Should government go further in regulating merger and acquisition activities that have the potential to eliminate jobs or are these events the proper function of somewhat free markets allocating capital to its highest and best use?
1 posted on
07/10/2017 2:53:54 AM PDT by
buckalfa
To: buckalfa
Antitrust laws are arguably a legitimate governmental action. What percentage of the Rx drug market would Walgreens/Rite-Aid, CVS, and Wal-Mart have?
2 posted on
07/10/2017 3:01:00 AM PDT by
FreedomPoster
(Islam delenda est)
To: buckalfa
Stopping a monopoly situation is a good thing .
3 posted on
07/10/2017 3:10:17 AM PDT by
ncalburt
(ll)
To: buckalfa
Should government go further in regulating merger and acquisition activities that have the potential to eliminate jobs NO !
4 posted on
07/10/2017 3:44:26 AM PDT by
onona
(Stop stonewalling Judicial Watch and release the documents)
To: buckalfa
Should government go further in regulating merger and acquisition activities that have the potential to eliminate jobs
NO !
6 posted on
07/10/2017 3:53:06 AM PDT by
GizzyGirl
To: buckalfa
Should government interfere when a business decides to become more efficient? I thought we elected Trump to try to keep government from overstepping -— looks like we have gotten so used to it that we want to cherry pick where it oversteps to keep our s=personal sensibilities happy.
7 posted on
07/10/2017 4:09:05 AM PDT by
trebb
(Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
To: buckalfa; upchuck
8 posted on
07/10/2017 4:40:27 AM PDT by
Gamecock
("We always choose according to our greatest inclination at the moment." R.C. Sproul)
To: buckalfa
False question. Jobs aren’t the test, market share is.
Large cartels are certainly easier for a Fascist state to manage than a lot of small competitors. Small companies are more of a populist idea.
It all comes down to whether one is Wall Street or Main Street.
9 posted on
07/10/2017 5:16:40 AM PDT by
PAR35
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson