Obama DOJ Supposed to Get Tough on Anti-Trust ... Talk is Cheap, Time To Prove It
Given all the myopic, deliberately ignorant moves the Obama administration has been making (applauding and supporting the health care industry's Pinocchio plan which does not decrease the cost of health care on the rate of increase; continuing the criminal Bush regime bailout of rewarding the economic catastrophe perpetrators with taxpayers' monies; trying to save, not change, a corrupt, criminal financial system; a DOJ that protects the Bush torture regime and continues its policies; etc.) the recent reports that Obama plans to implement a stronger anti-trust line should be met with skepticism.
Can we trust the Obama administration?
From the NY Times: "President Obama’s top antitrust official announced on Monday that the administration would restore an aggressive enforcement policy against corporations that use their market dominance to elbow out competitors or to keep them from gaining market share.
"The new enforcement policy reverses the Bush administration’s approach, which strongly favored defendants against antitrust claims. It returns to a policy that led to the landmark antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft and Intel in the 1990s.
"The head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, Christine A. Varney, announced the policy reversal in a speech on Monday before the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy research organization. She will deliver the same speech on Tuesday to the United States Chamber of Commerce.
"As a result of the Bush administration’s interpretation of antitrust laws, the enforcement pipeline for major monopoly cases — which can take years for prosecutors to develop — is thin. During the Bush administration, the Justice Department did not file a single case against a dominant firm for violating the antimonopoly law.
"Ms. Varney’s new policy more closely aligns American antitrust policy on monopolies and predatory practices with the views of antitrust regulators at the European Commission.
"While Ms. Varney did not mention any specific companies or industries vulnerable under the new policy, those who have talked to her about the speech say she is aiming at agriculture, energy, health care, technology and telecommunications companies. She may also be reviewing the conduct of some in the financial services industry, which is now undergoing a wave of consolidation as a result of the financial crisis."
(Note the word "may" not "will" regarding the financial services industry that created and fueled the economic catastrophe.)
"It is not unlawful for a company to gain control of a market. It becomes unlawful if the company engages in conduct to exclude or harm competitors with no business justification."
The Goldman-Sachs fraudster, Henry Paulson, Bush's final Treasury Secretary, along with Fed chair, Ben Bernancke, who should be fired for mis-management, both directed the Bank of America to stay silent on its plan to buy Merrill Lynch, a deal that triggered the bailout of BoA.
Wells Fargo bought Wachovia all of which sounds like the tip of an iceberg of big bank monopoly.
So, now we're supposed to believe that despite Obama's economic team's destructive actions propping up the corrupt financial system, a team whose members are an intrinsic part of the culture of Wall Street that caused this debacle, and his Department of Justice that apparently thinks it's important to claim Bushite "state secrets" and the recent, appalling "sovereign immunity" to continue to cover-up Bushite torture and warrantless wiretappying, that this administration's anti-trust enforcement will get tough.
Talk is cheap; let's see the action.
As Dave Lindorff once wrote: "Zombie banks, zombie automakers, zombie insurance companies, all bigger than nation states, and all on life-support.
Can we trust the Obama administration?
From the NY Times: "President Obama’s top antitrust official announced on Monday that the administration would restore an aggressive enforcement policy against corporations that use their market dominance to elbow out competitors or to keep them from gaining market share.
"The new enforcement policy reverses the Bush administration’s approach, which strongly favored defendants against antitrust claims. It returns to a policy that led to the landmark antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft and Intel in the 1990s.
"The head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, Christine A. Varney, announced the policy reversal in a speech on Monday before the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy research organization. She will deliver the same speech on Tuesday to the United States Chamber of Commerce.
"As a result of the Bush administration’s interpretation of antitrust laws, the enforcement pipeline for major monopoly cases — which can take years for prosecutors to develop — is thin. During the Bush administration, the Justice Department did not file a single case against a dominant firm for violating the antimonopoly law.
"Ms. Varney’s new policy more closely aligns American antitrust policy on monopolies and predatory practices with the views of antitrust regulators at the European Commission.
"While Ms. Varney did not mention any specific companies or industries vulnerable under the new policy, those who have talked to her about the speech say she is aiming at agriculture, energy, health care, technology and telecommunications companies. She may also be reviewing the conduct of some in the financial services industry, which is now undergoing a wave of consolidation as a result of the financial crisis."
(Note the word "may" not "will" regarding the financial services industry that created and fueled the economic catastrophe.)
"It is not unlawful for a company to gain control of a market. It becomes unlawful if the company engages in conduct to exclude or harm competitors with no business justification."
The Goldman-Sachs fraudster, Henry Paulson, Bush's final Treasury Secretary, along with Fed chair, Ben Bernancke, who should be fired for mis-management, both directed the Bank of America to stay silent on its plan to buy Merrill Lynch, a deal that triggered the bailout of BoA.
Wells Fargo bought Wachovia all of which sounds like the tip of an iceberg of big bank monopoly.
So, now we're supposed to believe that despite Obama's economic team's destructive actions propping up the corrupt financial system, a team whose members are an intrinsic part of the culture of Wall Street that caused this debacle, and his Department of Justice that apparently thinks it's important to claim Bushite "state secrets" and the recent, appalling "sovereign immunity" to continue to cover-up Bushite torture and warrantless wiretappying, that this administration's anti-trust enforcement will get tough.
Talk is cheap; let's see the action.
As Dave Lindorff once wrote: "Zombie banks, zombie automakers, zombie insurance companies, all bigger than nation states, and all on life-support.
"There is a simple answer to this problem. Bust them up.
"There is simply no need for national banks. Such institutions are a disaster for smaller companies and individuals, since they are only really interested in lending to big national or multinational companies. I remember years ago, back in the early 1980s, when bank consolidation was just getting underway, how Citibank began adding fees to its checking services simply because it wanted to drive away small customers. It was an indication of what was coming. Screw the little guy.
"It doesn’t matter to large companies if there are no national banks. When they want a big loan, they simply arrange for a syndicate of smaller regional banks to put a package together. That is the way things used to be done, and it can be done again.
Comments