ey policy questions for businesses, the bar, and the public. In January 2005, the Commission issued its first merger decision in administrative adjudication since 1995. The FTC charged that a company had illegally acquired its closest competitor and that the acquisition resulted in either a monopoly or a dominant firm in four U. S. markets. The Commission s order requires the company to create two new divisions that could compete independently in the relevant markets, and to divest one of thoMany people believe that monopolies are evil, as they inhibit competition, although this is really a fallacy in many regards. How so you ask? Well let me describe a term called; “Earned Monopoly” where the company grows large thru consumer choice to be the biggest and possibly the only real player in their industry sector. In this case the company has won the market share thru direct competition and has been voted for by the consumer.

In this case the earned monopoly is not evil but a testament to free markets and capitalism. If a company grows large and then controls a market, then attacks competition thru dumping practices and blocking the little guy from markets then that is a problematic situation, yet we must remember that if that occurs and the monopoly gets too big for its britches then a new company will come in and take market share back. Thus the free market provides a mechanism to level the playing field without government or regulatory intervention, therefore the FTC Federal Trade Commission is not needed nor is their advancing of administrative litigation.

Additionally generally, all real monopolies are caused by government in the first place; public utilities for instance, railroads, etc. The FTC never the less purports that they must have increased funding for their agency in FY 2007 in a report to the US Congress using as one of the reasons their work in anti-trust monitoring. Complete BS, but here is what the FTC stated in that official report:

“During FY 2005, the FTC had nine antitrust cases pending at some stage of administrative litigation. These antitrust cases involved a variety of consumer issues including physician and dental services, pharmaceuticals, hospital services, transportation of household goods, computer software and hardware, and gasoline. Besides bringing the benefits of increased competition, these cases also provided opportunities for the FTC and the courts to offer detailed analysis and guidance on key policy questions for businesses, the bar, and the public. In January 2005, the Commission issued its first merger decision in administrative adjudication since 1995. The FTC charged that a company had illegally acquired its closest competitor and that the acquisition resulted in either a monopoly or a dominant firm in four U. S. markets. The Commission s order requires the company to create two new divisions that could compete independently in the relevant markets, and to divest one of thos

estament to free markets and capitalism. If a company grows large and then controls a market, then attacks competition thru dumping practices and blocking the little guy from markets then that is a problematic situation, yet we must remember that if that occurs and the monopoly gets too big for its britches then a new company will come in and take market share back. Thus the free market provides a mechanism to level the playing field without government or regulatory intervention, therefore the FTC Federal Trade Commission is not needed nor is their advancing of administrative litigation.

Additionally generally, all real monopolies are caused by government in the first place; public utilities for instance, railroads, etc. The FTC never the less purports that they must have increased funding for their agency in FY 2007 in a report to the US Congress using as one of the reasons their work in anti-trust monitoring. Complete BS, but here is what the FTC stated in that official report:

“During FY 2005, the FTC had nine antitrust cases pending at some stage of administrative litigation. These antitrust cases involved a variety of consumer issues including physician and dental services, pharmaceuticals, hospital services, transportation of household goods, computer software and hardware, and gasoline. Besides bringing the benefits of increased competition, these cases also provided opportunities for the FTC and the courts to offer detailed analysis and guidance on key policy questions for businesses, the bar, and the public. In January 2005, the Commission issued its first merger decision in administrative adjudication since 1995. The FTC charged that a company had illegally acquired its closest competitor and that the acquisition resulted in either a monopoly or a dominant firm in four U. S. markets. The Commission s order requires the company to create two new divisions that could compete independently in the relevant markets, and to divest one of tho

FTC Federal Trade Commission is not needed nor is their advancing of administrative litigation.

Additionally generally, all real monopolies are caused by government in the first place; public utilities for instance, railroads, etc. The FTC never the less purports that they must have increased funding for their agency in FY 2007 in a report to the US Congress using as one of the reasons their work in anti-trust monitoring. Complete BS, but here is what the FTC stated in that official report:

“During FY 2005, the FTC had nine antitrust cases pending at some stage of administrative litigation. These antitrust cases involved a variety of consumer issues including physician and dental services, pharmaceuticals, hospital services, transportation of household goods, computer software and hardware, and gasoline. Besides bringing the benefits of increased competition, these cases also provided opportunities for the FTC and the courts to offer detailed analysis and guidance on key policy questions for businesses, the bar, and the public. In January 2005, the Commission issued its first merger decision in administrative adjudication since 1995. The FTC charged that a company had illegally acquired its closest competitor and that the acquisition resulted in either a monopoly or a dominant firm in four U. S. markets. The Commission s order requires the company to create two new divisions that could compete independently in the relevant markets, and to divest one of tho

ort:

“During FY 2005, the FTC had nine antitrust cases pending at some stage of administrative litigation. These antitrust cases involved a variety of consumer issues including physician and dental services, pharmaceuticals, hospital services, transportation of household goods, computer software and hardware, and gasoline. Besides bringing the benefits of increased competition, these cases also provided opportunities for the FTC and the courts to offer detailed analysis and guidance on key policy questions for businesses, the bar, and the public. In January 2005, the Commission issued its first merger decision in administrative adjudication since 1995. The FTC charged that a company had illegally acquired its closest competitor and that the acquisition resulted in either a monopoly or a dominant firm in four U. S. markets. The Commission s order requires the company to create two new divisions that could compete independently in the relevant markets, and to divest one of tho

ey policy questions for businesses, the bar, and the public. In January 2005, the Commission issued its first merger decision in administrative adjudication since 1995. The FTC charged that a company had illegally acquired its closest competitor and that the acquisition resulted in either a monopoly or a dominant firm in four U. S. markets. The Commission s order requires the company to create two new divisions that could compete independently in the relevant markets, and to divest one of those divisions within six months. In addition, four consumer protection cases also were in administrative litigation in FY 2005.”

The Federal Government needs to get their cotton-picking hands off the free market. Everything they do screws up free-enterprise. The Federal Government cannot seem to balance their own books to save their ass, yet wishes to enforce policies on things they know nothing about. Anti-trust cases are bathed in theory not fact or market place reality. In my opinion the FTC is a complete waste of taxpayer’s money and this example is merely one of the reasons I base my findings. Consider this in 2006.