sector would have demanded safer cars. But, as we have found so often lately, we would sell our own mothers for an extra couple of cents off a product or service. If safety or clean air and water cost a few cents extra on a product, we'd be polluting and killing each other unless there was regulation.

The problem is that regulation has moved from protection, such as environmental laws and regulation, where the people have a vested interest in a clean environment, safe cars, buildings that don't fall down and airplanes that don't fall out of the sky, to picking the winners and losers.

Tax laws, incentives and regulations that are arbitrarily or inconsistently applied to create jobs, save industries, build stadiums and arenas, foster benefits to some but not others go beyond protecting people and begin to use government power to guarantee returns. That's the part of regulation and government that's scary. I know Wisconsin has benefited mightily in recent years from taxpayer supported and subsidized arenas, baseball parks and football stadiums as well as a certain technology investment in Racine/Kenosha on which our very own orange-haired hero broke ground today. But I struggle to believe that's the role of government and prefer to believe we've screwed up our government so much that we have to do that to attract investment. It's sad.

[mu03eng]

[jesmu84]

If it's obvious, do me the kindness of a repost of the specifics you're referencing.

Can you summarize the mindset in which I'm entrenched?

Nah. I'm good. I remember plenty of your rants from the politics board.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Nah. I'm good. I remember plenty of your rants from the politics board.

No one could get a thread locked quicker than Heisy with an unhinged rant.

[Efficient Frontier]

Nah. I'm good. I remember plenty of your rants from the politics board.

I've never been on the politics board. This is about as much as I'd care to handle.

.... though I applaud the debate strategy of saying, "I'll pretend you're another person who I debated on some other topic, therefore I don't need to explain my position on this topic."

[MU82]

We need to get Smuggles2 together with chicos2.

[Efficient Frontier]

We need to get Smuggles2 together with chicos2.

Not familiar with Smuggles, but if it helps disprove I'm Chicos.... I'm still waiting for that next shoe to drop about Buzz.

[mu03eng]

We need to get Smuggles2 together with chicos2.

Probably not a great idea, that'd be like getting the gatekeeper and the key master together....not sure who's Rick Moranis in this analogy