New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

California isn’t pushing corporations out of the state. If they are leaving then it is because those corporations have a better offer or want to go to a state where they can pollute more, pay workers less, not have to pay workers healthcare or whatever. Again, the same thing that is driving any corporations to other states will also drive them to other countries. It is a slippery slope. What corporations are leaving?

They might not be pushing them out in the literal sense but they are definitely choking them off legally and fiscally. Please tell me which company’s are moving to pollute more.... Show me the article that says Tesla moved to destroy the environment. You can’t find the list on the internet???? Cmon man.... Literally thousands of corporations have left. Tesla, Oracle, CBRE, Charles Schwabb, Toyota, and Nissan to name a few. I know your internet search skills are better than this.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

It is the internet. There is just as much information about the problems of deregulations.

You’re smart, I’m sure you know which economic related news outlets to find this on. Start with people who actually know what they are talking ab. You’re not gonna find anything you’re not looking for.

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Money really isn't an issue; it is demand. It might cost $5 trillion to switch our system like you say, but what will it cost to not make the switch now, but later? Making the switch is inevitable, so it is just a matter of figuring out when we want to get there. If we wait then we could be facing the economic costs of more floods, rising sea levels on coastline cities, extreme climate complications, air quality problems, etc. We might need to spend to save. Also, the economy is an ecosystem of give and take. Stimulating the economy with change and spur investment in new fields in green technologies that lead to economic prosperity and growth. Name a business that didn't first spend money before it made money. There is no need for a doom and gloom outcome.

California is pushing forward with renewables. Other countries have done the same. It isn't an impossible task.

It’s not so much ‘doom and gloom’ as simple reality: where does the money come from?

I started out in the sciences, focused on ‘data’ and ‘the right things to do’, but learned some tough love hard lessons along the way: nothing happens unless someone pays for it. That’s the way it is. Even the former Soviet Union couldn’t make a command economy work.

There are generally three potential sources of money: private, public, and philanthropic. I have no experiences with philanthropy and can’t comment on that, but it seems unlikely to get $5 trillion in donations to make the U.S. power grid renewable -

https://www.instituteforenergyresear...ewable-energy/

The hard reality is that most investors these days demand returns in a very short time. Most aren’t interested in waiting a year, a month, or even a week, but want to make money right now. Today.

I was the C.E.O. of a (small) public biotechnology company and experienced this first-hand. You would think in an industry with product development times of 10-15 years, and where many investors have M.D. or Ph.D. degrees they would have realistic expectations. Even the supposedly ‘patient, long term’ venture capital investors weren’t willing to wait more than two years before trying to squeeze out one of their hallowed ‘liquidity events’, because that’s how they make their bonuses.

Once, after we went public, an angry investor loudly harangued me on the phone, screaming that he had ‘been in the stock for almost a month’ and ‘how long did I expect him to hold on to it’? Money is just not patient, especially in uncertain, turbulent times. It’s hard to see how enough money to make a difference could be raised from private investors. The time for a return on their investment would simply be too long for them.

Public money means taxes, and faces its own challenges. We live in a country where a significant chunk of the population refuses to wear masks in a raging pandemic, something that could save their lives. Many of these people, and as a result the legislators in Congress they elect, vehemently refuse to consider a national healthcare plan because their taxes would increase (even if they would save much more money by eliminating healthcare insurance than they would pay in higher taxes). These same people have been relentlessly trying to eliminate the ACA.

Especially given the trillions of dollars already spent on economic support in the pandemic, and the trillions more that must come, it’s hard to see how an additional $5 trillion in taxes would be supported by the majority of people and more so in Congress.

That leaves it to individual states. Some have made strides, such as developing large-scale offshore wind power in New England. But California is probably not a viable example for most states to follow. California’s economic model is unique in that it depends on a lot of extremely wealthy people, both billionaire tech bros and those who merely make mid six-figure salaries, being willing to pay very high income tax rates. Most states don’t have that kind of base of wealth, and most people don’t make Silicon Valley salaries (or have tech bro money). Someone who makes a mid six-figure salary might not mind paying an extra 5% income tax for renewable energy, but I suspect most people who make 1/10 of that literally couldn’t afford it.

It hasn’t been all milk and honey in California either. It’s human nature to squander money, use it for personal interests, and build empires. California has done a lot with renewable energy projects, but is also home of the biggest bureaucracy in the country with the most and highest paid government employees -

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...le4815915.html

including having it’s own EPA, it’s own FDA, state employees in jobs of questionable importance who make breathtaking six-figure salaries while barely working 20 hours a week (like several I know), and a massive unfunded pension liability –

https://calmatters.org/commentary/da...debt-unfunded/

I’m all for soaking the rich, and think those who make seven-plus figure salaries and have eight-plus figure net worths should pay a lot more in federal income tax. But when there are such big differences in state income tax rates, even Silicon Valley billionaires will leave if they feel squeezed too hard -

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/tech/...ami/index.html

which means that even California might not be able to throw around big piles of money in the future.

There are big differences between what can be done (and maybe should be done), and what makes financial sense. My undergraduate thesis in the late 1970’s was on photovoltaic solar power (a diversion from biology) and ways to power the entire U.S. grid that way. It was technologically feasible even back then over 40 years ago, but wasn’t cost effective. It’s become much less expensive over that time, but investors have also gotten much more short-sighted and demanding of immediate returns.

In any conflict between wishful thinking (or denial) and reality, reality always wins. Every time. Having an electric grid based on renewable energy sources would be wonderful to have, and would be in the best interests of the planet and its inhabitants. But it won’t happen unless the money comes from somewhere, and it doesn’t seem to be a priority for the U.S. right now. European countries are a very different situation, different values, different cultures, which sadly does not extrapolate much here.

It’s not going to happen in my lifetime. You’re probably a fair bit younger than I am. It may happen in yours, and I sincerely hope it does.

But you’ll still have to find someone to pay for it.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

They might not be pushing them out in the literal sense but they are definitely choking them off legally and fiscally. Please tell me which company’s are moving to pollute more.... Show me the article that says Tesla moved to destroy the environment. You can’t find the list on the internet???? Cmon man.... Literally thousands of corporations have left. Tesla, Oracle, CBRE, Charles Schwabb, Toyota, and Nissan to name a few. I know your internet search skills are better than this.

You’re smart, I’m sure you know which economic related news outlets to find this on. Start with people who actually know what they are talking ab. You’re not gonna find anything you’re not looking for.

More like they aren’t wanting to pollute less. They already pollute, either in their products or in their manufacturing process. I’m not saying this is the only reason, but it is one reason.

https://www.politico.com/states/cali...bon-tax-740266

I’m curious if Tesla is still going to be able to sell carbon credits. They made more than half a billion selling carbon credits last year.

https://stockdividendscreener.com/au...edits-revenue/

I try to provide references when necessary. I don’t know of a list that says which corporations left and for what reason they left, so if you have that list then referencing it would be nice.

I don’t believe in deregulation. It doesn’t work. I’m for sensible legislations and regulations. If anything, we need more antitrust laws.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

More like they aren’t wanting to pollute less. They already pollute, either in their products or in their manufacturing process. I’m not saying this is the only reason, but it is one reason.

https://www.politico.com/states/cali...bon-tax-740266

I get your point but the lead motivator for why these companies are moving isn’t to get around pollution. A bulk of these corporations aren’t even industrial. It’s because of the taxes and regulations.

https://www.hoover.org/research/cali...tate-thousands

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I’m curious if Tesla is still going to be able to sell carbon credits. They made more than half a billion selling carbon credits last year.

https://stockdividendscreener.com/au...edits-revenue/

I try to provide references when necessary. I don’t know of a list that says which corporations left and for what reason they left, so if you have that list then referencing it would be nice.

Their CFO has been accounting for the credits, and knows that they will be diminishing over time. On top of that Tesla is known for operating on tight profit margins (less than 5%) and has opening said he doesn’t care ab the profit margins.

It’s not a list so much as naming the big players leaving but here’s a few.

https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/n...year-with.html

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I don’t believe in deregulation. It doesn’t work. I’m for sensible legislations and regulations. If anything, we need more antitrust laws.

That’s your prerogative but I would argue there are plenty of benefits: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.co.../deregulation/

It’s a matter of the pros outweighing the cons. I believe there is a middle ground, a balance between the two poles and a balance is healthy. I’m not saying the dept of commerce, trade, defense and FDA should get lost. I’m saying over regulating causes companies running tight profit margins to take their business where they can function on less operating expenses. I believe they should have every right to do so.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

It’s not so much ‘doom and gloom’ as simple reality: where does the money come from?

I started out in the sciences, focused on ‘data’ and ‘the right things to do’, but learned some tough love hard lessons along the way: nothing happens unless someone pays for it. That’s the way it is. Even the former Soviet Union couldn’t make a command economy work.

There are generally three potential sources of money: private, public, and philanthropic. I have no experiences with philanthropy and can’t comment on that, but it seems unlikely to get $5 trillion in donations to make the U.S. power grid renewable -

Which sources did Germany use?

https://www.instituteforenergyresear...ewable-energy/

The hard reality is that most investors these days demand returns in a very short time. Most aren’t interested in waiting a year, a month, or even a week, but want to make money right now. Today.

I was the C.E.O. of a (small) public biotechnology company and experienced this first-hand. You would think in an industry with product development times of 10-15 years, and where many investors have M.D. or Ph.D. degrees they would have realistic expectations. Even the supposedly ‘patient, long term’ venture capital investors weren’t willing to wait more than two years before trying to squeeze out one of their hallowed ‘liquidity events’, because that’s how they make their bonuses.

Once, after we went public, an angry investor loudly harangued me on the phone, screaming that he had ‘been in the stock for almost a month’ and ‘how long did I expect him to hold on to it’? Money is just not patient, especially in uncertain, turbulent times. It’s hard to see how enough money to make a difference could be raised from private investors. The time for a return on their investment would simply be too long for them.

Public money means taxes, and faces its own challenges. We live in a country where a significant chunk of the population refuses to wear masks in a raging pandemic, something that could save their lives. Many of these people, and as a result the legislators in Congress they elect, vehemently refuse to consider a national healthcare plan because their taxes would increase (even if they would save much more money by eliminating healthcare insurance than they would pay in higher taxes). These same people have been relentlessly trying to eliminate the ACA.

Especially given the trillions of dollars already spent on economic support in the pandemic, and the trillions more that must come, it’s hard to see how an additional $5 trillion in taxes would be supported by the majority of people and more so in Congress.

It’ll need to happen eventually. Typically the longer you wait the more expensive things are, even factoring out inflation. Consider the cost to switch to metric now versus back in the day. Not apples to apples. Of course, the price of solar and wind can continue to drop, which could mean it could be cheaper in the future, but there might be other costs associated with not making the move.

That leaves it to individual states. Some have made strides, such as developing large-scale offshore wind power in New England. But California is probably not a viable example for most states to follow. California’s economic model is unique in that it depends on a lot of extremely wealthy people, both billionaire tech bros and those who merely make mid six-figure salaries, being willing to pay very high income tax rates. Most states don’t have that kind of base of wealth, and most people don’t make Silicon Valley salaries (or have tech bro money). Someone who makes a mid six-figure salary might not mind paying an extra 5% income tax for renewable energy, but I suspect most people who make 1/10 of that literally couldn’t afford it.

It hasn’t been all milk and honey in California either. It’s human nature to squander money, use it for personal interests, and build empires. California has done a lot with renewable energy projects, but is also home of the biggest bureaucracy in the country with the most and highest paid government employees -

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...le4815915.html

Those salaries/map distribution looks proportional to the cost of living in each state.

including having it’s own EPA, it’s own FDA, state employees in jobs of questionable importance who make breathtaking six-figure salaries while barely working 20 hours a week (like several I know), and a massive unfunded pension liability –

https://calmatters.org/commentary/da...debt-unfunded/

I’m all for soaking the rich, and think those who make seven-plus figure salaries and have eight-plus figure net worths should pay a lot more in federal income tax. But when there are such big differences in state income tax rates, even Silicon Valley billionaires will leave if they feel squeezed too hard -

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/13/tech/...ami/index.html

which means that even California might not be able to throw around big piles of money in the future.

There are big differences between what can be done (and maybe should be done), and what makes financial sense. My undergraduate thesis in the late 1970’s was on photovoltaic solar power (a diversion from biology) and ways to power the entire U.S. grid that way. It was technologically feasible even back then over 40 years ago, but wasn’t cost effective. It’s become much less expensive over that time, but investors have also gotten much more short-sighted and demanding of immediate returns.

In any conflict between wishful thinking (or denial) and reality, reality always wins. Every time. Having an electric grid based on renewable energy sources would be wonderful to have, and would be in the best interests of the planet and its inhabitants. But it won’t happen unless the money comes from somewhere, and it doesn’t seem to be a priority for the U.S. right now. European countries are a very different situation, different values, different cultures, which sadly does not extrapolate much here.

I agree the US will fall behind in renewables like it has in many things. Eventually, it’ll catch up with us. Sentiment will change. In the meantime, California is moving forward.

It’s not going to happen in my lifetime. You’re probably a fair bit younger than I am. It may happen in yours, and I sincerely hope it does.

But you’ll still have to find someone to pay for it.

I already do pay for it.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

I get your point but the lead motivator for why these companies are moving isn’t to get around pollution. A bulk of these corporations aren’t even industrial. It’s because of the taxes and regulations.

https://www.hoover.org/research/cali...tate-thousands

Their CFO has been accounting for the credits, and knows that they will be diminishing over time. On top of that Tesla is known for operating on tight profit margins (less than 5%) and has opening said he doesn’t care ab the profit margins.

It’s not a list so much as naming the big players leaving but here’s a few.

https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/n...year-with.html

That’s your prerogative but I would argue there are plenty of benefits: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.co.../deregulation/

It’s a matter of the pros outweighing the cons. I believe there is a middle ground, a balance between the two poles and a balance is healthy. I’m not saying the dept of commerce, trade, defense and FDA should get lost. I’m saying over regulating causes companies running tight profit margins to take their business where they can function on less operating expenses. I believe they should have every right to do so.

Companies will leave certain states and the country for a cheaper workforce or a cheaper place to operate. This isn’t new. We can’t deregulate out of that situation. It about profit—not tight profit margins. It is about logistics. It isn’t always about California’s taxes. I’m sure many times that is the case, but less than what people who like to rag on California claim. Why did Toyota leave?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lat...ml%3f_amp=true

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lat...ml%3f_amp=true

You say we should deregulate more when we live in a time of some of the largest corporate monopolies and oligarchies in history. We live in a time with massive wealth inequality. We live in a time where corporations are free to dodge taxes, free to use substandard conditions in third world countries to make more profit, are given massive corporate welfare, bailouts and handouts, and your idea is more deregulation. The corporations and their lobbyists have passed out a lot of Kool-Aid.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Companies will leave certain states and the country for a cheaper workforce or a cheaper place to operate. This isn’t new. We can’t deregulate out of that situation. It about profit—not tight profit margins. It is about logistics. It isn’t always about California’s taxes. I’m sure many times that is the case, but less than what people who like to rag on California claim. Why did Toyota leave?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lat...ml%3f_amp=true

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lat...ml%3f_amp=true

The Forbes article I read gave more reasons and didn’t provide a state to state comparison at the top of the article either. The LAT article comes off as a revenge hit piece. If Toyota wanted to be closer to operations they should have gone to TN, which is directly between they factories in KY, MI, MS, AL, and IN. So the rationale to move operations to TX being geographically motivated is half assed. Why TX?

Cheaper workforce happens when your cost of living decreases - see locality pay.

I give two poops ab TX or CA - I’ve lived in both and they both have their pros and cons. I’m objective enough to see these issues from the outside.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You say we should deregulate more when we live in a time of some of the largest corporate monopolies and oligarchies in history. We live in a time with massive wealth inequality. We live in a time where corporations are free to dodge taxes, free to use substandard conditions in third world countries to make more profit, are given massive corporate welfare, bailouts and handouts, and your idea is more deregulation. The corporations and their lobbyists have passed out a lot of Kool-Aid.

That’s a rather subjective statement. True monopolies don’t exist. Near monopolies are all over but it depends on the percentage of production within the market you are considering a “monopoly”. For example if you are considering 50% of production being dominated by one company a monopoly, I would tell you you’re wrong and point you to the FTCs jumbling of antitrust laws and how a monopoly implies exclusive (100%) control of a commodity or service.

Wealth inequality happens for a variety of reasons with endless variables and that conversation will take us down a rabbit hole that won’t end. So let’s just avoid that and focus on the point of our discussion.

Offshoring is bullshit and I detest it. Administrations have tried to stop it but have yet to be successful. I said I support a healthy balance of regulation and deregulation. My underlying point is that when the corporations within your state start relocating because of over regulation, it means something is wrong with the business climate and you should observe this as competition for the market. Just as if your insurance rates are increased, do you not shop around for a new provider?

This isn’t something new, it’s been happening for almost a decade. I’m not saying I have the key to balance, I’m just saying CA has all the right elements to success but they are willfully throwing the people who create opportunities under the bus and I’m not surprised they are leaving.

[AnalogMan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I already do pay for it.

In some areas the municipalities give the option for customers to pay more for 'green' electricity. If that's what you're doing, it's laudable.

Now the only problem left is to find the other $4.999999 trillion needed to finish the job.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by AnalogMan

In some areas the municipalities give the option for customers to pay more for 'green' electricity. If that's what you're doing, it's laudable.

Now the only problem left is to find the other $4.999999 trillion needed to finish the job.

Yes, that is one of the things I am doing.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

The Forbes article I read gave more reasons and didn’t provide a state to state comparison at the top of the article either. The LAT article comes off as a revenge hit piece. If Toyota wanted to be closer to operations they should have gone to TN, which is directly between they factories in KY, MI, MS, AL, and IN. So the rationale to move operations to TX being geographically motivated is half assed. Why TX?

Cheaper workforce happens when your cost of living decreases - see locality pay.

I give two poops ab TX or CA - I’ve lived in both and they both have their pros and cons. I’m objective enough to see these issues from the outside.

That’s a rather subjective statement. True monopolies don’t exist. Near monopolies are all over but it depends on the percentage of production within the market you are considering a “monopoly”. For example if you are considering 50% of production being dominated by one company a monopoly, I would tell you you’re wrong and point you to the FTCs jumbling of antitrust laws and how a monopoly implies exclusive (100%) control of a commodity or service.

Wealth inequality happens for a variety of reasons with endless variables and that conversation will take us down a rabbit hole that won’t end. So let’s just avoid that and focus on the point of our discussion.

Offshoring is bullshit and I detest it. Administrations have tried to stop it but have yet to be successful. I said I support a healthy balance of regulation and deregulation. My underlying point is that when the corporations within your state start relocating because of over regulation, it means something is wrong with the business climate and you should observe this as competition for the market. Just as if your insurance rates are increased, do you not shop around for a new provider?

This isn’t something new, it’s been happening for almost a decade. I’m not saying I have the key to balance, I’m just saying CA has all the right elements to success but they are willfully throwing the people who create opportunities under the bus and I’m not surprised they are leaving.

I don’t recall the Forbes article.

Again, they can say it is because of over-regulation, but is that the case? They can say it is California doing this or that to businesses, but they aren’t saying what other states are offering or what these corporations have been planning. There are a lot of assumptions pointed at California. Maybe supply and demand reaches a tipping point and starts to tip the other way to make a market correction. Maybe some businesses leave. I’m just saying there may be more to things than just “there are idiots running California” like many people say.

I get your point that it is possibly subjective. Maybe this isn’t the worst time for monopolies and oligopolies in history. Maybe it is. It is pretty bad. Bad enough that more regulations are what we need at this time. We need to break up these multinational conglomerates among other things.

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I don’t recall the Forbes article.

Again, they can say it is because of over-regulation, but is that the case? They can say it is California doing this or that to businesses, but they aren’t saying what other states are offering or what these corporations have been planning. There are a lot of assumptions pointed at California. Maybe supply and demand reaches a tipping point and starts to tip the other way to make a market correction. Maybe some businesses leave. I’m just saying there may be more to things than just “there are idiots running California” like many people say.

I get your point that it is possibly subjective. Maybe this isn’t the worst time for monopolies and oligopolies in history. Maybe it is. It is pretty bad. Bad enough that more regulations are what we need at this time. We need to break up these multinational conglomerates among other things.

It’s not one thing it’s a culmination of all of it. It’s pretty well covered here: https://www.hoover.org/research/cali...tate-thousands

Cliff notes: Corporation fees, corporate tax rate, real estate cost, in some municipalities in CA there are payroll taxes, and financial services tax.

It is dependent on what state you go to and that article above tells you Texas’s alternatives.

Well that is definitely an opinion regarding needing more regulations on monopolies. I’m not sure what you are claiming is bad so I can’t agree with you.

Multinational conglomerates? Have you ever worked for one? I have. They offer their employees some of the best benefits. No complaints from me.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

It’s not one thing it’s a culmination of all of it. It’s pretty well covered here: https://www.hoover.org/research/cali...tate-thousands

Cliff notes: Corporation fees, corporate tax rate, real estate cost, in some municipalities in CA there are payroll taxes, and financial services tax.

It is dependent on what state you go to and that article above tells you Texas’s alternatives.

Well that is definitely an opinion regarding needing more regulations on monopolies. I’m not sure what you are claiming is bad so I can’t agree with you.

Multinational conglomerates? Have you ever worked for one? I have. They offer their employees some of the best benefits. No complaints from me.

There is plenty of information out there on antitrust opinions and controversies surrounding large conglomerates and oligopolies abusing their power and using their position and wealth to eliminate competition. I think anyone looking at the examples below can see a problem.

https://boycewire.com/oligopoly-definition/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/hbr.org...trust-movement

[Tomm]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

There is plenty of information out there on antitrust opinions and controversies surrounding large conglomerates and oligopolies abusing their power and using their position and wealth to eliminate competition. I think anyone looking at the examples below can see a problem.

Just to hone in on the problem, what exactly are you claiming is bad? Abusing power? How? Moving this conversation forward would be easier if we don't make assumptions or leave things up for interpretation.

Using their position and wealth to eliminate competition? Give me an example. Just to help nudge this conversation along, I believe it's important to recognize that "mergers and acquisitions" are not an abuse of power, they are agreements between two companies and happen for MANY reasons. Also your perception of M&As are subjective.

Let's look at one of the more recent mergers (that impacts a lot of people)- Amazon buying Whole Foods for $13.7B.

https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/16/inv...ods/index.html

The company was accused of overcharging customers by regulators in New York City in 2015 and that had a huge negative impact on Whole Foods. Sales plunged for several quarters.

And the company became the butt of jokes by late-night comedians. HBO's John Oliver did a savage skit about the company's high prices. (HBO, like CNNMoney, is owned by Time Warner.)

Oliver ran a mock commercial showing, among other things, a block of ice with an avocado balanced on top for $25.99, a pomegranate that listened to NPR for $64.99, and tilapia wearing yoga pants for $84.99.

Mackey eventually wound up apologizing to customers. But the damage was done.

Sales growth at Whole Foods has slowed and profits have yet to return to levels before the price scandal. That may be one reason why Whole Foods was willing to sell to Amazon.

It will be interesting to see if Amazon -- which has a reputation for keeping prices low -- will turn Whole Foods into more of a bargain retailer as well.

This is hardly abusing their power to eliminate competition. Was Amazon in the 'position' to make this merger happen? Sure, because not a lot of companies have $13.7B on deck and are willing to drop it on a declining company. On top of that, the FTC has to approve M&As of this magnitude.

https://sites.law.duq.edu/juris/2018...-foods-merger/

When trying to take down a potential monopoly, regulators look for market share. Whole Foods only held a 3.5 percent market share in the grocery market.[10] Additionally, companies who vertically integrate are looked upon more favorably than horizontal integrations.[11] With the economies of scale Amazon is developing, it can lower prices, creating “a net positive for consumers.”[12] Regulators are unlikely to call a company a monopoly if it lowers prices for consumers. A possible hang-up is curbing innovation, as new barriers to entry are created. Often, regulators review the impact of the merger a year or two later.

My point is, again, that over generalizing corporate greed is silly. It makes you look like the 'COVID Hoaxers' of economics.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tomm

Just to hone in on the problem, what exactly are you claiming is bad? Abusing power? How? Moving this conversation forward would be easier if we don't make assumptions or leave things up for interpretation.

Using their position and wealth to eliminate competition? Give me an example. Just to help nudge this conversation along, I believe it's important to recognize that "mergers and acquisitions" are not an abuse of power, they are agreements between two companies and happen for MANY reasons. Also your perception of M&As are subjective.

Let's look at one of the more recent mergers (that impacts a lot of people)- Amazon buying Whole Foods for $13.7B.

https://money.cnn.com/2017/06/16/inv...ods/index.html


This is hardly abusing their power to eliminate competition. Was Amazon in the 'position' to make this merger happen? Sure, because not a lot of companies have $13.7B on deck and are willing to drop it on a declining company. On top of that, the FTC has to approve M&As of this magnitude.

https://sites.law.duq.edu/juris/2018...-foods-merger/


My point is, again, that over generalizing corporate greed is silly. It makes you look like the 'COVID Hoaxers' of economics.

My wife is an assistant store manager at Whole Foods. I know all about it—the good and the bad.

There are so many specific and general examples and so many things to discuss that I wouldn’t know where to start.

Some of the methods Starbucks has used to expand and maintain their dominant market position, including buying out competitors' leases, intentionally operating at a loss, and clustering several locations in a small geographical area (i.e., saturating the market), have been labeled anti-competitive by critics.[16] For example, Starbucks fueled its initial expansion into the UK market with a buyout of Seattle Coffee Company but then used its capital and influence to obtain prime locations, some of which operated at a financial loss. Critics claimed this was an unfair attempt to drive out small, independent competitors, who could not afford to pay inflated prices for premium real estate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Starbucks

Limited market options, limited ability for work mobility, price fixing, lobbying power, competition buyouts, location saturation, unfair competition, price gouging, lack of variety of products, scale of industry impacts, etc. I could go on and on. Look up any major company and type in antitrust or controversies, and you will find a lot. Monsanto, Amazon, Verizon, Apple, Tyson, any of them.

I’m actually surprised Tmobile and Sprint were allowed to merge when Tmobile was denied previously. I’ll have to look up how that happened. Crazy we only have three major carriers and a bunch of tertiary companies piggybacking off the networks of the big guys.