Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Anti-Trust Law
Analyze and criticize the statement: The strategy of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and other U.S. antimonopoly legislation is to ensure that each company has meaningful competitors in every product market in which it participates. This strategy works to prevent monopoly pricing of products but unfortunately it is inadequate to prevent the development of quasi-political control of entire societies by oligopolies whose member corporations share a quasi-political agenda. Therefore, as the world becomes a single market, some new strategy must be developed to control the reach of the corporate oligopolies.
The statement is illustrating how the Sherman Anti-Trust Act needs to be updated. This is because globalization has created situations, where multinational corporations can own a variety of assets around the world. The problem is that many foreign-based firms could avoid the different provisions of this law based upon: the properties, resources and assets that they control. This means that they can have a major impact in what happens to the U.S. economy and markets.
A good example of this can be seen with the Citigroup merger. For years, many proponents claimed that the Glass Steagall Act was preventing banks from competing internationally. This is a Depression era law that required strict segregation between: banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies. The basic idea was to limit their exposure to the economy from: excessive risking taking during times of economic prosperity. (Hardaway, 2011, pp. 85 -- 114)
However, once this...
This allowed them to market subprime mortgages as safe investments around the globe. Yet, in reality these were very risky and one of the main causes of the financial crisis. Once this happened, is when a firm became too big to fail. (Hardaway, 2011, pp. 85 -- 114) This is illustrating how the Sherman Anti-Trust Act needs to be updated, to reflect the large international oligopolies that have been created. If this were to occur, it will limit the total amount of assets that a particular firm can own (overseas and domestically). This will reduce the exposure of a company's activities on: the economy and consumers.
What about personal wealth? Does the high degree of effective control of the world economy by the "corporate tribe," along with the extreme concentration of personal wealth in the United States in the hands of the same individuals, who control the largest corporations, mean that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton Act have been failures?
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act and the Clayton Act are not failures. This is because they were designed to monitor the kinds of activities corporations were involved in. As time has gone by, these laws were regularly updated to reflect the changes in: technology, business and address any kind of loop holes. However, when there have not been any kind of new regulations imposed, both laws will become ineffective. (Gerber, 2010, pp. 31 -- 44)
A good example of this…
References
Gerber, D. (2010). Global Competition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hardaway, R. (2011). The Great American Housing Bubble. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Weir, R. (2007). Class in America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
The deal was immediately criticized as anti-competitive by William Kennard, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and by the Communications Workers of America, which represents some workers at both of the merged companies. But neither government regulators nor union bureaucrats will have the slightest impact on the latest merger. They have neither the power nor the desire to oppose the plans of the giant telecommunications monopolies. More substantial opposition
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in reducing fraudulent financial reporting Introduction to Fraudulent Financial Reporting Available research on financial statement fraud relies mostly on anecdotal evidence (for example, Wells, 2001, 2002, 2004a, and 2004b; Rezaee, 2003). This evidence offers advice on how mechanisms related to the fraud triangle can be curtailed. It leads to theoretical sense to reduce factors which lead to more instances of fraud. However, deterrence and established deterrence methods
Subprime loans are said to be among the biggest reasons for the most recent financial crisis which hit the world economy at the end of year 2008. Had the lenders considered the level of income and repaying abilities of the borrowers before lending them money, the World's financial sector would not have seen such critical circumstances. The consequences of subprime loans have not ended yet; economists and researchers in the
Negotiation Skills A High Impact Negotiations Model: An Answer to the Limitations of the Fisher, Ury Model of Principled Negotiations This study aims to discover the ways in which blocked negotiations can be overcome by testing the Fisher, Ury model of principled negotiation against one of the researcher's own devising, crafted after studying thousands of negotiation trainees from over 100 multinational corporations on 5 continents. It attempts to discern universal applications of
interventionism from the perspective of realism vs. idealism. Realism is defined in relationship to states' national interests whereas idealism is defined in relation to the UN's Responsibility to Protect doctrine -- a doctrine heavily influenced by Western rhetoric over the past decade. By addressing the question of interventionism from this standpoint, by way of a case study of Libya and Syria, a picture of the realistic implications of "humanitarian
The judge must choose a sentence from within the guideline range unless the court identifies an aggravating or mitigating circumstance that was not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission. In mandatory minimum drug cases, judges can depart only upon motion from the government stating that a defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person. All guideline drug sentences are indirectly affected by the mandatory minimums.