| | Our Asst. Attorney General for Antitrust Division of the Justice Department should avoid dangling her participles. When she writes, "More than two years have passed since I gave my first public remarks as the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) for Antitrust here at the Center for American Progress."
I'm sure she didn't mean to say that she was the AAG of Antitrust for the Center of American Progress. But given how tight the Center for American Progress is with the far left, and its connection to Hillary, the Obama administration, to George Soros, and the left-leaning tendencies of this Justice department... maybe she was stating it correctly.
---------------
If she is something of a far-left leaning ideologues what would we expect? Maybe moves towards globalism, and attacks on the most productive enterprises, expanding the scope of existing regulations and the intensity of enforcement, seeking 'legislation' from the courts to expand control, using bullying tactics to increase control, misdefining what is meant by "competion", picking winners and losers, using antitrust to further the view of class warfare? Are we seeing any of that? Well,see below.
---------------
"...we inform parties that they will face a legal challenge in court unless they restructure or abandon a transaction..."
"...the [Antitrust] Division has demonstrated through our vigorous enforcement efforts—and sought through reasoned court filings— that the antitrust laws remain fully vibrant. As AAG, I have sought to ensure that vibrancy through steadfast and pragmatic enforcement of the antitrust laws."
"Our criminal program is focused on prosecuting cartel activity, a particularly pernicious problem in ever-increasing global markets."
----------------
"Recent enforcement actions include a number of complex combinations implicating vertical theories—that is, transactions in which the businesses seeking to merge were situated above and below each other in the supply chain."
The AAG's AntiTrust division thinks they can look into the future guess what the intensity of competition would be in the market if a corporation purchases or merges with a business that supplies it.
If you read the way this woman uses the phrase "preserve competition" you will come to realize that she is really preserving a status quo by protecting against change - even though the proposed change would in itself be a broader form of competition than their guesses about what exist if they didn't stop the merger.
----------------
"We continue to investigate potential abuses of market power and take action when the evidence warrants."
Market power? What is that but the freedom to to make voluntary arrangements in which the parties see a benefit? Is it the power to make the world richer? Is it the power to improve on people's well-being? And notice that the attacks are on "potential" abuses. More of this looking into the future, redefining what competition means, and expand on laws that are already not objective enough to ever apply in a fair way.
------------------
"The Division continues to be the global leader in the pursuit and prosecution of criminal price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocation cartels that raise prices to both businesses and individual consumers, restrict supply, reduce innovation, and inflict damage on our global economy. In Fiscal Year 2010, the Division filed 60 criminal cases and imposed more than $550 million in criminal fines for illegal conduct. In these cases, 21 corporations and 63 individuals were charged. In addition, 29 individuals received jail sentences that totaled more than 26,000 jail days, an overall increase in jail sentences for individuals—76% of sentenced defendants received jail sentences in 2010 as compared to only 37% in the 1990s."
The old approach to Antitrust was national - we observed the quaint custom of restricting our jurisdiction to the our own borders. Guess that has changed. It used to be that we would file cases where prices were 'fixed' (i.e., kept the same), or lowered (so as to inhibit competition), or raised prices (as evidence of cartel existence or abuse of economic power). But I guess there are now new things that are criminal - restricting supply, reducing innovation or "inflict damage on our global economy." And we throw business men in prison if they keep prices the same, raise them, or lower them, of reduce production, or whatever it means to "reduce innovation" or damage the global economy.
----------------
"...actively participating in White House interagency taskforces in areas such as Internet Policy Principles..."
Great! Just the area that cries out AntiTrust oversight - this area where there is clearly no competition (in case anyone is confused, that was sarcasm).
-----------------
She says they are very active in the health care arena - somebody needs to talk to Obama because the only move I see towards monoply behavior is ObamaCare.
------------------
"We have sought to help farmers, small business owners, factory workers and others identify where in the government they can seek appropriate redress, if not at the Antitrust Division."
Can you spell "class warfare."
------------------
[I'm tired of reading this, going as far as page 10 is as much as I can stomach for now, but I'm sure that there is more far-left nonsense in the remaining 11 pages - for those with more patience than I have.]
|
|
