Author: Robert Wilking

Hello, I have been in the work world since 1980. Some companies I worked for were either independent or locally owned that no longer exist. Over the same time I have read and heard of stories of people who were employees of a company that was once independent, was then acquired by an outside larger firm and the company culture changed. In my opinion, consolidation by national and international firms has contributed to both the income divide in our nation and poor products/services expressed by customers. Local governments and businesses have also suffered as it becomes harder to deal with problems with management located hundreds of miles away or across oceans. My purpose for this blog site is to inform the public about the consequences of such consolidation and to offer solutions to change the situation. I am not a business executive nor government official. I am not registered to a specific political party. I also provide links to articles that I read in order to back up my statements. I also write on other issues that inspire me for a comment. However, the nation’s economy is my main focus. Thank you.

Budget Deficit:  How Big Tech Can Help

Make Big Tech Help Fund the Three Percent Solution

Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times in a recent DealBook post recently highlighted activity by Ray Dalio.  He reports Mr. Dalio, Chief Investment Officer of Bridgewater Associates, has been making the rounds in Washington talking about the budget deficit.

RAY DALIO

Dalio has been discussing what he calls the “Three Percent Solution.”  Simply put, the goal is to reduce the deficit to Gross Domestic Product (GPR) ratio to 3%.  This can be done by 1) cutting spending, 2) raising tax revenue and 3) lowering interest rates.

Sorkin adds, “A fiscally responsible budget would ease volatility in the bond market. Any economic slowdown caused by reduced spending could be offset by lower interest rates, which is what a heavily indebted nation needs most.”

He follows by saying “All three levers need to work in tandem.”

ANALYSIS

In my opinion, the three percent solution idea makes sense.

Spending by Congress is something I cannot control, nor do I have any quick fix ways to do this.

SOLUTION

There is an idea to raise revenue: place an acquisition tax on the Big Tech firms (Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook) for every company they have acquired. 

Since they have all have over 80 acquisitions each, why not tax them on it, per acquisition, and make them pay for creating this situation.  Make it an annual tax so they would pay it every year. 

Big Tech seems to be averse to paying fines, both here in the United States and in Europe.  They seem to complain more about being broken up.  Well, if federal efforts at breaking them up do not work, why not at least profit from the status quo?

It would then need to be determined how much per acquisition they would have to pay.  It could also be applied to companies in other industries such as Big Pharma.  It would be based on the number of acquisitions made at the current moment.  It could also apply to future acquisitions.  It could also be graded, such as paying a higher rate the larger number of acquisitions or the price.  The more the merrier.

Such a tax, no matter how widespread, is not a “solution” to the deficit problem.  But it would be additional source of revenue.  Yes it is a tax increase.  However, it is not an income tax increase to the average citizen. 

But what about if Big Tech threatens to raise prices to offset this tax?  Well, to paraphrase President Trump:

“Make them eat it.”

Tariffs: That Giant Sucking Sound

Use tariffs to put pressure on companies to raise wages of their overseas workers.

The 1992 Presidential debate had three candidates on stage, President George Bush, Democratic challenger Bill Clinton, and independent Ross Perot.  In one debate questions were allowed from the audience.  At the time the Bush administration was negotiating with the leaders of Mexico and Canada with what came known as the North American Free Trade Agreement.  It was signed in 1992 and implemented in 1994.  Mr. Perot was personally asked about how he would keep jobs here in the United States.  He said, “We have got to stop sending jobs overseas.” 

“if you don’t care about anything but making money there will be a giant sucking sound going south.”

Ross Perot

Perot then presented a scenario of a domestic manufacturer facing paying $12-14 /hour, with health care versus the same job in Mexico paying $1 /hour with no benefits.  Click here to watch the clip.

He addressed business owners saying, “if you don’t care about anything but making money there will be a giant sucking sound going south.”

The Social Contract

The Wharton School of Business recently published an article by Stefano Puntoni titled “Outsourcing vs. Offshoring: Why Consumers Push Back on Jobs Sent Abroad.”

In it Puntoni states that employees had traditionally believed firms should support the ‘Social Contract.”

“When a company cuts domestic jobs and moves them overseas, consumers often view it as a betrayal of that norm — even if the move makes business sense on paper.”

He added that employees have a more negative view of layoffs due to offshoring than by consolidation, automation or internal restructuring.

“A U.S.-based firm laying off workers in Illinois and opening a facility in Vietnam will likely face more reputational fallout than a Swiss multinational doing the same — even if both decisions are rooted in the same logic of cost control.”

Analysis

Companies have closed shops here and located overseas primarily for one reason: cheap labor. Throughout the decades companies have sought out ways to reduce labor costs.

President Trump has stated his tariffs are in place mainly to pressure companies to relocate to the United States.  So far I have not read of any announcement from Apple or any other manufacturer planning to do this.  Have you? 

In addition, I have read of American companies with domestic operations being hurt by tariffs because parts or supplies coming from overseas.

Solution

What should be done is what Mr. Perot referenced in the 1992 debate:  raise the wages of overseas employees so they are at or closer to parity with American wages.  This also includes benefits.  Use tariffs just to put pressure on companies to improve the wages of their overseas workers.  Do not use the fact that they are technically employed by someone else there as a cover for not doing it.

This is especially with American companies with operations in China.  China is a communist country.  It is technically a worker’s state with doing what is best for the working class and peasants.  Where are the independent unions? What is a communist country doing with millionaires?  Whatever happened to the Marxist wing of the Chinese Communist Party?   Seems hypocritical, doesn’t it?  But these are questions to deal with another day.

The Conflict in Gaza:  The Need for a Moral Compass

A voice to rally Palestinians and speak to the international community

Reports coming out of Gaza are disturbing to me.  It pains me to read/hear that children are not only displaced but are starving or on the brink of starvation.  It also pains me that hostages are still being held, when Israeli citizens have been protesting to their government to pursue their release. 

So where do we look for a future?

In my opinion I still believe in the two-state solution.  Only a few who not only believe in it but even talk about it.  I believe it is the only practical goal for everyone in the region.  If you don’t agree, then, what is the alternative? However, as war rages on it is only microscopic baby steps towards this goal is possibly real at this point.

A Palestinian State

The pursuit of a Palestinian state is something I sympathize with.  One thing that I have heard from right-wing Israeli settlers is that the land of Judea and Samaria was given to the Jewish people by God.  What these same people don’t point out is that the ancient Israelis were surrounded by idol worshippers of Baal, Moloch etc.  God was constantly criticizing His Chosen People for straying towards the golden calf.  Having no other gods before me was written in the very first commandment.  The Palestinians of today also worship God—mostly Muslim, some Christian.  They see themselves as descendants of Ismael—Abraham’s first born.  God also promised the descendants of Ismael a mighty nation.  No one else points this out.

What is Needed

Hamas has rockets.  Israel has more and bigger rockets as well as tanks.  The Palestinians do not have an army.  So how do they realistically pursue this nation-state? 

What the Palestinians lack is their equivalent of a Martin Luther King, Jr.  Rev. King was a moral compass that guided his people and others.  A modern-day Moses.  He used a strategy of non-violence, combined with persuasion represented in speeches and letters, to recruit allies outside of the movement and overcome resistance to superior manpower.  I have yet to see anyone from the Palestinian ranks step up to this role.  Hamas?  Militants may like it that they “stick it to Israel” with bombing raids, but they are morally bankrupt and hide behind their rockets (and even their citizens).  Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen)?  He has been relatively silent since the Hamas raid.  I remember Hamas being voted into the majority in Gaza years ago because of accusations of corruption by the Palestinian Authority.  Palestinians on the West Bank have grumbled about the level of corruption there too. 

A Lone Voice

There is one voice that recently caught my attention.

In the December 2024 issue of The Atlantic, Samer Sinijlawi wrote the op-ed, “How To Build A Palestinian State.”  Sinijlawi is described as a Palestinian political activist and founding chair of the Jerusalem Development Fund.  He calls for a complete change of leadership.  Israelis should vote out Benjamin Netanyahu.  He argues that Palestinians want change.  A significant number of them want the Hamas dictatorship out.  Those on the West Bank also want Abbas out.  “As brutal and oppressive as the Hamas regime has been, the people of Gaza don’t want to see Hamas replaced with Abbas,” he writes.

Check his article out.  Click here to get a link to it.

Analysis

So where do we go from here?

I have no problem with Jewish people living in the area some call Judea and Samaria.  I just do not believe that ONLY Jewish people can and should live there.  Property being bought and sold in normal real estate transactions. In a two-state solution you may have Palestinians living in Israel and Jews living in Palestine.  That scenario may bring out a certain stability, reducing terror attacks. It may also bring about a great migration and separation as with India and Pakistan.  Whether Sinijlawi or some other Palestinian arises to be the moral compass for his/her people (and the people of the entire region) is up to the Palestinians to decide.  The alternative seems to be more attacks, revenge and counter-revenge. 

God heard the cries of the Israelites in Egypt and from them came Moses.  I feel sad for the peaceful-loving people of the region who want an end to the violence on both sides.  I also feel sad that no one will either read this or consider it worth sharing. 

Immigration: Back to the Future

Have refugees come by ship. It was once done, and it worked

Why can’t today’s refugees enter by ship like they did 140 years ago?

The Present

The border crisis along the Rio Grande is a definite problem for the United States.  I give credit to Donald Trump for bringing the issue to the forefront at a time when no one else did.  However, Mr. Trump’s main focus/concern is squarely on the quality of the people coming in.  He considers them criminals and has publicly said so.  Some may be, but the majority are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children.  IMO, if there are murderers and thugs slipping through it is due both to the large number of people crossing and the process involved. 

The search for a better process in the future has me searching 140 years ago in our nation’s past.

The Past

In the 1880s we also had refugees pouring into our country.  Like the people at the border today, these were people not necessarily wanting to become Americans but were people looking to mostly escape—poverty, oppression, crime—and saw America as the best place to go.

Unlike the refugees of today, these people came from Western and Eastern Europe and by ship.  Early on many arrived at Castle Garden, formerly known as Castle Clinton, at the southern tip of Manhattan.  The number of people coming in overwhelmed this location, so land was acquired nearby at a former munitions site called Ellis Island. 

According to the History Channel website, from 1900 to 1914—the peak years of Ellis Island’s operation—an average of 1,900 people passed through the immigration station every day. Most successfully passed through in a matter of hours, but others could be detained for days.  On April 17, 1907, an all-time daily high of 11,747 immigrants received was reached; that year, Ellis Island experiences its highest number of immigrants received in a single year, with 1,004,756 arrivals.

Learning from experience, the Immigration department later began to prep refugees at the point of departure rather than at the point of entry.  This both sped up the process at Ellis Island and for those who were rejected, they did not have to be shipped back. 

Solution

Why can’t today’s refugees enter by ship in the Gulf of Mexico? They have been coming through the southern borders for decades. Their numbers do not appear to substantially be dropping anytime soon.  An arrangement could be made with Mexico to allow processing and ships to depart.  There are deep water ports in Houston, New Orleans, Mobile, Miami to provide entry.  In fact, New Orleans was also used as a destination port in the late 1800s. The U.S. could set up several processing stations so no one city receives them all.  This would allow the United States to take control of the process instead of refugees dictating to us how they enter. 

If an orderly process was set up, we could go ahead and seal the southern border.  Anyone then crossing the Rio Grande and slipping through would then be immediately subject to arrest and deportation, regardless of the reason for coming. Why hasn’t anyone at least looked into the feasibility of this idea?  As of today, no one has come up with any other, have they?  If rerouting their destination is a major inconvenience for the refugees, then so be it.  Those illegals already here could go through, but would have to find a way to get to the processing station.

Having refugees arrive by ship isn’t some made-up scheme; it was actually done a century ago—and it worked.  I don’t see any reason why it should not at least be seriously explored, if not implemented.

This isn’t a rant, but a look at a possible solution without demeaning anyone. If you have taken the time to read this and think it is worth exploring, share it with others.

Government Consolidation May Not Be a Bad Objective

Proposal would bring anti-trust action under Justice Department

In the May 1 edition of the Washington Post, writers Julian Mark and Will Oremus wrote of a proposal by House Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) to move anti-trust pursuits solely under the Justice Department. 

Elon Musk has taken a Washington Chainsaw Massacre approach to reducing Federal departments.  I disagree with his premise that there is rampant “waste, fraud and abuse” throughout the Federal bureaucracy.  There may be duplication, turf wars, and actions in isolation of others which can and should be addressed. 

Complementary Goals

Mark and Oremus state that the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department may have complementary goals: 

“Proponents of Jordan’s proposal say that the dual antitrust roles of the FTC and the Justice Department have led to inefficiencies and turf wars, and that consolidating antitrust under the Justice Department would streamline enforcement. The two agencies, for example, have divided cases taking on large tech companies, with the FTC arguing in court to break up Meta as the Justice Department argues for breaking up Google.”

History

However, there is one major difference.

They state that historically the Federal Trade Commission was created in 1914, “as a result of dissatisfaction over limits the courts had placed on the Sherman Act, which until then had been enforced by the Justice Department.”   They add that the FTC possesses broader powers to go beyond simple anti-trust issues.  Also, the FTC does not have a direct line to the President, like the Justice Department does.  It is targeting this element of independence is why they feel the Republicans are moving in this direction. 

Analysis

I am not opposed to Federal government consolidation if it will tackle duplication, turf wars, or operations in isolation.  Consolidation in the Federal government can be a good thing.  Businesses consolidate locations to streamline operations and bring employees physically closer together.

IMO, in this case it may be better to explore having the anti-trust cases consolidated under the FTC instead of the Justice Department.  If the FTC has greater authority and has a successful track record, why not let them take it on solely? It would even give the potential monopolists an easier time figuring out how to plan their strategy. What do you think?

SKYDANCE-PARAMOUNT Merger – More than Just News

A chess match with big players and high stakes, but employees may suffer.

The proposed acquisition between Skydance and National Amusements Inc., the parent company of Paramount, is a boardroom chess match with multiple players and multiple outcomes.

Paramount is owned by the parent company National Amusement, of which Sheri Redstone owns a majority percentage of voting stock.  They operate such networks as BET, MTV, Nickelodeon and Paramount Films.  It is also the parent of the CBS television network, which includes CBS News.  Skydance was founded in 2010 by David Ellison.  Its claims to fame have been producing “Top Gun: Maverick” and “Mission Impossible—Ghost Protocol.”

THE DEAL

According to Cord Cutters website, here are the details of the deal:

The Skydance-Paramount deal, with an enterprise value pegged at $28 billion, promises a major shakeup in the media landscape. Skydance Media, LLC, valued at $4.75 billion in the merger, brings its production heft—think Mission: Impossible—to Paramount’s storied assets, including CBS and the Paramount film studio. National Amusements Inc. (NAI) shareholders, led by Redstone, will pocket $1.75 billion plus the assumption of NAI’s $650 million debt, totaling a $2.4 billion enterprise value. Paramount’s Class B common shareholders are set to receive $15 per share. Funding comes largely from the Ellison family—Oracle founder Larry Ellison is contributing $6 billion—alongside $2 billion from RedBird Capital Partners. An October filing clarified that Skydance CEO David Ellison, not Larry, will hold 100% of the family’s voting interests in the merged entity.

This merger was first proposed in 2024.  Talks originated, then were apparently cancelled by National Amusements, Inc. They resumed shortly thereafter.  By July, 2024 the current deal was presented. 

ROADBLOCKS

There have been several hurdles to overcome.  In February 2025, Paramount Global and Skydance Media, LLC, received approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The deal soon after received approval from the European Commission, saying it presented “no significant competition concerns within the European market.”

It also needs approval from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, which is still in play.  Here is where it gets interesting.  The FCC is currently headed by Brendan Carr, a recent Trump employee.  Trump has been pressuring acquiring companies to back off/do away with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs.  Paramount recently announced they were doing just that.  Mr. Trump had also filed a $20 Billion lawsuit against CBS News, claiming they edited an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris he claims was biased towards her and from him. 

To add to the drama, Bill Owens, Executive Producer of 60 Minutes abruptly resigned last week.  In The Last Minute segment of the April 27 broadcast of 60 Minutes, host Scott Pelley addressed his resignation.  Mr. Pelley summed up his message by saying, “Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires.”  There has been consolidation in the news media, along with the entertainment industry and the publishing industry.  This consolidation will be addressed in a later article.

ANALYSIS

Consolidation in the entertainment industry is not as “crucial” as it is, say, with health care, insurance, groceries, housing.  Indeed, there is competition with such companies as Netflix, Disney, Apple, Amazon, as well as network television, movies, theatre, concerts.  However, what all companies involved in consolidation have in common is that there are both employees and customers whose livelihood is impacted, in different ways.  Company working culture may significantly change for the worse.  Customers may be faced with poor/indifferent customer service or continually rising prices. 

SOLUTIONS

The proposed acquisition between Skydance and National Amusements Inc., the parent company of Paramount, is a boardroom chess match with multiple players and multiple outcomes.

Paramount seeks a buyer because it is hemorrhaging money, mainly due to cable cutters who are now streamers.  They were slow to adjust to changing market conditions.  They made some strategic mistakes.  If Paramount is sold, Shari Redstone will come out well, as do some owners in the aftermath of blunders.   If it is finally approved, the big continue to get bigger—in this case it would be Skydance Media, LLC.  If it fails, National Amusements Inc. may have to sell off assets or face bankruptcy sometime down the road. 

With all the drama, this would make for a good movie, wouldn’t it?  I doubt if people who lost their jobs or faced a negative company culture would ever see it.  What do you think?

Google Draws the Justice Department on Monopoly Chance Cards

Judge rules with the Justice Department on Google Advertising Practices

On Friday, April 17, 2025 a Judge ruled with the Justice Department on Google advertising practices.

United States District Judge Leonie Brinkema ruled in favor of the Justice Department on charges against Google involving creating a monopoly with publisher ad servers and ad exchange markets.  Judge Brinkema also ruled that Google did not create a monopoly in ad markets. 

An excerpt from her ruling is as follows:

With the benefit of a three-week bench trial and extensive post-trial filings, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to prove that there is a relevant market for open-web display advertiser ad networks, but have proven that Google has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power in the open-web display publisher ad server market and the open-web display ad exchange market, and has unlawfully tied its publisher ad server (DFP) and ad exchange (AdX) in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act.

Google has been previously pursued for having a monopoly with its Chrome browser, primarily by being a default browser in phones, tablets, and computers.  The Justice Department has asked Judge Amit Mehta to divest Chrome from the parent company. 

ANALYSIS

I do not place ads with Google so it is harder for someone like me to determine if there is a true monopoly in this case.

As for Chrome, if competition with other browsers is the goal, this could be worked out without divesting something which they themselves created.

A stealth way Google, as a whole, operates a monopoly is through its acquisitions.  Google purchases companies that they could simply work with as a customer or create a partnership project.  By going the route of purchasing a company they prevent that company working for a rival or working with a third party against Google’s interests.  This is a higher priority over their argument that their company benefits from the acquisition

SOLUTIONS

Judge Brinkema ruled with the Justice Department on Google Advertising Practices on two of three charges.  Now the Judge will decide what action to take against Google.  In my opinion, if the goal is to create more competition, what is needed is for ad customers to have not only choices available but also be consciously aware of the choices and be allowed to select options.

As for the Chrome browser, an alternative to divesting would be to allow device owners to pre-select a browser from a list with brief descriptions of each.  Moving away from having the browser both pre-determined and nearly impossible to replace would be in the best interest of consumers. 

As for the monopoly with its acquisitions, here is a list of companies acquired by Google.  Look at the names, focus on what they do, and determine for yourself whether markets would be better off if these companies were once again independent and free to pursue their own customers. 

Zuckerberg May Have Meta’s Match

Meta may have tried to neutralize a potential competitor

META

The Federal Trade Commission is beginning an anti-trust suit against Meta.  This time it involves its owning What’s App and Instagram.  Their argument is a monopoly exists with owning these acquisitions, they wanted to neutralize a potential competitor, and they should be spun off.

BACKGROUND

A report on National Public Radio gives a background of the government’s case against Meta:

“The government contends that a “buy or bury” strategy propelled Meta’s acquisitions, leading Meta to gobble up competitors it viewed as threats, or to squash the rivals out of business altogether.”

It adds that an internal Meta email says they purchased Instagram to “neutralize a potential competitor” and the FTC believes this is against federal law.

The report says that Meta will summarize its argument that it is being punished for being innovative and aggressive, in other words…. successful.

According to Wikipedia, Meta/Facebook has acquired 91 companies, including What’s App and Instagram.  They have also acquired an interesting company—Onavo.  Onavo was an Israeli company in business to acquire and analyze data on a client’s competitors.  Facebook has apparently used this to track successful startups for acquisition.  The website www.onavo.com has a Facebook message that says something has gone wrong.  Facebook changed it to Facebook Israel, which promotes travel to Israel.  It has also apparently deleted numerous posts about Palestinians. 

In 2010 Facebook posted a video available on YouTube.  In it Mark Zuckerberg talks about the theory behind Facebook acquisitions.  He says that Facebook, up until then, had acquired companies not to keep the company but to acquire the talent behind it.  In other words, the owners become employees (once again) and the startup disappears.  The official line is that this is growth to them.  However, it is entirely possible to acquire good talent through direct hire, including through employee search, instead of going the acquisition route.

WHAT’S APP

According to Wikipedia What’s App was founded in 2009 by two individuals, Brian Acton and Jan Koun, previously with Yahoo! They received venture capital backing.  They sold the company to Facebook in 2014.  Acton left What’s App in 2017 over disagreements with Facebook.  Later that year he founded the competing app Signal.  Koun left the following year, also with conflicting issues with Facebook. 

ANALYSIS

FACEBOOK

There is nothing wrong with companies like Facebook/Meta with being successful.  This is Meta’s argument.  However, the end does not justify the means in this case.  Defining success through innovation – that which you started yourself from scratch – is not the same as defining it via acquisition.  And if you have acquired 91 companies, that in and of itself should warrant charges of being a monopoly.  I am not sure if people in the FTC under the Trump administration have a true anti-trust focus.  Trump supporters seem to be focused more on going after the social media apps more for suppressing freedom of speech.

SOLUTION

Breaking up the acquisitions and returning them to independent status is, IMO, a good solution.  This would return them to a position again of charting their own course. Meta will present their arguments, and some may have some weight.  It really comes down to balancing the arguments and determining which has a greater priority. 

The FTC’s argument is that Meta seeks to neutralize a potential competitor.  If judicial decisions like this fail in the courts, federal law would need to be strengthened to make the anti-trust arguments more airtight.  The law, for federal judges to agree, should be written such that it promotes what is in the best interest of the country as a whole, and not one just for individual business.

Some Hospitals are Dying as well as their Patients – Here’s Why

Private Equity’s track record with acquisitions should be basis for anti-trust

Hospital in Financial Distress

The impact of private equity’s expansion into healthcare is important.

On April 9-10 the PBS NewsHour broadcast a two part report on the effect private equity firms have had on the hospital industry. In this case it was on Cerberus Capital Management

“The impact of private equity’s expansion into health care” was the first installment:

Steward Health Care was once the largest private hospital system in the country. When the private equity-backed network filed for bankruptcy last year, it devastated providers and patients. Five of the eight Steward-owned hospitals in Massachusetts were salvaged by the state and two were shuttered.

Narrated by Paul Solman, it introduced the audience to Carney Hospital and Nashoba Valley Medical Center, both located in Massachusetts. They were purchased by Steward Heath Care, a subsidiary of Cerberus to manage its hospital purchases. They both closed after Steward acquired them, primarily due to not paying bills

People will come in for surgery. They couldn’t get the equipment. So they had to send them home. Sorry. It happened all the time. They owed so much money to creditors for equipment That they wouldn’t give them anymore.

Elaine Graves, Former Nurse at Carney Hospital

On the Steward Health Care website, they actually list the hospitals in Massachusetts and ones in Texas that were closed. It shows only one operating hospital, in Pennsylvania.

Steward Health Care filed for bankruptcy. Its CEO, Ralph de la Torre resigned after refusing to testify before Congress citing his Fifth Amendment right. A website entitled “The Truth About the Steward CEO” justifies both de la Torre’s actions and compensation.

The second episode, entitled “How private equity’s increasing role in health care is affecting patients,” has interview with experts who venture further into the effect decisions by private equity owners have on others than the company’s shareholders.

Make money, leave, make it however you want, make it for people who are invested in making money, and then you have got health care, which is all about delivering care to people. The cost is not the first thing. The delivery care is the first thing. And those two things do not mesh.

State Sen. Cindy Friedman (D-MA)

Solman provided some additional information on the history of private equity in the health care industry:

Steward bought 37 hospitals around the country.  More than 450 hospitals nationwide have been taken over by private equity, as well as nursing homes, emergency rooms, doctor’s practices, and air ambulances. One analysis finds that private equity investors spent more than $200 billion on health care acquisitions in 2021 alone, and $1 trillion over the past decade.

Analysis

The impact of private equity’s expansion into healthcare is important. Hospitals are struggling through the country. When an outside buyer comes in with the possibility of infusing cash to get the financial position in shape, it may look like a good deal. If the acquired company is going bankrupt, and the private equity firm is earning profits, something is definitely wrong with this scenario.

There are several issues involved here. One is, are all private equity firms bad or are there just some bad performers. Related to that is, are there any private equity firms that have actually done a good job at creating a sound financial footing that employees/customers are happy with? If so, what is their business model? Hospitals are in financial straits because of their never-ending battle with insurance companies and discrepancies over payments. In addition, this situation with Steward Health Care also involves such issues as privatization, financialization, stakeholders versus shareholders and issues with small towns.

The history of a private equity’s acquisitions should be a basis for anti-trust violation.  Acquisitions that have either failed or gone into debt and bankruptcy are sold off as a tax write-off, there is something wrong here.  This is not capitalism.   There should be a law that required the private equity company itself to assume the debt for its acquisitions.  More on this will be coming in the later months.

Independent doesn’t mean you have to go it alone

There are organizations that can help the independent thrive as independent

There are organizations that can help the independent thrive as independent

Are you an independent business?  Do you want to stay independent?  Does your independence feel threatened by those that are bigger than you?

One is the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).  Their motto is as follows:

We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan, member-driven organization that advocates on behalf of America’s small and independent business owners—both in Washington, D.C., and in all 50 state capitals.

They are a business advocate, gathering member opinions nationwide in order to steer policy priorities.  They focus on taxes, healthcare, labor and regulations.

They also focus on competitiveness, working that both government and massive businesses make it impossible for them to compete.  Their website has a video on their anti-trust advocacy.

Another institute is the Center for American Entrepreneurs.  Their motto is as follows:

CAE is a nonpartisan Washington, DC-based research, policy, and advocacy organization that works with policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels across the country to build a policy environment that promotes new business formation, survival, and growth. We pursue this objective through a wide range of activities

They work in advocacy through an Advisory Council and provide issue analysis through a Research Council.  They also have a Board of Directors made up of entrepreneurs, startup investors and startup mentors.

There is also the U.S. Small Business Administration.  Their historical role has been to approve small business loans.  However, they are also involved with small business disaster relief.  In addition, their website provides links to various issues with starting a business, including how to win federal contracts. 

In  December, 2016,  Forbes magazine published the article, “43 Reasons You Should Support Small And Independent Businesses.”  They are primarily quotes from small business owners themselves.  If you identify with one or more of these, you may want to start a campaign to promote them to the general public.  In addition, they offer an Entrepreneurs and Small Business newsletter you can sign up for.