So, these guys are taxed to death, right?
So can we count you in Willy?
Less mobile phone carriers will mean less customers for mobile cellphone device manufacturers. How come it has to be the Department of Justice objecting to the merger rather than the Federal Communication Commission. The weasel acquiesence of the regulator is another indication how the Obama adminstration is letting down the American people.
-- Modified on 8/31/2011 7:14:19 PM
The DOJ is against the merger. The Communications Workers Union is for the merger. You'd think both groups would be on the same page. T-Mobile is non-union. AT&T is union. Maybe CWA is reading the writing on the wall when landlines cease to exist, and they lose a significant part of their membership.
On a different topic, what do you think of the appointment of Alan Krueger as head of Council of Economic Advisors. This is the same guy that came up with "Cash for Clunkers". I mean how pathetic is that? How many times do they have to hire a tired old east coast Ivy League trained 1960s type academic left wing elitist, who has only hired a fucking gardener and maid? And Obama is going to have his BIG JOBS speech on Thursday Sept 8th. Let's see, who will America watch, Obama or the Packers vs the Saints. That dumb ass can't compete with the NFL. Maybe he will get the NPR crowd.
-- Modified on 8/31/2011 7:56:48 PM
I heard they would have another egg-head Princeton Ivy League Professor guiding our economy I became disappointed again. Another guy who never who has never lived in the real world, run real companies, had a real job who will now tell us the real deal on how in theory we should create jobs.
Now as far as the merger of AT&T and T-mobile I don't like it. With only three mobile carriers there will be less customers, the manufacturers can sell their phones to. What we need in this country is to bring manufacturing back to this country.
On the following Thursday night unless the President is going to say the Federal government will be eliminating the Federal minumum wage; I will be watching the Saints vs. Packers.
Any hopes that President Obama might somehow recognize the utter failure of his economic policies and seek new ideas and directions were dashed by his selection Monday of Princeton University economist Alan E. Krueger to succeed Austan D. Goolsbee as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Krueger previously served as an assistant secretary of the Treasury under Timothy Geithner. Obama praised Krueger's work during the first two years of his administration, and said Krueger's chief task in the new job will be to help develop policy recommendations to get the stagnating economy growing again.
Don't expect any new ideas from Krueger. He was among the architects of such economic stimulus failures as the "cash for clunkers" program. As The Washington Examiner's Conn Carroll pointed out in Beltway Confidential, the clunkers initiative destroyed half a million functioning automobiles as a means of providing automakers a short-term boost in sales. Like all addictions, however, the clunkers fix soon wore off, leaving automakers with the same problem they had before: a recessionary economy and policies in Washington almost certain to prolong the misery.
Krueger first came to public notice during the Clinton years when he co-authored a study seeking to disprove the common-sense economic truth that minimum-wage increases make it more costly for employers to hire teenagers and other low-skilled workers, which means they hire fewer of them, thus driving up unemployment. Legions of liberal politicians and academics have endlessly quoted the Krueger study to challenge critics of higher minimum wages. So don't be surprised if sometime in the near future Obama endorses minimum-wage increases as an incentive for job creation.
Krueger brings other novel arguments to the table as Obama's new chief economic adviser. On energy policy, he is an advocate of the idea that the market prices of oil and natural gas do not reflect certain "externalities" that capture the social costs of using fossil fuels. In testimony before Congress last year, Krueger said "private market decisions can be inefficient when market prices do not reflect the full social costs. Oil and natural gas prices, for example, do not reflect the environmental harm caused by the release of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere associated with oil and gas production and consumption. In addition, the price of oil does not reflect the risks associated with U.S. oil dependency or the costs of traffic congestion. Tax provisions can address this problem by incorporating the social costs into the price of the resources."
We might take such analyses more seriously if their advocates were also willing to take into account the "externalities" associated with federal spending programs. For example, when assessing the $859 billion price tag of the stimulus program, we should also include the value of everything taxpayers would have bought with that money had they spent it themselves instead of having Washington's professional politicians spend it for them.
That is why I sarcistically replied to St Croix that unless the President is going to annouce the repeal of the minumum wage, I will be busy. Doomed economic policies from a doomed President. Hopefully we can get an Aggie in the oval office. Dr. Krueger the father of clunkeromics. I believe St Croix said that about two years ago.
About time the PAC-10, PAC-12, whatever, kicks the shit out of the SEC. If you want a sure bet. Take ND over South Florida. Parlay it. Give the points and take the over.
I've no idea why AT&T is buying T-Mobile. If this deal doesn't go through, T-Mobile is gone in 2 years. Their business model is flawed, and they are being squeezed by AT&T and Verizon on the high-end and Sprint and Metro on the other end. If Obama cares about jobs, he should put the squeeze on the DOJ to back off. Maybe the CWA union bosses should send Luca Brazzi to visit Obama late at night (lol).
far as AT&T and T-mobile, tell me how much is the German company which owns T-mobile investing in infrastructure, service, advertising etc? T-Mobile reminds me of the old Southern Pacific (SP) railroad line. The SP was bought up in the late 1970's by an investor from the East Coast. This investor's business model was deferred maintenance. No money was spent on rolling stock and maintaining the tracks other than what the FRA (Federal Railroad Adminstration) required under the 49 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).
THe plan was to squeeze every nickel, lower costs by laying off thousands of workers until a buyer would come in. The SP was profitable for over a hundred years until this investor came in. When the Union Pacific (UP) bought the company in the early 1990's the right-of-way itself was worth billions. That was the eye on the prize- the right-of-way. SP in SPRINT by the way refers to Southern Pacific. Telegraph lines etc. were installed along the railroad right of way. It's how the trains ran.
In T-Mobile I see a company that is being gutted. Now, the telecommunication business is not something I know about, either the business models or the regulations that govern it. I suspect though, AT&T is after T-Mobile much like the UP was after the SP, for the right of way.
If T-Mobile is to go bankrupt I rather it bought by a investor who is willing to spend the money to expand service etc. rather being taken over by another phone company to monopolize service. I'm sorry but I do not see the economic benefits.
-- Modified on 8/31/2011 10:54:04 PM
...is why isn't the Federal Trade Commission blocking the merger?
Yes, I'm against the merger. Less competition means shitter service and higher prices. We ought to look into breaking up a lot of companies as it is, like we did with Standard Oil back in the day.
Roosevelt. There are monopolies in the towing industry, funeral business, coffee, etc.
I always remember a scene from an episode of the Sopranos. It's a scene where the local mafia guys offer to provide "protection" insurance to this manager of a "Starbucks" type cafe. The manager says I cannot do that, each coffee cup, each dime is tracked by corporate, if I come up short, there will be another manager to take my place. The local mafia types leave the store, unsuccessful in providing their "Protection" service and say: "It's the end of the little guy". In the end of the episode, Tony sells the building that is leased to an egg store to Jamba juice.
That is where America heading to, the same cup of lousy coffee, same lousy eggs,with the same lousy phone service. I remember when I could pick up a tomato for my spaghetti sauce and it would squish in my hands. Nowdays, I can throw a tomato across room and make a hole in the wall; and guess what? I can buy the same lousy tomato in Jersey as I can in California.
-- Modified on 8/31/2011 9:45:38 PM
We need a guy like Teddy in a time like this.
I always wonder why we should have business CEOs consulting with the President about the economy. A CEO's job is to extract as much wealth as possible from the nation into the hands of the corporation and/or stockholders. I fail to see how that would make them remotely qualified to make judgments on macroeconomic policy. Hell, I think you could make the case that they would be a detriment.
Breaker, interesting factoid. The reason why that tomato will bust a hole in your wall is because a giant corporation, in order to increase their productivity, pick the tomato while it's green, put it in a chamber filled with ethylene gass to artificially ripen it, and sell it to the store. Regardless of the ripening stage, it is about as flavorful as it was when it was picked from the vine.
Stores are now selling what they call "vine ripened tomatoes". They do the exact same thing, they just cut a bit of the vine off and leave it there.
That's why I have my own (almost organic) garden, and do a ton of produce shopping at farmer's markets. 
want bring to market a genetically engineered soybean. What can I say, Monsanto makes money. I also also know about methyl bromide on apples etc.
However let's be fair, the corporate food producer are providing what the consumer wants, which is a tomato that will not squish in your hands, eggs for less than $3.00 a dozen etc. The consumer expects a certain color, texture in their food products at a certain price. I also have news for you, we will see food prices go up in year. I'm betting money on it.
I guess what I am saying with my posts is that what I do not like is when corporations use their political influence i.e. lobbying skills to manufacture profits rather than providing good customer service and products to make a profit. I do not like it when corporations use the regulatory agencies to protect their turf such as the NBC/Comcast merger.