Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Why not let the so-called "Free Market" work?
Why we don't let the free market work is because it cannot work on it's own without guidance. But let them try. Let AIG and J.P.Morgan and Bank of America fail, and all the rest of them fail. Copyright laws are government interference as well, let's get rid of them.
Total anarchy in the market! Or should we just hide behind the fear of socialism? The laws that allow people to be evicted from their home are a form of government interference.
How far should we shape the language and laws around those who have most of the power and money?
They are ready to kill you, destroy your life, so they can stay in power. You let them define the rules they shape against you.
Next they want to put you in the position of being totally powerless. So that you cannot rise against them. They know that sooner or later you will wake from liberal dream enough to see what they are actually doing to your life. They are hoping that it will be too late for you to know what to do.
Total anarchy in the market! Or should we just hide behind the fear of socialism? The laws that allow people to be evicted from their home are a form of government interference.
How far should we shape the language and laws around those who have most of the power and money?
They are ready to kill you, destroy your life, so they can stay in power. You let them define the rules they shape against you.
Next they want to put you in the position of being totally powerless. So that you cannot rise against them. They know that sooner or later you will wake from liberal dream enough to see what they are actually doing to your life. They are hoping that it will be too late for you to know what to do.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Worker id cards for everyone!
BIG SCHUMER IS WATCHING YOU – New York senator wants to force every American worker to carry an electronic federal ID card
Posted in Uncategorized by gangbox on the June 16, 2009
from the LOS ANGELES TIMES:
Worker ID cards expected to stir up immigration debate
Paul J. Richards / AFP-Getty Images
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y) will lead the effort to craft the Senate’s comprehensive immigration overhaul legislation.
Sen. Charles Schumer supports a worker ID card for all Americans. Business groups warm up to the idea, but labor activists and the ACLU have concerns.
By Teresa Watanabe
June 16, 2009
As the immigration reform debate begins to heat up again, some observers expect that one of the biggest and most controversial new elements will be a proposed national worker identification card for all Americans.
A “forgery-proof” worker ID card, secured with biometric data such as fingerprints, is an idea favored by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y), the new chairman of the immigration subcommittee. Schumer, who will lead the effort to craft the Senate’s comprehensive immigration overhaul legislation, called the card the best way to ensure that all workers were authorized.
“The ID will make it easy for employers to avoid undocumented workers, which will allow for tough sanctions against employers who break the law, which will lead to no jobs being available for illegal immigrants, which will stop illegal immigration,” Schumer wrote in his 2007 book, “Positively American.”
“Once Americans are convinced that we will permanently staunch the flow of illegal immigration, they will be more willing to accept constructing a path toward earned citizenship for those who are already here.”
A Schumer aide said last week that the senator would probably present the worker ID card idea at a hearing this summer on employee verification systems. The senator previously held a hearing on border enforcement and plans to hold three more this summer — on future immigrant flows, legalization of illegal immigrants and worker verification — before introducing a comprehensive bill in the fall, the aide said.
The idea of a worker ID card is embraced by some business and community organizations. But it has touched off fears among some labor activists and the American Civil Liberties Union about civil rights violations and a “big brother” intrusion into private lives.
In his book, Schumer proposed requiring every American worker, citizen and noncitizen, to apply for an identity card.
Some activists worry that any ID card proposal could divide the immigrant rights community between those opposed to its perceived dangers and those willing to accept it as part of a compromise that would legalize many of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
“The bottom line is that this would be really expensive, really invasive and people will hate it,” said Chris Calabrese, counsel for the ACLU’s technology and liberty project.
Maria Elena Durazo, who heads the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, said she would not want employers to control any worker verification system because they could selectively use it to punish people advocating labor rights or union organization.
Immigration lawyer Peter Schey said it would be nearly impossible to monitor the nation’s 26 million employers for compliance with a worker verification system. As a result, he and others argue, the best way to discourage illegal immigration is by strict enforcement of wage and hour laws, and by serious penalties on employers who violate them.
Business leaders say they want to be sure they will not be saddled with high costs or liability for any new verification system.
Some business groups have opposed the idea of making mandatory the system known as E-Verify. The online system allows employers to check the citizenship status and work eligibility of new employees.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce spokesman Angelo Amador said employers never knew whether the passports, driver’s licenses or Social Security cards being presented were genuine. But he said anyone presenting a worker ID card would be assumed legal, subject to confirmation by checking on a national database.
“It takes away the burden on employers of being ID experts,” Amador said.
Most activists say they are waiting for details before weighing in. But some say they may ultimately have to compromise.
“At the end of the day, if we’re going to achieve legalization of a major share of the undocumented, we realize there will have to be some give and take over worker verification,” said Mike Garcia, president of the Service Employees International Union Local 1877 in Los Angeles. “We’re not against it necessarily if all of the other pieces of immigration reform fall into place.”
teresa.watanabe@latimes.com
Posted in Uncategorized by gangbox on the June 16, 2009
from the LOS ANGELES TIMES:
Worker ID cards expected to stir up immigration debate
Paul J. Richards / AFP-Getty Images
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y) will lead the effort to craft the Senate’s comprehensive immigration overhaul legislation.
Sen. Charles Schumer supports a worker ID card for all Americans. Business groups warm up to the idea, but labor activists and the ACLU have concerns.
By Teresa Watanabe
June 16, 2009
As the immigration reform debate begins to heat up again, some observers expect that one of the biggest and most controversial new elements will be a proposed national worker identification card for all Americans.
A “forgery-proof” worker ID card, secured with biometric data such as fingerprints, is an idea favored by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y), the new chairman of the immigration subcommittee. Schumer, who will lead the effort to craft the Senate’s comprehensive immigration overhaul legislation, called the card the best way to ensure that all workers were authorized.
“The ID will make it easy for employers to avoid undocumented workers, which will allow for tough sanctions against employers who break the law, which will lead to no jobs being available for illegal immigrants, which will stop illegal immigration,” Schumer wrote in his 2007 book, “Positively American.”
“Once Americans are convinced that we will permanently staunch the flow of illegal immigration, they will be more willing to accept constructing a path toward earned citizenship for those who are already here.”
A Schumer aide said last week that the senator would probably present the worker ID card idea at a hearing this summer on employee verification systems. The senator previously held a hearing on border enforcement and plans to hold three more this summer — on future immigrant flows, legalization of illegal immigrants and worker verification — before introducing a comprehensive bill in the fall, the aide said.
The idea of a worker ID card is embraced by some business and community organizations. But it has touched off fears among some labor activists and the American Civil Liberties Union about civil rights violations and a “big brother” intrusion into private lives.
In his book, Schumer proposed requiring every American worker, citizen and noncitizen, to apply for an identity card.
Some activists worry that any ID card proposal could divide the immigrant rights community between those opposed to its perceived dangers and those willing to accept it as part of a compromise that would legalize many of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
“The bottom line is that this would be really expensive, really invasive and people will hate it,” said Chris Calabrese, counsel for the ACLU’s technology and liberty project.
Maria Elena Durazo, who heads the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, said she would not want employers to control any worker verification system because they could selectively use it to punish people advocating labor rights or union organization.
Immigration lawyer Peter Schey said it would be nearly impossible to monitor the nation’s 26 million employers for compliance with a worker verification system. As a result, he and others argue, the best way to discourage illegal immigration is by strict enforcement of wage and hour laws, and by serious penalties on employers who violate them.
Business leaders say they want to be sure they will not be saddled with high costs or liability for any new verification system.
Some business groups have opposed the idea of making mandatory the system known as E-Verify. The online system allows employers to check the citizenship status and work eligibility of new employees.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce spokesman Angelo Amador said employers never knew whether the passports, driver’s licenses or Social Security cards being presented were genuine. But he said anyone presenting a worker ID card would be assumed legal, subject to confirmation by checking on a national database.
“It takes away the burden on employers of being ID experts,” Amador said.
Most activists say they are waiting for details before weighing in. But some say they may ultimately have to compromise.
“At the end of the day, if we’re going to achieve legalization of a major share of the undocumented, we realize there will have to be some give and take over worker verification,” said Mike Garcia, president of the Service Employees International Union Local 1877 in Los Angeles. “We’re not against it necessarily if all of the other pieces of immigration reform fall into place.”
teresa.watanabe@latimes.com
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
We need a competition movement!
Senate passes anti-trust measure
By Aurea Calica Updated June 03, 2009 12:00 AM
MANILA, Philippines - The Senate has passed on third and final reading the anti-trust bill that prohibits and penalizes business cartels and monopolies to protect consumers from abuse.
Senate Bill No. 3197 or the Competition Act of 2009 will discipline the country’s market system to avoid unfair trade and anti-competitive practices.
The bill authored by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Antonio Trillanes IV, Manuel Roxas II and Edgardo Angara defined and imposed penalties for business cartels, monopolies, monopoly power or abuse of market power through price fixing and price discrimination, bid rigging, limitation and control of markets, agreement to limit and or control markets, and tie-in arrangements.
Enrile said the anti-trust bill would cover not only oil companies but also pharmaceutical, cement, food products and other industries where there is possible collusion among traders.
Enrile said that the proposed law is patterned after anti-trust laws in the United States and in some European countries, the purpose of which is to foster sound business ethics that would protect the ordinary consumers.
Cartelization includes the following agreements: Fix selling price of goods or other terms of sale; limit supply or output; divide the market, whether by volume of sales or purchase or by territory, by type of goods sold, by customers or sellers, or by any other means; exclude or limit dealings with particular suppliers or sellers from supplying or selling goods, or customers from acquiring of buying goods; applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; and making the transactions in particular goods dependent upon other conditions which have no connection with subject of the transaction.
The penalties that can be imposed for every violation cover a fine of not less than P10 million and not exceeding P50 million for a person; P250 million to P750 million if a firm and imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or both at the discretion of the court.
“In the alternative, a fine shall be imposed in the amount double the gross proceeds gained by the violator or double the gross loss suffered by the plaintiffs,” the bill read.
The Senate President explained that despite the existence of laws aiming to foster competition in the industries, they proved to be inadequate to stop the detriments of anti-competitive structures and behavior in the market. “Moreover, while there are special laws which have provisions that encourage competition, it is a fact that not one corporation was ever prosecuted for anti-trust acts,” he said.
“We need to enact an anti-trust measure. In fact, the adoption of a competition policy has been included in the Medium-Term Development Plan for 2004 — 2010 to create a competitive environment not only to ensure efficiency among big business firms and corporations,” Enrile further said.
“More importantly, we need to foster an environment that is conducive for the development of micro, small and medium enterprises, he said.
By Aurea Calica Updated June 03, 2009 12:00 AM
MANILA, Philippines - The Senate has passed on third and final reading the anti-trust bill that prohibits and penalizes business cartels and monopolies to protect consumers from abuse.
Senate Bill No. 3197 or the Competition Act of 2009 will discipline the country’s market system to avoid unfair trade and anti-competitive practices.
The bill authored by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Senators Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Antonio Trillanes IV, Manuel Roxas II and Edgardo Angara defined and imposed penalties for business cartels, monopolies, monopoly power or abuse of market power through price fixing and price discrimination, bid rigging, limitation and control of markets, agreement to limit and or control markets, and tie-in arrangements.
Enrile said the anti-trust bill would cover not only oil companies but also pharmaceutical, cement, food products and other industries where there is possible collusion among traders.
Enrile said that the proposed law is patterned after anti-trust laws in the United States and in some European countries, the purpose of which is to foster sound business ethics that would protect the ordinary consumers.
Cartelization includes the following agreements: Fix selling price of goods or other terms of sale; limit supply or output; divide the market, whether by volume of sales or purchase or by territory, by type of goods sold, by customers or sellers, or by any other means; exclude or limit dealings with particular suppliers or sellers from supplying or selling goods, or customers from acquiring of buying goods; applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; and making the transactions in particular goods dependent upon other conditions which have no connection with subject of the transaction.
The penalties that can be imposed for every violation cover a fine of not less than P10 million and not exceeding P50 million for a person; P250 million to P750 million if a firm and imprisonment not exceeding 10 years or both at the discretion of the court.
“In the alternative, a fine shall be imposed in the amount double the gross proceeds gained by the violator or double the gross loss suffered by the plaintiffs,” the bill read.
The Senate President explained that despite the existence of laws aiming to foster competition in the industries, they proved to be inadequate to stop the detriments of anti-competitive structures and behavior in the market. “Moreover, while there are special laws which have provisions that encourage competition, it is a fact that not one corporation was ever prosecuted for anti-trust acts,” he said.
“We need to enact an anti-trust measure. In fact, the adoption of a competition policy has been included in the Medium-Term Development Plan for 2004 — 2010 to create a competitive environment not only to ensure efficiency among big business firms and corporations,” Enrile further said.
“More importantly, we need to foster an environment that is conducive for the development of micro, small and medium enterprises, he said.
Remember Anti-Trust? It's time to find some balance
New Mood in Antitrust May Target Google
By STEVE LOHR and MIGUEL HELFT
Published: May 17, 2009
For decades, the nation’s biggest antitrust cases have centered on technology companies. And they have all been efforts by the government to deal with powerful companies with far-reaching influence, like AT&T, the telephone monopoly; I.B.M., the mainframe computer giant; and Microsoft, the powerhouse of personal computer software.
Related
Times Topics: Google Inc.
Last week, the Obama administration declared a sharp break with the Bush years, vowing to toughen antitrust enforcement, especially for dominant companies. The approach is closer to that of the European Union, where regulators last week fined Intel $1.45 billion for abusing its power in the chip market.
In this new climate, the stakes appear to be highest for Google, the rising power of the Internet economy.
The new antitrust leadership, legal experts say, is likely to scrutinize networks — technology platforms that become so dominant that everyone feels the need to plug into them. The advantages to the companies that control such networks snowball as they attract more users, advertisers or software developers.
Internet search and search advertising, like personal computer operating software, is one example, said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust expert at the University of Iowa law school. “Google is a dominant network, as is Microsoft,” Mr. Hovenkamp said. “Networks become competitive only if everyone has the same chance.”
Google’s corporate behavior is already being closely monitored. Last year, Google abandoned a planned search advertising partnership with Yahoo after the Justice Department said it intended to file suit to block the agreement on antitrust grounds. Google has 64 percent of the Web search market in America, while Yahoo has 21 percent and Microsoft 8 percent, according to comScore, a research firm.
In recent weeks, antitrust officials have opened two inquiries. The Justice Department is looking into Google’s settlement with authors and publishers for its book-search service to see if it violates antitrust laws. And the Federal Trade Commission is examining whether Google’s sharing two board members with Apple reduces competition, because both companies offer Web browsers and phone operating systems.
Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said this month that the close scrutiny was not surprising. “Information is incredibly important, and we should expect governments around the world to pay attention to what we do,” he said.
Google’s power is a cause of worry in many industries — media, advertising, telecommunications and software. Yet being large, successful and ambitious is not an antitrust violation. “You’ve got to be big, and you have to be bad,” observed Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. “You have to be both.”
In the Microsoft case, the software giant’s monopoly in personal computer operating systems was not an antitrust problem. It was its corporate actions, including using contracts and bullying tactics to stifle competition, that broke the law, the federal courts ruled. Such strong-arm practices, legal experts say, have not been part of the Google story.
Unless Google is shown to engage in a pattern of anticompetitive conduct, the company is likely to face constant scrutiny, but not a major federal suit, antitrust experts say. Even with misconduct, they say, complex antitrust cases like the one against Microsoft take years to come to fruition. “There will be a lot of agonizing about Google, and it will raise concerns, but I don’t see a big Google case in the offing,” said Michael Katz, an economist at the Stern School of Business of New York University.
Instead, Google is likely to be watched step by step. One area to observe, antitrust experts say, is whether Google uses its search engine to give it a leg up in new businesses.
Last month, the company announced that Google Profiles, a service that gives people a page to publish their name, photo and other personal information, would be featured below Google’s search results when someone typed in a name. That could give Google Profiles an edge over profiles from Facebook and other social networks, which have to earn their search result rankings.
Google, said Randal C. Picker, an antitrust expert at the University of Chicago law school, is using its search engine to “leverage” another Google service. Such tactics, he said, echo Microsoft’s linking of its Windows operating system to its Web browser. “It is the kind of thing that is likely to get antitrust attention,” Mr. Picker said.
The company says Google Profiles is an effort to improve Web search, and comes in response to users’ requests for greater control over their online identities. Google also says its software scans other social networks, and those results typically appear near the top of a search for a person’s name. “We designed Profiles to encourage user choice, not limit it,” said Adam Kovacevich, a Google spokesman.
In her speech last week, Christine A. Varney, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, said the touchstone of antitrust policy should be “the protection of consumer welfare.”
By that standard, Google seems an elusive target for antitrust enforcers, since most of its services are free. And in the new markets it is entering, including cellphone software and online alternatives to desktop programs, Google is an insurgent going up against large, well-heeled rivals, notably Microsoft.
“If what Google really has is an enormous scale advantage in Internet search and advertising — and it is not engaged in exclusionary or other bad behavior — I would be very reluctant to step in,” said Mr. Hovenkamp of the University of Iowa.
By STEVE LOHR and MIGUEL HELFT
Published: May 17, 2009
For decades, the nation’s biggest antitrust cases have centered on technology companies. And they have all been efforts by the government to deal with powerful companies with far-reaching influence, like AT&T, the telephone monopoly; I.B.M., the mainframe computer giant; and Microsoft, the powerhouse of personal computer software.
Related
Times Topics: Google Inc.
Last week, the Obama administration declared a sharp break with the Bush years, vowing to toughen antitrust enforcement, especially for dominant companies. The approach is closer to that of the European Union, where regulators last week fined Intel $1.45 billion for abusing its power in the chip market.
In this new climate, the stakes appear to be highest for Google, the rising power of the Internet economy.
The new antitrust leadership, legal experts say, is likely to scrutinize networks — technology platforms that become so dominant that everyone feels the need to plug into them. The advantages to the companies that control such networks snowball as they attract more users, advertisers or software developers.
Internet search and search advertising, like personal computer operating software, is one example, said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust expert at the University of Iowa law school. “Google is a dominant network, as is Microsoft,” Mr. Hovenkamp said. “Networks become competitive only if everyone has the same chance.”
Google’s corporate behavior is already being closely monitored. Last year, Google abandoned a planned search advertising partnership with Yahoo after the Justice Department said it intended to file suit to block the agreement on antitrust grounds. Google has 64 percent of the Web search market in America, while Yahoo has 21 percent and Microsoft 8 percent, according to comScore, a research firm.
In recent weeks, antitrust officials have opened two inquiries. The Justice Department is looking into Google’s settlement with authors and publishers for its book-search service to see if it violates antitrust laws. And the Federal Trade Commission is examining whether Google’s sharing two board members with Apple reduces competition, because both companies offer Web browsers and phone operating systems.
Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said this month that the close scrutiny was not surprising. “Information is incredibly important, and we should expect governments around the world to pay attention to what we do,” he said.
Google’s power is a cause of worry in many industries — media, advertising, telecommunications and software. Yet being large, successful and ambitious is not an antitrust violation. “You’ve got to be big, and you have to be bad,” observed Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University. “You have to be both.”
In the Microsoft case, the software giant’s monopoly in personal computer operating systems was not an antitrust problem. It was its corporate actions, including using contracts and bullying tactics to stifle competition, that broke the law, the federal courts ruled. Such strong-arm practices, legal experts say, have not been part of the Google story.
Unless Google is shown to engage in a pattern of anticompetitive conduct, the company is likely to face constant scrutiny, but not a major federal suit, antitrust experts say. Even with misconduct, they say, complex antitrust cases like the one against Microsoft take years to come to fruition. “There will be a lot of agonizing about Google, and it will raise concerns, but I don’t see a big Google case in the offing,” said Michael Katz, an economist at the Stern School of Business of New York University.
Instead, Google is likely to be watched step by step. One area to observe, antitrust experts say, is whether Google uses its search engine to give it a leg up in new businesses.
Last month, the company announced that Google Profiles, a service that gives people a page to publish their name, photo and other personal information, would be featured below Google’s search results when someone typed in a name. That could give Google Profiles an edge over profiles from Facebook and other social networks, which have to earn their search result rankings.
Google, said Randal C. Picker, an antitrust expert at the University of Chicago law school, is using its search engine to “leverage” another Google service. Such tactics, he said, echo Microsoft’s linking of its Windows operating system to its Web browser. “It is the kind of thing that is likely to get antitrust attention,” Mr. Picker said.
The company says Google Profiles is an effort to improve Web search, and comes in response to users’ requests for greater control over their online identities. Google also says its software scans other social networks, and those results typically appear near the top of a search for a person’s name. “We designed Profiles to encourage user choice, not limit it,” said Adam Kovacevich, a Google spokesman.
In her speech last week, Christine A. Varney, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, said the touchstone of antitrust policy should be “the protection of consumer welfare.”
By that standard, Google seems an elusive target for antitrust enforcers, since most of its services are free. And in the new markets it is entering, including cellphone software and online alternatives to desktop programs, Google is an insurgent going up against large, well-heeled rivals, notably Microsoft.
“If what Google really has is an enormous scale advantage in Internet search and advertising — and it is not engaged in exclusionary or other bad behavior — I would be very reluctant to step in,” said Mr. Hovenkamp of the University of Iowa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
