"Trust Busting" bill would ban companies worth $100 billion from buying/merging other companies

Are you going to stop driving your car tomorrow ? - didn't think so - and neither is anyone else. So why are you talking this silliness ?

FACT - the world is increasing its consumption of fossil fuels - not decreasing.

So if I ask you - how long until we can do without - it is like asking how long till we get to New York .. while driving towards California.

I gave you the answer to this in my post - we need 100 Trillion dollars over 10 years .. what part of that was not clear?

but - this is not the question we are addressing - as pining away about a day when we will not use Fossil Fuel - does not help us deal with the problem of how we are going to mitigate the damage from the Oil we are going to use. 21 million barrels a day - every day - which includes tomorrow.

So the question to you is - "Is it not idiotic to get this oil from the third world via Tanker rather than domestic production- Pipeline"

 

I like your budget. I'd use it to build an equatorial solar power ring with polar directed feeders for distribution. We have the technology and engineering to do it and 100 trillion is about what it would cost. Ahhhh....

Oil and gas will run out: rain/hydro and wind aren't as reliable as the sun. Nuclear could be on the table if we could actually sort out what to do with the waste and how to build units that pose substantially less risk than all existing installations, although I'm certain I've not got that quite right. There are almost certainly several nuclear power facilities that are as safe as possible already - but still dangerous because we don't have a decent plan in place for waste disposal.

 

why would you cut my post where I said raise it 10% and only give corps that do not outsource a 10% tax cut

 

Exactly, because if it was a monopoly without oversight you'd pay ten times that because monopolies don't work.

 

Laws don't go into effect overnight.

Long before it passed, these companies would be partitioned.

 

For something like power or water I understand the oversight, those are required for survival.

But nobody needs FB or Amazon or Twitter to survive, non-essentials should be treated differently than things like power

 

Don't think we have to go that grand .. or risky - and the problems that need be solved are more than just power related - albeit that is a big one .. with unlimited "Free" power - interesting things could happen...

Unfortunately - we don't have the time .. the Ocean tipping point is being infringed upon on a number of fronts - quite disturbing from this subject matter expert's perspective .. and its what I hear from the others - have been following this one since the late 90's

Long before Michael Moore's latest flick - as in decades - I was using alternative remediation technologies to clean up hydrocarbon contaminated soil and groundwater .. innovative stuff (as opposed to dig - and - dump which was the norm) - like bioremediation. Worked on PCB's and other nasty stuff .and talking about how the Ocean Pollution is going to get us before global warming .. and on the side of the Green-Peace Cofounder who left because his belief in nuclear power did not fit onto the political bandwagon.

been on a vacation lately in the Caribbean .. Mexico Florida where the Sargassum epidemic is full on ? That's what happens when you turn the Ocean into an Outhouse .. it starts to stink like pooh. .. Google Dead Zones in the Ocean.. .. and then sit back and go hhmmmm .. "Dead Zone .. that can't be good .. then look at how big some of them are getting ..

Nope - we need to stop Population growth .. and fast. Even more pressing is that we stop industrialization of the non industrialized nations - for around 10 years under my plan - until we can do it green. In the mean time - they will live a much better life than previous .. getting a not only a bowl of rice a day .. and security - but a cabbage once a week ..

How much of my 10 Trillion a year do you think that will cost ? .. 2 Billion ? and perhaps throw in a carrot one a month .. Life is good.

Industrialization of the 3rd world is the biggest root cause issue for both CO2 and Ocean Pollution. - that is what the other 99.998 Trillion is for - in addition green technology - which will include nuclear power plants for the moment as this is the fastest way to power up the world .. and we can deal with the waste - Nuclear Technology has advanced as well. and we are working on Fusion . but we can't rely on pie in the sky . in 10 years I can have the entire globe powered on Nuclear - Solar - Hydroelectric - Wind - stable supply .. no problem - no carbon -I can do this easily for 100 Billion a year = 1 Trillion over 10 years.

We are left with 98.998 Trillion - which I will round up to 99 .. now that I know you got the point of how much it costs to control population growth "Feed the Poor" .. and even if it was 10 times my estimate -- it is still a rounding error.

So 99 bottles of beer on the wall .. what is next ? - what on earth will we do with the other 9.9 Trillion per year .. over 10 years that we have to spend.. ?

 

I'm not depending on oil from that pipeline to drive my car and neither is anyone else since the pipeline is not even being built yet. My contention is that it is idiotic not to put the money for the pipeline into the 100 trillion dollars that you and I both agree should be spent to save the Oceans,(and my first place to spend that would be to help everyone to get electric cars and to develop Fusion to generate all our electricity).

If we spend the 100 trillion that you and I both agree we should then that pipeline will be obsolete before it is even completed..

 

This is getting obtuse - 1) you depend on oil from somewhere - but the refinery makes that decision - not you - and they can contract for Canadian Product - or from Nigeria .. but if there is no Canadian or Domestic product - coming in by "pipeline" they have to get it from somewhere else. Right now .. trucks are travelling from Canada and oil by Rail .. cause they want this oil .. but

in reverse - if they are currently getting oil from Nigeria - and they substitute with Canada .. so much the better - that is the name of the game - do not finance industrialization via a petro economy in non industrialized nations ..

Then you state something even more absurd .. who is allocating anything from the 100 Trillion for Pipelines .. Industry was funding that .. no Gov't money falling from the Tree Required .. for any of these pipelines.

Come back to me Alek .. you are warping into never never land .. like I tip toed on some "necessary illusion" you hold dear.

 

And we never will because no such plan is possible. Nuclear waste is inherently VERY dangerous for thousands of years to come.

The only nuclear answer is fusion. It is safe, abundant and nearly ready as a viable energy source right now.

 

.

You're the delusional one, like the idea that the best way to use less of something is to make it easier to get more or it. We CANNOT keep using fossil fuels like we are. That does not lead to a viable future no matter what Trump and his cadre of oil-backed science deniers tell you

 

Nope - your last pose was complete nonsense - full stop - we can review it again if you like. Then you follow up with a strawman as I I claimed we should continue using fossil fuels like we are .. when in reality - you are the one that is defending the path of more fossil fuels - by not building pipelines .. which results not only in more CO2 - but way more Ocean Pollution which you don't seem to care about.

You are the science denier - so don't try to pin your failings onto me .. I gave you the science - you rejected the science .. unable to even answer the question put to you .. because you can't bear the reality that Blue is now the Anti Environment party .. and AOC is an Environmental Idiot ..

So once again the question you are avoiding like the plague ..

"Is it not idiotic to get oil from the third world via Tanker rather than domestic production- Pipeline"

 

Laws do go into effect overnight. Every single change in law and new law has a date on which they take effect. So laws literally do go into effect overnight. So this doesn't answer my question, and repeating the assertion certainly doesn't answer it.

Does your keyboard have some sort of character limit when you respond to a post? Why can't your explain the process that you believe will result in corporations splitting up simply do to the threat of the type of legislation proposed by Hawley?

Did Standard Oil self partition simply due to the threat of legislation? No it did not. And even after it did, every single one of the babies of Standard oil remained in virtual lockstep for decades.

Did Microsoft self partition when it was under threat of being separated into an OS company and an Office and Application company? No it did not.

Do companies spin off business units for commercial reasons - sure, all the time, so we're not discussing that.

Let me try again, I asked:

What do you think someone who reads this sentence you just wrote takes as its meaning?

"At the time the law would go into effect, those companies would already be split up."

Supposing Hawley's law goes into effect, how would "those" companies already be split up? Just magically Amazon would already be split up before Josh Seditionist Hawley's law goes into effect by virtue of what force of law, nature or act of God?

I'm not trying to play semantic games with you. I'm asking you to explain the scenario that you are describing in more detail because I think that I can successfully convince you that this assertion is not realistic and that only by legislation are any US corporations ever forced to spin off business units that they would otherwise retain.

And, if I can't convince you, then I have the expectation that I can convince others here that your point is improbable, if not altogether impossible, like say only 99.999% impossible.

 

I paid $90 for an Epipen in Oz. How can people afford to get sick?
Ok, back to topic.
Monopoly busting is a good idea.

 

***
The climate and the ecology of the whole planet is well beyond our current ability to model, so it is suspect to me that there is anyway to know what the tipping point is, much less how close to it we are.

Regardless of whether or not we are close to a tipping point, there are basic matters of HSE that should govern our civilizations across the planet.

This Facebook video for example should not be allowed to happen. The UN, the US, the WTO, the WHO, the Commonwealth and everyone else should sanction India for this dumping of solid waste into rivers.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2578536109100919

India is part of the Commonwealth, isn't it? What good is the Commonwealth that the Queen allows constituents to pollute the waters of the Earth in this manner?

_
I was amazed the first time I ever met the Pacific Ocean. All of my experience with the ocean had been on the Gulf Coast of Florida in the 1970s. Somewhere around the mid eighties I visited an uncle living in LA. Went to the beach, I think it might have been Venice Beach. The ocean there literally smelled like a treatment plant - particularly strong on the washing detergent smell. I skipped getting in. I'm sure it's only become worse. The EPA should be sanctioning California for failure to treat its wastewater. Mexico should be sanctioned as well, dumping raw sewage into the ocean at Tijuana/San Diego.

Contracting a flesh eating bacterial infection from swimming in the ocean wasn't a thing when I was a kid. Was I just unaware of it? Talk about a tipping point.

***
I'd prefer to skip your statements about controlling population growth, food, commerce and manufacturing in the developing world. But, since you mention all of this as part your plan, that you think is better than my global solar ring, I have to ask I suppose, what is it, this plan? Sterilization? Murder? Sounds like some vintage soup you're cooking up along these lines.

***
Well, you and your Greenpeace cofounder pro nuke power guys can ride that train as far as you like. Risky, is that what you called my solar ring idea? You are aware that cancer is already the second greatest cause of death in the US? What kind of innovative soil mitigation did you perform in St. Louis or Bowling Green? What new tech are you talking about? The awesome Transatomic Power WAMSR? Hahaha.... Seriously, not green, not safe, not even close to solar PV power. We have the tech to literally build solid state devices that generate electricity from sunshine. And the largest component required to make these panels is silicon, commonly known as sand, the second only to oxygen in abundance in the Earth's crust. And sunlight at the equator generates the maximum solar power of anywhere on Earth, all day, every day, all year long.

***
It's your plan - you tell me what that extra 99 Trillion is for. I've already told you what I would do with it.

 

The tokamak? The name alone should clue you in to its bogusness. Not gonna happen. We have fusion power already - it's called the Sun, ffs. And it's unsafe 93 million miles away. You be sure and hang out at the ITER Tokamac the day it starts to fuse H into He and spin off neutrons in the process. Sure, because we have materials that can contain that type of heat and particle bombardment. The sun on earth - that's your idea of safe? How will the entire device not completely become a giant piece of radioactive waste?

***
No kidding, I agree completely, there is no plan to dispose of the stuff. It is already all over the place. Yucca Mountain was a good plan, as far as they go, but transport of the waste to the site had no safe solution. Gee, sorry about that accident on I-10, we'll be able to reopen that stretch of road in 10232....

Possibly, if we could develop drilling technology to get deep enough we could safely bury the waste in place.

 

The most Environmental issue is Ocean Pollution - not CO2 - and you are clearly aware of at least some of the Ocean Pollution problems - which is good. Unlike CO2 - where we are guessing about the future based on models and so on - we can see the impacts of Ocean Pollution right now .. and observe the "brushing against" tipping points

For example - just look at the fishing moratoriums because we have fished out certain areas. Look at Mercury levels in Tuna .. look at toxin levels in the breast milk of Inuit women in the north due to bioaccumulation in the food chain - "Dead Zones" and so on.


I did not claim that controlling population is better than the Solar Ring ?? The Solar Ring idea is fine - its just that we do not have the capability to build it right now - nor understand the technological hurdles well enough - and time is short - and power is just one of the issues that needs be tackled.

Population growth is one of the root cause issues causing CO2 and Ocean Pollution - and we don't have a ring right now. Fossil Fuels are increasing not decreasing - theorizing about a Solar Ring that might exist in the future does not address the problem.

The solution I proposed was nuclear power - but we still have to control population and industrialization. ... the Population issues will not go away by ignoring them - nor the problem if industrialization of the third world.

Consider this. roughly 25 Years ago there was 7 Billion on the Planet - over this time Pop has grown to roughly 8 Billion - 8.5 predicted for 2030.

25 years ago there was roughly 1.4 Billion people on the planet industrialized - leaving 5.6 "Not industrialized"

China over this time industrialized roughly 300 million. In doing so their CO2 went from "Low" to 28% of global emissions - the US is 15% for comparison. and this came of course with massive Pollution .. both air and Ocean.

China when they started was at (11) in terms of consumption - First world (36) - Bowl of rice a day in Africa (1) - A study I read stated that if all of China was to reach first world consumption levels - world resource production would have to double.

So over this 25 year period - we industrialized another 600 million - taking the total industrialized to 2 Billion. This resulted in a massive CO2 increase and Ocean Pollution brushing up against tipping points.

Now how on earth are we supposed to industrialize the other 5 Billion "Non industrialized" and have the Ocean's survive - an entity which puts out 60% of our oxygen supply.

OH .. and remember how we started with 5.6 Billion "Non Industrialized" .. over 25 years Population grew to 8 Billion - so even though we industrialized 600 million .. the number of non-industrialized has increased to 6 Billion.

I know it is not nice - I know it is not pleasant - but this reality .. its not a "Model" - it is not using funny numbers - it is happening right now - but being near ignored by the Enviro Bandwagon - and completely left out of the policy calculation .. Not building pipelines being one example.

The other 99 Trillion over 10 years is to transition the first world to green - and stop industrialization of the non industrialized via the petro economy.

You seem to think we are mostly there - when we are not even close. Over the last 10 years we went from roughly 1% of new cars sold being electric to 2% .. the idea that we will be at 50% - as was bandied about and used in policy calculation - by 2030 is preposterous nonsense on this basis.. we will be very lucky to get to 10%.

Sans a few locations - there is no infrastructure. In terms of how to power the world - which will require huge amounts of new power -construction of your Solar Ring has not even been started yet - nor has it been figured out how we would even do such a thing - never mind have the thing built in 10 years. Nuclear has its problems of course - but it is not a cancer hazard as you claim... and unlike other ideas "such as Fusion" - "Solar Ring" and so on - we know we can do it with Nuclear in 10 years ..

 

Apologies, but without going into several additional questions I have regarding this response, I'd like to first emphasize one question by asking you what your plan is to stop people from having babies.

 

No need to stop people from having babies .. every couple can have roughly 2.6 children and the earths population would not increase.

First world nations would be declining in population if it was not for immigration. People with food and security do not reproduce themselves - hence the plan to give these folks food security.

 

This response isn't clear to me. Are you backing off of your assertion that we need to control population growth? It isn't a problem after all? The species will line out all of its own at a sustainable level of what, 10 billion people? 2.6 kids per two parents seems to indicate a continued increase to me.

 

Limiting it to 2 or less on average would be helpful. I don't support laws forcing this at all, but a gradual decrease in population is what we need. If we do it too fast, it could lead to trouble, but a gradual decrease would be ideal.

 

It would be if anyone was proposing that. What AOC is proposing is that we don't get that oil from tanker or pipeline or anything else. We should not get the oil at all. We have had oil shortfalls before and they do cause hardship but we have dealt with them, usually by conservation of resources.

What I find idiotic is your apparent idea that we should deal with the problem of using too much oil by trying to get even more oil to use.

 

It doesn't need to be forced - I am just stating what the numbers are.

First world nations are decreasing in population all on their own no help required. as for the other end of the scale - they just need a little food security and they will come on-line - and their extra population does not matter so much to the overall equation.

What we can't be doing - is moving those in the third world at (1) to the first world (36) as this increases their consumption the same as someone in the third world having 36 children.

Third world consumption is not the problem - as it is super low - First world consumption is the problem - and right now we are consuming 21 million barrels of oil a day .. the fellow living in a grass hut eating a bowl of rice a day .. not so much.

What we don't want to do is start industrializing the rice eater - as not only does this increase the carbon equation x 36 - but the pollution of industrialization is massive -

So industrialization is the main issue here - population growth secondary but only if handled improperly - moving the 1 to the 36 side of the balance sheet.

"REALITY" - is that the world is moving as fast as ever along the industrialization path .. blocking pipelines being a symptom of moronic ignorance .. as we are going to use 21 million bpd of oil - whether we get it from pipeline -"domestic" or from tanker - Nigeria.

If we don't get it from Pipeline - Domestic - then will purchase from "Nigeria" - transferring out pollution problems to that nation ..a "Not in my backyard" policy with no regard to the massive Ocean pollution increase - along with CO2 due to industrialization of a non first world nation .. - and on the back of a incentivization of a Petro Economy in these nations.

Yeah - Let's drill in Botswanna and ship oil over in Tanker rather than build a pipeline from Canada or North Dakota - that's makes all the sense in the world !

 

Just for some added context, the following is a partial list of companies over $100 Billion in market cap.

Apple
Microsoft
Amazon
Google
Facebook
Samsung
Visa
Johnson and Johnson
Walmart
Mastercard
Home Depot
Proctor and Gamble
Disney
Bank of America
Nestle
PayPal
Intel
Adobe
Comcast
Netflix
ExxonMobil
Verizon
Toyota
Cisco
AT&T
Nike
Pfizer
Chevron
Pepsi
McDonald's
Costco
UPS
Unilever
Lowe's
Siemens
Sony
American Express
General Electric
IBM
Raytheon
3M
Target

I'm not saying whether this legislation is good or bad. I'm just pointing out that it may have major repercussions on our day-to-day lives, especially the millions of people who work for these companies.

 

What is while perhaps not "idiotic" - "pathetic" would be a better word - is accusing someone of something they did not say or infer - because you are in a lost position. Building pipelines results in the usage of "LESS" oil - not more.

What result's in more oil being used is incentivizing and financing industrialization of third world nations on the back of a petro economy .. which is exactly what AOC's "I hate Pipelines" political bandwagon platform accomplishes - along with transferring our pollution problems to a nation far less equipped to deal with it - resulting in more Ocean Pollution.

So then - once again - " Do you not find AOC's plan - which will increase both CO2 and Ocean Pollution" Idiotic .. are you going to persist in denial of Science and reason because your "necessary illusion bubble" has been popped.