Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionseconomy8yrs ago

Should the government prevent “mega mergers” of corporations that could potentially control a large percentage of market share within its industry?

In 2015, global mergers and acquisitions reached $4.9 trillion which made it the biggest year for corporate consolidation in the history of the world. Critics argue that huge corporate mergers create monopolies which prevent competition. Proponents of mergers argue that governments should not interfere with corporations and the free market should be allowed to run its own course.

Reply

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

No, abolish patents first

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, yet the government should allow the free market to remain free but always stop monopolies. In regards to this, if the merger controls a monopolistic percentage (50% or more) of the market then they should have regulation on it. The government should also encourage smaller businesses to open so there’s more competition in the market.

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes; however, the government should allow the free market to remain free but always stop monopolies. In regards to this, if the merger controls a monopolistic percentage of the market then they should have regulation on it. These mergers would create a monopoly of a market and stifle competition.

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, however, the government should allow the free market to remain free but always stop monopolies. In regards to this, if the merger controls a monopolistic percentage of the market then they should have regulation on it. Preventing mega mergers will result in more competition, more options, and more reliable service.

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, yet the government should allow the free market to remain free but always stop monopolies. In regards to this, if the merger controls a monopolistic percentage of the market then they should have regulation on it. The government should also encourage smaller businesses to open so there’s more competition in the market.

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, however, the government should allow the free market to remain free but always stop monopolies. In regards to this, if the merger controls a monopolistic percentage of the market share then they should have regulation on it. Preventing mega mergers will result in more competition, more options, and more reliable service.

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes; the government should allow the free market to remain free but always stop monopolies. In regards to this, if the merger controls a monopolistic percentage of the market then they should have regulation on it.

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, however the government should allow the free market to remain free but always stop monopolies. In regards to this, if the merger controls a monopolistic percentage of the market then they should have regulation on it. These mergers would create a monopoly of a market and stifle competition.

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, however, the government should allow the free market to remain free but always stop monopolies. In regards to this, if the merger controls a monopolistic percentage of the market share then they should have regulation on it. Preventing mega mergers will result in more competition, more options, and more reliable service.

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, these mergers would create a monopoly of a market and stifle competition. However, the government should allow the free market to remain free but always stop monopolies. In regards to this, if the merger controls a monopolistic percentage of the market then they should have regulation on it. Preventing mega mergers will result in more competition, more options, and more reliable service.

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes; however, the government should allow the free market to remain free but always stop monopolies because mergers would create a monopoly of a market and stifle competition. In regards to this, if the merger controls a monopolistic percentage of the market then they should have regulation on it. Preventing mega mergers will result in more competition, more options, and more reliable service.

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but the government should allow the free market to remain free, while measures should be put in place to prevent corporate mergers from creating monopolies, if they control more than 50% of the market share. Preventing mega mergers will result in more competition, more options, and more reliable service.

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, however, the government should allow the free market to remain free but always stop monopolies since mergers would create a monopoly of a market and stifle competition. In regards to this, if the merger controls a monopolistic percentage of the market then they should have regulation on it. Preventing mega mergers will result in more competition, more options, and more reliable service.

 Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but the government should allow the free market to remain free, while measures should be put in place to prevent corporate mergers from creating monopolies, if they control a monopolistic percentage of the market share. Preventing mega mergers will result in more competition, more options, and more reliable service.

 @8JHKCHJ from Ohio  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, these will create monopolies with will make our economy unstable and unable for other companies to emerge.

 @8KX67Q9 from California  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, the current anti-trust laws in place are not enough to prevent monopolization and mega corporations are harmful to the diversity of our economy.

 @8DX8BWM from Wisconsin  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, if the merged corporation would have more than 69% of the market share

 @8L28NK4 from Utah  answered…4yrs4Y

Regardless, more measures should be taken to create competition and lower prices.

  @8TKFNNS from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes so that way Mega corrupted Corporation can held Accountable in Court of Law one day.

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…5mos5MO

FBI Director Chris Wray Will Resign

The F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, told bureau employees on Wednesday that he intended to resign before the Trump administration begins, bowing to the reality that President-elect Donald J. Trump had publicly declared his desire to replace him.Mr. Wray made the disclosure while addressing employees Wednesday afternoon in remarks that tacitly acknowledged the politically charged position the F.B.I. now faces with an incoming president who openly scorns the agency.“I’ve decided the right thing for the bureau is for me to serve until the end of the current administration in January and then step down,” Mr. Wray said, adding, “This is the best way to avoid dragging the bureau deeper into the fray, while reinforcing the values and principles that are so important to how we do our work.”The director spoke wistfully about his time at the F.B.I. “This is not easy for me,” he said. “I love this place, I love our mission and I love our people.”The announcement comes after Mr. Trump said in late November that he intended to nominate Kash Patel, a longtime loyalist, to run the F.B.I., and more than two years before Mr. Wray’s 10-year term would have expired.Paul Abbate, the deputy F.B.I. director, is set to retire in April but would typically serve as acting director until Mr. Patel is confirmed. It is not clear who would replace Mr. Abbate, the most senior agent in the bureau.Over more than seven years, Mr. Wray oversaw one of the most consequential and tumultuous periods in the bureau’s history, juggling high-profile criminal investigations of political figures, heated congressional inquiries and two attempted assassinations of Mr. Trump.

▲  177 replies

Active 1wk ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…5mos5MO

Kamala Harris is considering running for president again in 2028

Kamala Harris has been lying low since her defeat in the presidential race, unwinding with family and senior aides in Hawaii before heading back to the nation’s capital.But privately, the vice president has been instructing advisers and allies to keep her options open — whether for a possible 2028 presidential run, or even to run for governor in her home state of California in two years. As Harris has repeated in phone calls, “I am staying in the fight.”She is expected to explore those and other possible paths forward with family members over the winter holiday season, according to five people in the Harris inner circle, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. Her deliberations follow an extraordinary four months in which Harris went from President Joe Biden’s running mate to the top of the ticket, reenergizing Democrats before ultimately crashing on election night.“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”Harris concedes: 'We must accept the results of this election'SharePlay VideoMost immediately, Harris and her advisers are working to define how and when she will speak out against Donald Trump and reassert her own role in the Democratic Party. Closing out her term as vice president, she’s set to preside over certifying the November election she lost to Trump, and then appear at the once-and-future president’s inauguration on Jan. 20.“There will be a desire to hear her voice, and there won’t be a vacuum for long,” a person close to Harris said.At the same time, Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, will have a long checklist to plow through before they leave the Naval Observatory for good.They have to decide whether they’ll take up permanent residence at their home in Los Angeles, or establish a base elsewhere. No matter where Harris and her family live, some around her have expressed concerns about safety, as her Secret Service protection expires six months after stepping away.

▲  1127 replies