|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 2, 2011 3:27:11 GMT -5
This merger is more important than you think. Do tell.
|
|
|
Post by iamkrang on Sept 2, 2011 6:52:35 GMT -5
Good back and forth talk, but on a side-note Boost Mobile's parent company is Sprint Nextel.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 2, 2011 9:30:58 GMT -5
Let's be honest. Who REALLY cares? No one, people will continue to pay whatever is asked as long as they have their Iphones and Evos and Droids. People would be lost without them so if anyone is worried of a price increase quit paying the prices no matter what. Unfortunately, this is one thing that hadn't been mentioned yet. Call me a pessimist, but nobody is going to really care about something like this (atleast not a significant portion). Technology basically has people by the throat today. I like competition in the market place as much as the next guy, but not many people are willing to give up their Iphones and Droids.
|
|
AONI
Superstar
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 22:10:17 GMT -5
Posts: 563
|
Post by AONI on Sept 2, 2011 15:09:02 GMT -5
You can't just arbitrarily decide, "This isn't good for the American people." By the basic principles of capitalism, if there is a market for a product at a certain price and it can be provided at that price, it will be created... That is, unless there is government interference, which there always is. If we got the government out of the business of trying to control our country's natural economic growth, we would be much better off. But even if you decide that the government has to step in and stop this, you have to ask - Where do we draw the line? If Ford and GM came together and said, "We're raising our prices by double to pay for our growing cost of business and because we can't sustain losing money every quarter," does the government step in and say, "NO, YOU CAN'T RAISE YOUR PRICES!" ? If Pepsi and Coca-Cola decide to merge due to one of them failing to post profits, do we tell them they can't because it'd create a monopoly? If Google wants to buy a slumping Yahoo!, does the government step in and say they can't because there wouldn't be enough search engine competition? It's a completely dangerous situation to say that the government can step in and decide when businesses can merge or not merge. In some cases, the government even encourages large mergers like Wells Fargo purchasing Wachovia. The problem is government interference in the first place. Get them the out and the market will fix itself! and just because the govt can sue AT&T and T-Mobile doesnt mean they have the power to go out and interfere with any and every little matter in all American businesses Yes it does. That's exactly what it means. stop sensationalizing the issue. there have been cases where the govt HASNT interfered in corporate mergers, such as the Comcast&NBC and United&Continental Airlines mergers. this merger is different because itll result in one company controlling a large portion of that market, not to mention the affect itll have on jobs. the merger is bad for the consumer, bad for the employee. the people who make out like bandits are the owners. that kind of stuff isnt gonna fly anymore in this political season. not with Obama running for reelection and job growth stagnating.
|
|
AONI
Superstar
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 22:10:17 GMT -5
Posts: 563
|
Post by AONI on Sept 2, 2011 15:19:58 GMT -5
One could say that this is bad for the business, but they are still operating at a profit - just not a massive one any longer. They now have to work SMARTER to figure out ways to lower their costs while maintaining a good enough product to increase or at least continue operating at their same share of the market. This is good for the consumer because it creates lower prices AND better technology simultaneously as the companies compete for our business. You do realize that the reasons these other companies are succeeding is because they are making more profit, likely mostly because of their higher prices... Right...? Cheaper ≠ profit. so which is it? businesses should be able to buy cheaper alternatives to kill competition or businesses should have to adapt to the market?
|
|
|
Post by Mole on Sept 2, 2011 16:07:38 GMT -5
One could say that this is bad for the business, but they are still operating at a profit - just not a massive one any longer. They now have to work SMARTER to figure out ways to lower their costs while maintaining a good enough product to increase or at least continue operating at their same share of the market. This is good for the consumer because it creates lower prices AND better technology simultaneously as the companies compete for our business. You do realize that the reasons these other companies are succeeding is because they are making more profit, likely mostly because of their higher prices... Right...? Cheaper ≠ profit. so which is it? businesses should be able to buy cheaper alternatives to kill competition or businesses should have to adapt to the market? Those options aren't mutually exclusive. If a company has enough money, purchasing a smaller competitor is adapting.
|
|
AONI
Superstar
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 22:10:17 GMT -5
Posts: 563
|
Post by AONI on Sept 2, 2011 16:55:22 GMT -5
so which is it? businesses should be able to buy cheaper alternatives to kill competition or businesses should have to adapt to the market? Those options aren't mutually exclusive. If a company has enough money, purchasing a smaller competitor is adapting. true. but what led me to comment is that a couple posts before, i suggested the same thing (lowering your price in order to compete with cheaper alternatives) and was offered a lesson in economics rather than an actual comment on the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 2, 2011 21:53:38 GMT -5
Unfortunately, this is one thing that hadn't been mentioned yet. Call me a pessimist, but nobody is going to really care about something like this (atleast not a significant portion). Technology basically has people by the throat today. I like competition in the market place as much as the next guy, but not many people are willing to give up their Iphones and Droids. That's for the market to decide. If people decide it's worth it to keep their iPhone for $200/mo., then they should keep them. If they decide that's too expensive, they'll get rid of 'em. Again, this is the free market. stop sensationalizing the issue. there have been cases where the govt HASNT interfered in corporate mergers, such as the Comcast&NBC and United&Continental Airlines mergers. this merger is different because itll result in one company controlling a large portion of that market, not to mention the affect itll have on jobs. I never said that the government steps in and stops every merger, so I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm simply saying that they need to let businesses combine if they want to. What affect would it have on jobs? People will still need to be employed to continue catering to an increased market share. And if they can do the same job with less people, they should. Paying people for no reason is ing idiotic and a big part of the reason why our economy is ed in the first place. so which is it? businesses should be able to buy cheaper alternatives to kill competition or businesses should have to adapt to the market? What are you talking about? I'm saying that competition creates lower prices. The problem is that we have lack of competition to begin with due to the fact that the government supports these gigantic corporations while stifling the growth of smaller companies. But you have to realize that when "company A" sells something at a big profit versus "company B" selling something at a smaller profit or no profit at all... It doesn't matter how many people love company B - they cannot afford to continue operating. So when company B decides that they want to sell to company A, it is a natural part of the business cycle. As long as company A has a big enough portion of the market, if they are making more money, they're going to eat the other, dumber companies up. This is what is happening between these cell phone companies. true. but what led me to comment is that a couple posts before, i suggested the same thing (lowering your price in order to compete with cheaper alternatives) and was offered a lesson in economics rather than an actual comment on the idea. If you cannot lower your prices due to the lack of profit you're currently making, how can you stay in business?
|
|
AONI
Superstar
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 22:10:17 GMT -5
Posts: 563
|
Post by AONI on Sept 6, 2011 0:10:28 GMT -5
I never said that the government steps in and stops every merger, so I'm not sure what your point is here. I'm simply saying that they need to let businesses combine if they want to. and just because the govt can sue AT&T and T-Mobile doesnt mean they have the power to go out and interfere with any and every little matter in all American businesses Yes it does. That's exactly what it means. wanna try again? should the merger go down, redundancies will be erased. thats more unemployed for a political establishment that cant afford more unemployment. and again with the sensationalizing... no one is advocating for people to be paid for nothing. people are advocating for people to be paid to do the jobs they already have. your view that there isnt any competition in the first place doesnt have a place in the discussion. the issue here is whether or not the merger will shrink the market (it will) as well as hurt the consumer AND employee (it will). actually, Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile's parent company, hasnt said it wants to sell because theyre losing profits. they want to sell because theyd rather focus on their expansion in the European market. which is exactly what i was saying...businesses losing customers to cheaper alternatives SHOULD emulate their competitors and adapt to the market BY lowering prices rather than buying the competition at the expense of their customers and employees
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 6, 2011 2:06:29 GMT -5
Do you understand the difference between "can" and "will?" "wanna try again?" should the merger go down, redundancies will be erased. thats more unemployed for a political establishment that cant afford more unemployment. LoL, so pointless jobs will be lost? GOD FORBID! Pointless jobs are a big problem in our society. People should be looking for jobs that we actually ing need. and again with the sensationalizing... no one is advocating for people to be paid for nothing. people are advocating for people to be paid to do the jobs they already have. It's not sensationalizing. You're advocating paying people for nothing if you're complaining about people losing, as you called them, "redunant" jobs. your view that there isnt any competition in the first place doesnt have a place in the discussion. the issue here is whether or not the merger will shrink the market (it will) as well as hurt the consumer AND employee (it will). You can't be so short-sighted, though. All this would do is mask the real problem. If we allowed real competition, this wouldn't be an issue. actually, Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile's parent company, hasnt said it wants to sell because theyre losing profits. they want to sell because theyd rather focus on their expansion in the European market. news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20060353-17.htmlWhether they have said it or not is irrelevant. The facts are the facts. Their profits are dropping significantly. They see the writing on the wall. which is exactly what i was saying...businesses losing customers to cheaper alternatives SHOULD emulate their competitors and adapt to the market BY lowering prices rather than buying the competition at the expense of their customers and employees If you're T-Mobile, you can't just "lower your prices" if your profits are lower to begin with. Why would AT&T lower their prices when they are obviously doing well? Your logic makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by extreme on Sept 6, 2011 13:38:40 GMT -5
Sprint has filed suit against the merger
|
|
AONI
Superstar
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 22:10:17 GMT -5
Posts: 563
|
Post by AONI on Sept 7, 2011 21:14:09 GMT -5
Do you understand the difference between "can" and "will?" "wanna try again?" BS dude. you clearly implied that the govt now has free reign to stick their nose into every matter of American business because they have stepped in with this merger. but since this isnt the first time the govt has stepped in to stop a merger, your idea is obviously not true. its sensationalizing when you propose that thinking people should keep the jobs they have now without any merger is the same thing as thinking people should be "paid for nothing" POST-MERGER. there is a difference between the two and that right there is a whole nother issue that doesnt solve the problem on the govt's hands now. short sighted or not, the problem is happening now. we're in a recession. everyones profits are dropping t-mobile IS the cheaper alternative. if AT&T, Sprint, & Verizon want those customers then make cheaper plans. and if AT&T is so content with their success, why would they wanna buy t-mobile? they obviously want those customers for a reason
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 8, 2011 3:40:38 GMT -5
BS dude. you clearly implied that the govt now has free reign to stick their nose into every matter of American business because they have stepped in with this merger. but since this isnt the first time the govt has stepped in to stop a merger, your idea is obviously not true. I didn't imply anything. I said that they COULD, not that they WILL or already do. You're putting words into my mouth when I clearly did not say them. Having the ability to do it is bad enough. Obviously they're not going to stop everything, but even the ability to do it is freakin' ridiculous. its sensationalizing when you propose that thinking people should keep the jobs they have now without any merger is the same thing as thinking people should be "paid for nothing" POST-MERGER. there is a difference between the two It's not sensationalizing. It's fact. Many jobs would become irrelevant due to the companies merging, there's no doubt about that. But that's how things go when companies become more efficient. The thing is, if we trust the free market and stop helping these large corporations, like I've been saying, other businesses will grow in their place. Then there will be more jobs, likely better paying jobs, and jobs that actually matter. Instead, the government says, "You can't merge!" and try to control a market that was already screwed up due to too much regulation. It's freakin' ridiculous. and that right there is a whole nother issue that doesnt solve the problem on the govt's hands now. short sighted or not, the problem is happening now. The problem was too much government interference to begin with. Now we're adding more government interference to try to fix the problem that the government created in the first place? This will work in the short-run, but one of these companies is going to flat-out go out of business because they cannot continue to compete with a better product that makes more money than they do. I'll let you guess which one I'm talking about. Unless there are some drastic changes within that company, they will collapse. Then what? We're in the same situation we are now, but instead of SOME people losing their jobs, ALL of them will lose their jobs. AMERICA! YEAH!!! we're in a recession. everyones profits are dropping www.mobiledia.com/news/99269.htmlInteresting theory you have there. Too bad it's not true, though, isn't it? AT&T continues to grow, T-Mobile continues to shrink. I wonder why they would want to merge... HMMMMMMMM.... t-mobile IS the cheaper alternative. if AT&T, Sprint, & Verizon want those customers then make cheaper plans. and if AT&T is so content with their success, why would they wanna buy t-mobile? they obviously want those customers for a reason AT&T is doing just fine with their current market share, as we have shown. They would like to expand their share of the market, sure, but they aren't struggling economically. T-Mobile IS struggling economically BECAUSE their prices are not gaining them enough profit. I'm surprised that this is such a difficult concept for you undestand. T-Mobile wants to merge with AT&T because they see the writing on the wall that their profits continue to get lower as they lose subscribers to the other carriers (namely AT&T) and they understand that they cannot continue with their current "low prices" business plan because it is obviously not maintaining their existing customer base, let alone bringing in a new customer base. AT&T wants to merge with T-Mobile so that they can pick up those T-Mobile customers and provide them with AT&T service, hoping that they will then choose AT&T when their contract expires. If AT&T and T-Mobile do combine, AT&T will still need to honor the contracts that existing T-Mobile customers have. They can't just force people to pay more money for their product. If those customers decide that they love their new AT&T-Mobile (combined) service, they will stick with that company, thus increasing AT&T-Mobile's profits over time. If, however, the customers decide that they do not like the service, they are free to find another carrier once their contract has expired. Companies like Sprint, Virgin Mobile, etc. have lower-priced plans as well, and would be an obvious alternative to AT&T-Mobile. If all of the companies are too expensive and the service can actually be provided at a price lower than the ones that have been created by the major companies, free market principles tell us that another company will be created to fill the void. This has happened time and time again, as with the examples I provided before. We need to stop being afraid and realize that if we just trust the free market and stop trying to control businesses like a bunch of communist retards, our economy would be growing and we would all be very prosperous. It is this belief that we can regulate every little thing and control consumer supply & demand that has many businesses struggling today. We need to let the best businesses survive and the worst businesses die.
|
|