The American Rationale For Antitrust Laws: Why Do Multi-National Companies-MNC's Hate & Lobby Against American Antitrust Laws

 

The blessing of the Lord makes rich & toil adds nothing to it. Proverbs 10:22

Now we all know, there are five types of mergers; aka, acquisitions in the United States of America. For example, a merger or acquisition involves transferring of a majority of a firms/company’s shares to a new owner(s). 

1. HORIZONTAL: a horizontal merger is a merger between two companies in the same industry. This type of merger involves two businesses that offer the same products or services to the same kinds of customers. With a horizontal merger, the two businesses are direct competitors of one another.

2. VERTICAL: A vertical merger occurs when two companies that are in the same industry but at different points in the supply chain merge operations. Companies in a vertical merger produce different products or services along the supply chain and work toward producing one final product.

According to mergers and acquisitions data, vertical mergers are typically done to reduce costs, improve logistics, and improve operating efficiencywhich can be good for both firms!

For example, a good vertical merger would be an auto parts industry merging with a company that supplies raw materials for auto parts. The auto industry as a whole benefits too.

3. CONCENTRIC: An concentric, or congeneric or product-extension, merger is when two companies merge that are in the same market but sell different, yet related products or services. This type of merger allows the companies to group together their products or services and access a larger set of consumers. With a concentric merger, a company merges with another company that sells products or services to the same customers. Because they sell different products, they are indirect competitors.

 

These types of mergers tend to drive new business because they become a one-stop shop for customers. By offering more of the products or services both businesses’ customers are looking for, they can attract more consumers.

An example of a concentric merger would be if a family owned catering company merged with a another family owned party planning company. Both of these family owned companies are in the same industry; but both offer different services and/or offerings, and both have related products or services.

4. CONGLOMERATE: An conglomerate merge or acquistionr occurs when two or more companies in different industries or geographic locations come together to broaden their range of services and products.

With a conglomerate merger, the companies involved engage in completely unrelated business activities. For example, one may be a software company and the other may be a clothing business. Again, thesee are two types of conglomerate mergers:

1. Pure: Involves two companies that have nothing in common and no similar offerings.

2. Mixed: Companies are looking to expand their offerings or market reach by joining with another company.

• A business may take part in a conglomerate merger to reach a wider market and expand its customer base.

• From a governmental perspective, Mr. Clayborn believes that ‘COMGLOMERATE’ are the most dangerous for American citizens and for the American antitrust system to function in balance and harmony.

For example, when a ethical comglomerte mergers with a unethical conglomerate-this merger stains the ethical firms reputation. For example, the German Pfizer has a long history of repeated federal and federal appellate lawsuits against them making bad and dangerous dangerous drugs. What if, Pfizer merged with a American defense and/or national security company. And this other company is a foreign German company. Remember, history repeats itself, if the lessons are not learned; then Americao will repeat its curse. The American Anglo-Saxon of the rule of law does not equate with a Germanic idealogy of white supremacy idealoty; aka, do what we want to do!

5. MARKET EXTENSTION: A market-extension merger is a merger between companies in different markets that sell similar things. With this type of merger, companies sell the same or similar products or service but compete in different markets.

Companies that choose the market-extension merger route are typically looking to gain access to a bigger market and client base.

• A merger between companies in different markets that sell similar products or services.

America’s Key Antitrust Statute The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890.

Around 1890, the US Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act—the nation’s first antitrust statute—in 1890 in response to concerns about the power of large “trusts” like U.S. Steel and Standard Oil. 

The Sherman Act contains two main substantive provisions that prohibit agreements in restraint of trade and monopolization, respectively. These provisions are enforced by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and private plaintiffs. Section 1: Agreements in Restraint of Trade. Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits “[e]very contract, combination . . . , or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce.” Despite this broad language, the Supreme Court has relied on the statute’s common law background to conclude that Section 1’s prohibition applies only to agreements that unreasonably restrict economic competition. 

In applying this standard, the Court has identified certain categories of behavior as categorically unreasonable and therefore per se unlawful. However, the Court analyzes most Section 1 claims under a standard commonly known as the “Rule of Reason”—a totality-ofthe-circumstances approach that asks whether a challeng

The worlds most dangerous company in the world and the world’s number 

Drug-maker is, the German drug cartel Pfizer-who merged with Warner-Lambert would be considered a COMGOMERATE MERGER. A legal drug cartel merging with a defense and/or national security firm; or contractor for weapons of destruction mixed with weapons of mass propaganda. THIS IS ILEGAL AS FAR AS VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL MERGERS UNDER U.S. FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST LAWS!

• Vertical mergers raise different antitrust concerns than horizontal mergers. 

The American Rationale For Antitrust Laws.

The American idealogy for contemporary antitrust doctrine is based on the idea that economic competition optimizes the allocation of scarce resources by inducing firms to adopt the most efficient production methods and price their products at or near their costs of production. These virtues of competition are often illustrated with the stylized hypothetical of a “perfectly competitive” market—that is, a market with homogenous products, many well-informed buyers and sellers, low entry barriers, and low transaction costs. In such a market, firms must price their products at their costs of production in order to avoid losing their customers to competitors.

According to standard justifications for antitrust, the existence of significant market power harms both consumers and society as a whole. A firm’s exercise of market power harms consumers when it requires them to pay higher prices for goods and services than they would pay in a competitive market. And a firm’s exercise of market power harms society as a whole by reducing output (i.e., when prices rise, quantity demanded falls) and eliminating value that would have been enjoyed in a competitive market. Contemporary antitrust doctrine is focused on preventing these harms by prohibiting anticompetitive conduct and mergers that enable firms to exercise market power.  

• The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 In addition to prohibiting a number of practices that are independently unlawful under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 bars certain forms of price discrimination.

Section 2: Price Discrimination. Section 2 of the Clayton Act (as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936) prohibits certain forms of price discrimination, making it unlawful for a seller to charge buyers different prices for commodities of “like grade and quality” when such discrimination is likely to injure competition. Under the Robinson-Patman Act, competitive injury can consist of “primary line” or “secondary line” injury. Primary line injury occurs when a firm’s competitors are harmed by its price discrimination (i.e., where a firm sells a commodity at below-cost prices in certain regions in order to eliminate competitors while recouping its losses in other regions). 

By contrast, secondary line injury occurs when a firm’s disfavored customers are harmed by its price discrimination (i.e., where a disfavored customer is placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to a price-discriminating firm’s favored customers). While the Robinson-Patman Act remains good law, many commentators have advocated its repeal, arguing that its compliance costs outweigh the limited instances in which the act prohibits truly anticompetitive conduct. 

These criticisms have appeared to have persuaded a few federal antitrust regulators, as the DOJ no longer enforces the act’s price-discrimination provisions and the FTC does so only rarely. However, despite this decline in government enforcement, private plaintiffs retain the ability to bring actions under Robinson-Patman. 

• Section 7: Mergers. Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers that are likely to harm competition. Section 7 applies to both “horizontal” mergers between competitors and “vertical” mergers between companies that operate at different stages in a distribution chain. Horizontal merger analysis generally requires courts and regulators to define a relevant antitrust market in order to assess whether a merger will harm competition. In brief, a properly defined market includes the relevant product and its substitutes—that is, other products that are “reasonably interchangeable” with the relevant product. 

Specifically, two products likely compete in the same market if a “hypothetical monopolist” of one product—that is, a hypothetical firm that is the only seller of that product— would be unable to profitably raise prices because of the sales it would lose to sellers of the other product. For example, if a “hypothetical monopolist” selling coffee would be unable to profitably raise its prices because of the sales it would lose to tea companies, then coffee and tea likely compete in the same market. But if sellers of tea and other beverages do not discipline coffee sellers in this fashion, coffee may represent its own distinct antitrust market. 

Once a market is defined according to these general principles, courts and regulators typically evaluate the merged firm’s market share and the relevant market’s concentration post-merger. If these inquiries and other factors suggest that a merger would harm competition (e.g., by facilitating collusion or allowing the merged firm to profitably raise prices), the DOJ or the FTC may sue to block the merger. Proponents of the merger may contest the government’s allegations by arguing that powerful buyers or new entrants are likely to discipline its exercise of market power, or by identifying merger-specific efficiencies that the combined company will realize and pass on to customers. 

• Vertical mergers raise different antitrust concerns than horizontal mergers. 

While vertical mergers are scrutinized less aggressively than horizontal mergers, they may raise competition concerns when a firm with significant power in one market (e.g., widget manufacturing) enters another market (e.g., widget retailing). Such mergers may be anticompetitive in cases where the resulting vertical integration would raise entry barriers in either market or deny competitors access to a needed input or distribution channel.

The Truth versus the Reality of Big-Pharma Propaganda

For the last decade the US Congress and has went after Big-Tech global firms in the name of protecting the United States Intellectual Property. However, it has been foreign governments who have attacked American pharma firms directly and indirectly; by way of their pharmaceutical companies; aka, drug cartels who have purchased small American pharmaceutical companies. 

The biggest foreign competitors to American drug independence are Germany, Australia and Great Britian. Was these global attacks on American pharmaceutical companies a foreign attack on the American medical industry. Yes, yes and yes. 

• ‘Subtle warfare is still warfare.” - Mr. Eric R. Clayborn wisdom by way of the perfect and complete government. The Bible!

The American lack of medical supplies and vaccine innovation-proved that the smaller American pharma fims were more innovative and honor the American public and private medical systems; such as the Veterans Administraton-VA, Medicare, Medicaid and HHS Public Aid supported systems. These layers of American medical support are very vital to millions and millions of Americans. The foreign and global firms are only concerned about market shares and retained earnings for their share holders and board members. Shouldn’t the American people be considered as shareholders and the U.S. Congress-it’s board members. 

The global drug cartel and big pharma Pfizer Inc won U.S. and Canadian antitrust approval to buy a smaller drug rival Wyeth. This global pharma deal will complete a $66 billion deal which will make this the world's largest drugmaker. In exchange, the big-pharma deal with soften the blow when Pfizer loses U.S. patent protection for its $11 billion a year cholesterol medicine Lipitor in 2011 by adding Wyeth’s lucrative vaccines and injectable biologic medicines.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission said the potential harm of the deal, as originally structured, was confined to animal health products.

• “The commission concluded that the transaction does not raise anticompetitive concerns in any human health product markets,” the FTC said in a statement.

The Pharma Drug Cartels evolution into medicines ‘weapons’ of mass destruction and their COVID-19 vaccines, shots, boosters; and children pills have become our Modern-day weapons of mass propagranda. 

GOVERNMENTAL WARFARE: Before Nations Go To War, Both Nations Gather Critical Information On The Other Nation’s Military Readness

The Most Dangerous Mulit-National-MNC company in the wolrd. The German Pfizer, Warner-Lambert Agree to $90 Billion Merger in the late 2000’s. Now, the German global firm has marketed and launched their global agenda. Weapons of Mass Propaganda.  

Pfizer, Warner-Lambert Agree to $90 Billion Merger-Pfizer Inc; and Warner-Lambert Co. NJ. Aannounced today that they have entered into a definitive merger agreement around Febuary 7, 2000. 

Works Cite & Websites Visited

Proverbs 10:22 NRSVUE - - Bible Gateway, www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+10:22&version=NRSVUE.

Jung, Emily H., et al. “Do Large Pharma Companies Provide Drug Development Innovation? Our Analysis Says No.” STAT, 12 Dec. 2019, www.statnews.com/2019/12/10/large-pharma-companies-provide-little-new-drug-development-innovation/.

“Mergers & Acquisitions in Foodtech Is on the Rise. Here's What You Need to Know.” FoodHack, foodhack.global/articles/mergers-and-acquisitions-in-foodtech.

“Pfizer Wins U.S. Antitrust Approval to Buy Wyeth.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 14 Oct. 2009, www.reuters.com/article/us-wyeth-pfizer-antitrust-idUKTRE59D47O20091014.

Staff, the Premerger Notification Office, and This blog is a collaboration between CTO and DPIP staff and the AI Strategy team. “Competitive Effects.” Federal Trade Commission, 4 Mar. 2022, www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/mergers/competitive-effects.

Sykes, Jay B. Antitrust Law: An Introduction, webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TmCZoIKCXqYJ:fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11234.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us.

“Unlocking Antitrust: Evaluating Vertical Mergers.” U.S. Chamber of Commerce, www.uschamber.com/regulations/unlocking-antitrust-evaluating-vertical-mergers#:~:text=Unlike horizontal mergers, which involve,not compete against each other.

“What Are the Different Types of Mergers?: 5 Mergers to Keep in Mind.” Patriot Software, 25 Jan. 2021, www.patriotsoftware.com/blog/accounting/types-of-mergers/.