Skip to main content

View Diary: Robert Bork's influence over antitrust law (97 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  For emphasis, (6+ / 0-)

    it isn't to benefit consumers.

    •  For accuracy (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      K S LaVida, Pete Rock, Van Buren

      It can be a benefit to consumers, but a detriment to citizens and workers.

      The 'trick' in this observation is that we are all citizens, consumers, and workers-- simultaneously.

      It may be that a given mega-corp merger produces apparent efficiency in the form of lower prices to consumers. Hurrah for that. But if it results in concentration of power sufficient to distort the operation of government, it is harmful to citizens. If it also results in substantial layoffs and downward pressure on wages, it is harmful to workers.

      So, good for consumers (maybe), but bad for citizens and workers. Sometimes, two out of three is bad.

      The capper: in a case like the merger of two companies heavily invested in the status quo model of the energy industry, one has to consider the effect on our collective ability to address energy independence, sustainable energy sources, and the global climate crisis. That would adversely affect everyone on Earth as humans, in addition to our fractional identities as consumers, citizens, and workers.

      Not good.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site