International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   DoJ launches antitrust investigation against car companies who defied Trump (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=338711)

Checkmite 6th September 2019 01:03 PM

DoJ launches antitrust investigation against car companies who defied Trump
 
The Trump administration recently announced that it would remove or weaken air-pollution-limiting standards for new automobiles. In response, auto companies Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, and BMW, announced an agreement with the state of California in which they would continue to make vehicles by the existing Obama-era standards, which include continuing reduction of emissions thresholds over time.

As a result, the Trump administration has launched an antitrust investigation against those four automakers, as it challenges California's right to set higher emissions standards than the federal executive dictates.

This is fascism.

Dr. Keith 6th September 2019 01:08 PM

So pro-business that sometimes, just to show his love, he has to hurt them.

But they have to understand that it truly hurts them more than it hurts him.

Thermal 6th September 2019 01:16 PM

Aren't Republicans supposed to be big on state's rights?

Dr. Keith 6th September 2019 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 12811145)
Aren't Republicans supposed to be big on state's rights?

Even they know that "state's rights" is just fig leaf for slavery and racial discrimination.

BobTheCoward 6th September 2019 05:14 PM

Would it be antitrust if they did discuss it?

Checkmite 6th September 2019 05:29 PM

I don't think so.

I might be wrong about my analysis, but the Trump administration appears to be wanting to argue that if California sets higher anti-pollution standards than the rest of the country, it would be anti-competitive for companies to choose to make automobiles meeting that standard, since they will be able to sell their vehicles in California and other automakers who don't meet the standard will not. But this is incredibly absurd, it essentially argues any company that follows any government manufacturing regulation is being anti-competitive against other companies that would like to make a product but don't want to follow regulatory standards to do it.

Stacyhs 6th September 2019 05:44 PM

By all means, Donald, this air is just getting too damn clean! And we all know we just can't trust what we can't see with our own eyes! How I long for the days when I could walk outside and see what I was breathing. Make America Smoggy Again!

Squeegee Beckenheim 7th September 2019 01:49 AM

Small government.

Norman Alexander 7th September 2019 03:54 AM

He can say what he likes, he's now irrelevant. They are ignoring him now and will still ignore him afterwards.

johnny karate 7th September 2019 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 12811137)
So pro-business that sometimes, just to show his love, he has to hurt them.

But they have to understand that it truly hurts them more than it hurts him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thermal (Post 12811145)
Aren't Republicans supposed to be big on state's rights?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim (Post 12811618)
Small government.

Can anyone come up with a principle of the Republican Party that the Republican Party hasn’t completely abandoned?

Because I’m drawing a blank.

Thermal 7th September 2019 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 12811901)
Can anyone come up with a principle of the Republican Party that the Republican Party hasnít completely abandoned?

Because Iím drawing a blank.

Tax breaks for the wealthy

BobTheCoward 7th September 2019 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Checkmite (Post 12811346)
I don't think so.

I might be wrong about my analysis, but the Trump administration appears to be wanting to argue that if California sets higher anti-pollution standards than the rest of the country, it would be anti-competitive for companies to choose to make automobiles meeting that standard, since they will be able to sell their vehicles in California and other automakers who don't meet the standard will not. But this is incredibly absurd, it essentially argues any company that follows any government manufacturing regulation is being anti-competitive against other companies that would like to make a product but don't want to follow regulatory standards to do it.

From the guardian I am reading this

Quote:

In July, four automakers ó Ford Motor Company, Volkswagen of America, Honda and BMW ó announced that they had reached an agreement in principle with California on emissions standards stricter than those being sought by the White House.
On the surface, four automakers discussed and agreed to a strategy to all make more expensive cars and that the others will not cheat on the deal and sell a cheaper one.

That is a surface description of an anti trust violation.

smartcooky 7th September 2019 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12811916)
From the guardian I am reading this



On the surface, four automakers discussed and agreed to a strategy to all make more expensive cars and that the others will not cheat on the deal and sell a cheaper one.

That is a surface description of an anti trust violation.

No, it isn't. An anti trust violation is when a group of businesses team up or form a monopoly in order to dictate pricing in a particular market. For example, if the four companies were to make identical or near identical cars and agree to sell them all for the same price in, say California, but then sold them in Florida at a substantially cheaper price in order to undercut a fifth car maker who was not part of the group, then that would be a breach of anti-trust.

Another example would be where a "Widget Franchise" was selling widgets for a certain price nationwide, but then set up shop across the road from a Mom & Pop Widget Store (who are selling the same widgets), and sold them at a substantially lower price only in that shop and not in the rest of the country in order to undercut Mom & Pop and put them out of business.

NONE of this is happening here. These car makers are teaming up to make a better, more environmentally sound car.

BobTheCoward 7th September 2019 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12812093)
No, it isn't. An anti trust violation is when a group of businesses team up or form a monopoly in order to dictate pricing in a particular market. For example, if the four companies were to make identical or near identical cars and agree to sell them all for the same price in, say California, but then sold them in Florida at a substantially cheaper price in order to undercut a fifth car maker who was not part of the group, then that would be a breach of anti-trust.

Another example would be where a "Widget Franchise" was selling widgets for a certain price nationwide, but then set up shop across the road from a Mom & Pop Widget Store (who are selling the same widgets), and sold them at a substantially lower price only in that shop and not in the rest of the country in order to undercut Mom & Pop and put them out of business.

NONE of this is happening here. These car makers are teaming up to make a better, more environmentally sound car.

Sounds like they teamed up to make a worse car.than what consumers would want.

4 different competitors meeting to coordinate their products sounds anti competitive. Like a cartel.

Whip 7th September 2019 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Checkmite (Post 12811346)
I don't think so.

I might be wrong about my analysis, but the Trump administration appears to be wanting to argue that if California sets higher anti-pollution standards than the rest of the country, it would be anti-competitive for companies to choose to make automobiles meeting that standard, since they will be able to sell their vehicles in California and other automakers who don't meet the standard will not. But this is incredibly absurd, it essentially argues any company that follows any government manufacturing regulation is being anti-competitive against other companies that would like to make a product but don't want to follow regulatory standards to do it.

This happens already. Even with power equipment. There are mower engines, for example, that can be sold in 49 states but not California.

Whip 7th September 2019 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12812096)
Sounds like they teamed up to make a worse car.than what consumers would want.

4 different competitors meeting to coordinate their products sounds anti competitive. Like a cartel.

Car performance with tighter emission controls now perform leaps and bounds better than anything from the 70s. And that's what consumers wanted.

BobTheCoward 7th September 2019 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whip (Post 12812112)
Car performance with tighter emission controls now perform leaps and bounds better than anything from the 70s. And that's what consumers wanted.

And that could be the conclusion of the DoJ.

But that does address that they conspired together.

JoeMorgue 7th September 2019 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 12811901)
Can anyone come up with a principle of the Republican Party that the Republican Party hasnít completely abandoned?

Because Iím drawing a blank.

Trolling the Democratic Party. It's been their only principle since roughly the late 90s.

Armitage72 7th September 2019 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whip (Post 12812109)
This happens already. Even with power equipment. There are mower engines, for example, that can be sold in 49 states but not California.


The company that I work for has products that we don't sell in California because we don't want to put the Proposition 65 warning on our labels or create one label for California and another label for everywhere else.

smartcooky 7th September 2019 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12812121)
And that could be the conclusion of the DoJ.

But that does address that they conspired together.

co-operating to make a better car is not "conspiring"

Puppycow 7th September 2019 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12811337)
Would it be antitrust if they did discuss it?

If they're only discussing emissions standards and not prices, I don't see how.

BobTheCoward 8th September 2019 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 12812337)
If they're only discussing emissions standards and not prices, I don't see how.

Is anti competition law restricted to price?

smartcooky 8th September 2019 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12812498)
Is anti competition law restricted to price?

No its not, but the fact is that what these car companies are doing does not breach any of the three anti trust laws.

The Sherman Anti-Trust Act (15 USC ß 1) is intended to prevent unreasonable "contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and "monopolization attempted monopolization or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Violations against the Sherman Anti-Trust Act can have severe consequences, with fines of up to $100 million for corporations and $1 million for individuals, as well as prison terms up to 10 years.

The Clayton Antitrust Act (15 USC ß 12) addresses specific practices that the Sherman Anti-Trust Act may not address. According to the FTC, these include preventing mergers and acquisitions that may "substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly," preventing discriminatory prices, services and allowances in dealings between merchants, requiring large firms to notify the government of possible mergers and acquisitions, and imbuing private parties with the right to sue for triple damages when they have been harmed by conduct that violates the Sherman and Clayton acts, as well as allowing the victims to obtain court orders to prohibit further future transgressions..

The Federal Trade Commission Act (15 USC ß 41) bans "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." According to the Supreme Court, violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act also violate the Federal Trade Commission Act. Therefore, even though the FTC cannot technically enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act against violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...antitrust-laws

The car companies concerned have agreed between them to manufacture cars to a higher emissions standard than the Federal Government requires - i.e. to make more environmentally sound cars. They have agreed not to undercut each other by making cheap, environmentally unsound cars. That is well within the bounds of the Law and within their legal rights. What they can't to is act as a group to prevent other car manufacturers from making and selling cheap cars, and they have not done that.

Trump has ordered his lap dog, Bill Barr, to start an investigation because he has got his panties in a bunch over California defying his anti-ecology, climate change-denying policies.

Norman Alexander 8th September 2019 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12812821)
Trump has ordered his lap dog, Bill Barr, to start an investigation because he has got his panties in a bunch over California defying his anti-ecology, climate change-denying policies.

<trumpbrain>
Trump has his (amazing, generous) panties in a bunch because these car companies have defied the express wishes of the King of the USA, and they must be punished with evil punishments. So Sir Brutus the villainous Sheriff has been told to make a cunning plan to make them unpopular on TV, the ultimate threat.
</trumpbrain>

Minoosh 8th September 2019 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12812121)
And that could be the conclusion of the DoJ.

But that does address that they conspired together.

If that is the case, how could there ever be such a thing as an "industry standard"?

This is bogus. The four carmakers are simply taking advantage of their private property rights. They want to be able to sell cars in California. They don't have anything like a monopoly going on. Are they supposed to retool? Write off California as a customer?

If one company made this business decision independently and others followed suit there doesn't have to be any collusion involved.

This is pure harassment.

ETA: But I'm happy to see this DoJ wasting resources on stupid investigations.

BobTheCoward 8th September 2019 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minoosh (Post 12812860)
If that is the case, how could there ever be such a thing as an "industry standard"?

.

Maybe we find out there can't be

Minoosh 8th September 2019 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12812871)
Maybe we find out there can't be

I doubt if there's going to be an investigation at all. Trump just like to announce things, after which he loses interest.

And there's no doubt in my mind this directive came from Trump. He'll do anything just to stick it to California.

Cavemonster 8th September 2019 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith (Post 12811202)
Even they know that "state's rights" is just fig leaf for slavery and racial discrimination.

That is horrendously unfair.

It also covers oppressing gay people, and squashing women's reproductive choices.

smartcooky 8th September 2019 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12812871)
Maybe we find out there can't be

Right.

At first, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you were (for once) entering into a genuine debate. Silly me.

This post makes it clear that you are not, and that you are simply trying to "Bob" yet another thread.

I am no longer going to engage with you in this thread.

BobTheCoward 8th September 2019 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12813036)
Right.

At first, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you were (for once) entering into a genuine debate. Silly me.

This post makes it clear that you are not, and that you are simply trying to "Bob" yet another thread.

I am no longer going to engage with you in this thread.

It was sarcasm

Whip 8th September 2019 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12813036)
Right.

At first, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you were (for once) entering into a genuine debate. Silly me.

This post makes it clear that you are not, and that you are simply trying to "Bob" yet another thread.

I am no longer going to engage with you in this thread.

lol. yeah.....I was right there next to you.

JoeMorgue 8th September 2019 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12813046)
It was sarcasm

Oh sod off at high speed in any possible direction.

Dr. Keith 10th September 2019 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armitage72 (Post 12812255)
The company that I work for has products that we don't sell in California because we don't want to put the Proposition 65 warning on our labels or create one label for California and another label for everywhere else.

There are distribution centers that will add the additional labels for a pittance. Over labeling is quite common for Prop 65, though the new safe harbor makes it a bit harder.

Dr. Keith 10th September 2019 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavemonster (Post 12812889)
That is horrendously unfair.

It also covers oppressing gay people, and squashing women's reproductive choices.

Mea culpa. Thank you for the appropriate correction.

Dr. Keith 10th September 2019 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 12813036)
At first, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I thought you were (for once) entering into a genuine debate.

If you keep that up my list gets longer, that's all I'm saying.

Dr. Keith 10th September 2019 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Checkmite (Post 12811346)
I don't think so.

I might be wrong about my analysis, but the Trump administration appears to be wanting to argue that if California sets higher anti-pollution standards than the rest of the country, it would be anti-competitive for companies to choose to make automobiles meeting that standard, since they will be able to sell their vehicles in California and other automakers who don't meet the standard will not. But this is incredibly absurd, it essentially argues any company that follows any government manufacturing regulation is being anti-competitive against other companies that would like to make a product but don't want to follow regulatory standards to do it.

He is mad about that, but I don't think that is the anti-trust claim they are making. The anti-trust claims is that they are colluding by all agreeing to meet the California standards thus depriving the market of products that the market wants and therefore . . . sorry, I can't even ******** this. I have no idea how an attorney works for Trump.

Two problems:

1. The carmakers want the stricter standards in the US because that makes it easier to platform share with products they develop for the rest of the world.

2. There are several states that follow the California standards, so it isn't like they could just have a 49 state car and a Cali version as they once did. This isn't Prop65 where the rest of the country is like "nope don't want that BS." This is a set of rules other states have adopted.

Stacyhs 10th September 2019 04:59 PM

All of you are forgetting on thing: Trump is an environmentalist. People don't know that.

PhantomWolf 11th September 2019 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12815738)
All of you are forgetting on thing: Trump is an environmentalist. People don't know that.

He's the best environmentalist ever, he knows so much move about the environment that all of the environmental scientists, just like he knows more about the weather than any meteorologist!

Belz... 11th September 2019 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Checkmite (Post 12811346)
I don't think so.

I might be wrong about my analysis, but the Trump administration appears to be wanting to argue that if California sets higher anti-pollution standards than the rest of the country, it would be anti-competitive for companies to choose to make automobiles meeting that standard, since they will be able to sell their vehicles in California and other automakers who don't meet the standard will not. But this is incredibly absurd, it essentially argues any company that follows any government manufacturing regulation is being anti-competitive against other companies that would like to make a product but don't want to follow regulatory standards to do it.

Yeah, let's just say that the GOP have been pretty clear that the rules only apply when it's beneficial to them.

Belz... 11th September 2019 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 12812124)
Trolling the Democratic Party. It's been their only principle since roughly the late 90s.

In that case the GOP no longer serves any purpose.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.