Category: Issues – Economic

Alternatives to Using Amazon

Online shopping alternatives available while Amazon is pursued for monopolistic practices

Over the last three decades the retail side of Amazon has grown to where you can buy almost anything through them.  I have bought stuff through them and probably so have you.  While this one-stop shopping may be convenient for customers, it has the added effect of creating a monopoly—posing problems for smaller retailers, communities and even Amazon employees. 

Legal Challenge to Amazon

Small Business Rising, an online support organization for small businesses, is currently seeking signatures by small business owners/management for a petition to support an effort to reign in the breadth and depth of Amazon’s influence. 

Posted in May, 2026, on the website they state:

We’ve seen Amazon use their influence to skirt accountability before. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity — we must show our support for this lawsuit and trial to discourage the FTC and states from backing down — either through settlement or dropping the case. Don’t let Amazon get away with a slap on the wrist.

Their effort stems from the Federal Trade Commission September 2023 lawsuit accusing Amazon with monopolistic practices.

The FTC position on its website begins as follows:

The Federal Trade Commission and 17 state attorneys general today sued Amazon.com, Inc. alleging that the online retail and technology company is a monopolist that uses a set of interlocking anticompetitive and unfair strategies to illegally maintain its monopoly power. The FTC and its state partners say Amazon’s actions allow it to stop rivals and sellers from lowering prices, degrade quality for shoppers, overcharge sellers, stifle innovation, and prevent rivals from fairly competing against Amazon.

In her December 20, 2019 article, New York Times columnist Karen Weise gives a background scenario in how Amazon puts the squeeze on the businesses that it contracts with on its website.

Alternatives to Amazon

In the meantime, this brings the question to the surface, “are there alternatives to Amazon when it comes to shopping online for a variety of product categories?” 

Several large retailers have opened their websites to third-party sellers, the latest being Best Buy.  A few months ago I was searching for a musical recording console and found one pictured under Macy’s.  Other retailers like Walmart, Target, Kohl’s and others have done it.  These items, like the console, are not sold in stores.  They are stored with the supplier and are shipped from them directly to the customer.

In this case, there is no fulfilment center, and thus can be a cheaper alternative than going the Amazon route.  Also, it means the land where a fulfillment center is built can be used for other purposes.  Communities are realizing this now with Big Tech data centers.

Customers also have alternatives available—perhaps with not as large a selection but also not as controversial.  An example is eBay.  Once again, items are shipped directly from the supplier.  Another is Etsy.  This site specializes in various handmade household items that can be monogrammed.

Rolling Stone magazine recently posted 21 Amazon Alternatives and what each focuses on.  The website GoodGoodGood also has an alternative list, including reasons why each is better than Amazon.

Radio Shack

Finally, if you are looking for electronics supplies there is…Radio Shack!  Seems like the retailer that was a go-to place in the 1970s-90s still exists online.  They once again sell only their own products.  And they have retail stores available—but with a twist.  They are located only in small towns and partner with local shop owners as resellers to sell their products.

Heard of the Robinson-Patman Act? If you spend money, you should.

Small retailers have a law to help them compete but is little used.

P

Have you noticed a considerable decline in local and regional retail businesses over the years?

Small groceries, pharmacies, hardware, music shops, bookstores have lost out to what we now call “Big Box”.

Some of this can be contributed to changing shopping tastes.  Big Box can offer the stock and breadth of products that smaller retailers cannot.  I admit that I go to Big Box for this reason.  Also, Big Box has a stronger online presence that some retail businesses have either not adapted well to or refuse to. 

Robinson-Patman Act

Local and regional retailers do have the support of the Robinson-Patman Act.  It was enacted in 1936 by Senator Joseph T. Robinson of Arkansas and Representative Wright Patman of Texas.  The Act was designed to restrict price discrimination by large suppliers and protect small retailers from national chain stores.  Suppliers could offer discounts to retailers who bought in bulk, but criteria had to be available to any retailer, without favoritism to individual ones.

The 1980’s saw enforcement begin to wane, as challenges to price discrimination began being seen as anti-competitive.  Businesses were allowed to violate either the law or the spirit of the law and get away with it.

Walmart and Pepsi Collusion

In late 2025 The Institute of Local Self Reliance sued the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to make public censored details from the case involving PepsiCo and Walmart.  Brought by three Walmart customers, the suit alleged that PepsiCo was informing Walmart what other retailers were paying for the product and conspiring with Walmart’s knowledge to charge them a lower price, in keeping with Walmart’s well-known message of having lower prices.  The Trump Administration subsequently supported the decision by the current FTC to not pursue it any further.

Legislation

On March 19, 2026, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut filed in Congress the Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act.  In effect it would strengthen the Robinson-Patman act by eliminating loopholes that currently allow large companies from striking better deals with suppliers than their smaller rivals.  In other words, it would further codify as illegal the arrangement that occurred between Walmart and PepsiCo. 

Conclusion

One thing I advocate is strengthening anti-trust laws to allow for a greater definition of what anti-trust and anti-monopoly behavior is.  This can allow judges have better clarity as to what is in violation and what isn’t.  I support this law.  Equally important, it should go further and eliminate bulk discounts to large retailers.  Testimony from local and regional retailers on this would be welcome, and the media picks up on it as a priority. 

Contact your Senators and ask them to support this legislation.  At the same time ask them to support the Break Up Big Medicine Act, a bi-partisan legislation by Senators Hawley and Warren.  This targets Big Pharma and its acquisitions of health care companies and pharmacies.

 

 

The Core of American Capitalism

Human interaction is an overlooked part of capitalism defined

In the News

I see where Warner Bros. Discovery is giving the Paramount offer a second look at being acquired.  Paramount initiated this acquisition pursuit way back in September, 2025.  It has gotten much media attention, in the national news outlets as well as the business news.

If someone was not a student of economics and relied on the news media for his or her information, you may get the impression that this acquisition, and other big ones that get media attention, are the center of our economic system.  In addition to this acquisition, there is also the constant chatter of how Big Tech is investing umpteen dollars in artificial intelligence.  This sure has had an effect, both positive and negative on the stock market recently. 

Where is this Core?

In my opinion, it started with thousands of men and women throughout the decades who, with some material and financial resources combined with inspiration, went on to create great companies, both large and small,  throughout this country.

I remember reading how both Apple and Microsoft got started in garages.  There is also Walt Disney starting out creating a Mickey Mouse cartoon called “Steamboat Willie.” 

However, since 1980 there have been individuals and companies involved in directions that have shifted much of our economy away from innovation and more about domination.  We have been introduced to such things as investment banks, leveraged buyouts, corporate raiders, hostile takeovers, private equity, private credit, stock buybacks, Pac Man defense, activist investors.  In my opinion they have all immensely deviated from this basic core.

The people involved in these activities are far away, literally and figuratively, from many people found on Main Streets throughout this country.  family and friends may work for local or regional businesses, where upper management has regular face-to-face contact with both employees and customers. 

This personal, human interaction is, in my opinion, where you find the core of our capitalist system.  Laws and tax reform should be in place to help keep businesses independent who want to be independent.  Legislators should give primary attention to small business issues more than corporate campaign contributions. Large corporations are not inherently bad, but the distant relationship between management and employees and customers located hundreds of miles away or across oceans, reduces these people to being mere statistics on paper or a screen.  Decisions can thus be made without the decision makers having any personal interaction with those on the front line.  Decisions based on statistics is important but should also include the personal input from employees and customers.

Final Thoughts

I have written before wondering what is going through the minds of Warner employees with all this acquisition talk.  Customers are also faced with the thought of less entertainment choices and possibly higher costs.  This is high dollar negotiations with huge financial consequences for everyone involved.  Fees and profits are to be earned by some, maybe not all.  Careers may also be on the line.   It is all very important.

It makes for high drama and entertaining news headlines, but has consequences.  Such corporate wheeling and dealing is far removed from what occurs on Main Street America.  Some may call this capitalism, and they may find sources to back that up.  But, in my opinion, this corporate world contributes to the decline in some American’s belief in the capitalist system. 

What do you think?

The Victor May Now Be the Vanquished

Why is Warner Brothers for sale at all?

David Dayden, executive editor of The American Prospect, raises a question on the website, “Why is Warner Brothers For Sale At All?”

I have been wondering the same thing.

The Irony of it All

Dayden answers his own question by saying,

“The simplest answer for why Warner Bros. wants a merger is to cover for other failed mergers….These mergers created a horrific financial legacy: “$53 billion in debt as of 2022.”

He also lists the acquisitions that have led to the debt, including Time Magazine, America Online (AOL), Time Warner then being bought by AT&T, and Discovery Media.

What is ironic here is that Warner Bros. Discovery finds itself now as a victim of its own previous acquisition frenzy.

He adds that Warner recently received Golden Globe nominations for the films “One Battle After Another,” and “Sinners.”  Also for the television series “The White Lion.”  So it’s not like the company is in a downward spiral with new releases.

Dayden ends his article promoting separate companies between production and distribution. 

What to Do

Why is Warner Brothers for sale at all? In this case, because there are more than one potential buyers. As far as I know it was not looking for a buyer. And each buyer feels confident that another big dollar acquisition will get approved by regulators.

In this chess game I have yet to read about what employees think of all this.  Nor is there any input from customers. 

IMO, federal anti-monopoly, anti-trust law violations should include a buyer’s acquisition history, including input from both employees and customers.  Have previous acquisitions resulted in immediate mass layoffs?  Is there documented evidence of customer dissatisfaction with either the product or service?  Has money been invested in the acquisition or has it been ignored and left to die on the vine?  Violations of these should also be codified to give judges broader reason for denying an acquisition.   A company dying resulting from an acquisition is not in the best interests of our nation as a whole.  This should be a bigger priority than one company’s private benefit.

I Fought the Law and the … Law Lost

Federal antitrust law needs to be further defined and expanded

On Tuesday, November 18, 2025 U.S. Federal Judge James Boasberg dismissed the anti-trust case against Meta, parent company of Facebook, saying there was no “monopoly” conducted on their part.  The case centered on Meta’s previous acquisitions of What’s App and Instagram and whether this violated anti-trust federal law.

Meta

In his article entitled, “The Bad Reasoning in the Meta Antitrust Ruling Isn’t Even the Worst Part,” New York Times reporter Tim Wu writes:

The government charged that Meta, then called Facebook, broke the law when it bought its competitors Instagram and WhatsApp in 2012 and 2014. Judge Boasberg threw out the case by concluding that Meta lacks monopoly power now, when the relevant question should have been whether it had monopoly power at the time.

In my opinion, it comes down here for both sides is the law needs to exactly define what is a “monopoly.” 

Apparently Judge Boasberg was reading current federal law and concluded with what he read that Meta was not in violation.  He pointed out the existence of Tik Tok and You Tube as significant competition to Meta.  Wu mentions that we need to look at the marketplace over 10 years ago to accurately define monopoly in this case regarding What’s App and Instagram. 

History

A point that Wu seems to overlook, and I feel is relevant, is the number of acquisitions by Meta, not just a few.  According to Wikipedia, Meta has acquired just over 90 companies and has spent around $30 Billion to do so—that’s B as in Billion.

In addition, they have a history of acquiring small companies and then dissolving them and retaining their employees.  I have a previous post that highlights a 2010 YouTube video of Mark Zuckerberg stating this at an event.

Wu further states in his article:

“Does anyone seriously doubt that Meta is the kind of company that antitrust laws were designed to restrain?”

Well, if that’s the case, perhaps the “antitrust laws” need to be expanded.   They should include other criteria such as the number of acquisitions and specific monopolistic “behaviors”, such as acquiring firms and dissolving them and pursuing hostile takeovers. Convenient way to eliminate the competition, isn’t it? Is this not monopolistic behavior?

Does this make sense?  Why has it not been done up to now?  If this were enacted into law it could give other judges a clearer path towards determining and proving monopoly.  The definition specifics would need to be worked out.  It could also be used to fight private equity.

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.

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.

DELAY, DENY, DEFEND…and DISCLOSE

Health Care Acquisitions contribute to the large CEO Compensation Gap

We need to further explore actions taken by United Health, and the connection between health insurers CEO compensation and their acquisitions.

Brian Thompson

Brian Thompson’s death on December 4, 2024, captured much attention, both for the murder and hateful backlash against United Health Care. 

Before proceeding, I want to say that IMO, the end does not justify the means here.  On my home page I argue it is important to focus on HOW things are done, not just on the end result.

It is important to note that Mr. Thompson was the CEO of United Health Care, but Andrew Witty is the CEO of the parent company, United Health Group.  Also, Tim Noel has recently been appointed to replace Mr. Thompson.

United Health Care

Fortune 500 magazine has United Health Care in the top 10 of 500 companies, ranked by revenue, for 2023.

ProPublica reports they have been criticized in the past for denying coverage of mental health claims.  According to the article, UHC had been using algorithms instead of reviewing all claims independently. 

United Health is not the only one to do this.  EviCore by Evernorth, owned by Cigna is the major player here, providing decision-making services to multiple health insurers based on algorithms.

CEO Compensation

Insurance Business magazine provides data on the CEO compensation by the top health insurers in the United States.  It includes CEO compensation and the ratio between that and the salary of the average employee.  Published in November 2023, it is based on statistics provided by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.  Here are the top 5 earners:

Joseph Zubretsky           Molina HealthCare        $22.1 million    278:1

Karen Lynch                      CVS Health                       $21.3 million    380:1

David Cordani                  CIGNA HealthCare       $20.9 million    277:1

Gail Boudreaux               Elevance Health Care  $20.9 million    383:1

Andrew Witty                    United Health Group    $20.8 million    331:1

United Health Group is reported to have made 25 acquisitions, spending over $36 Billion for them.  That’s B as in Billion.  Its largest has been Change HealthCare.  Hovering over some of the other company names you will find links to their acquisitions as well.  If United Health Care had not made these acquisitions, do you think they would be as big as they are today?  Same with the others.  If they had taken that $36 billion and invested it on R&D, better coverage or on increasing employee salaries, do you think that ratio would be as big as it is? 

The Economic Policy Institute has recently released a report of CEO compensation since the 1970s.  It spiked in the 1990s when Mergers and Acquisitions began to take off beginning (but not ending) under the Clinton administration. 

What Can Be Done

I do not have the resources that institutions have to crunch the data and spit out results.  A direct relationship between acquisitions and income inequality between CEO and average employee, in my opinion, may exist.  This may “contribute” and not necessarily “cause” this inequality.  There may be other factors that contribute, such as CEO pressure on corporate boards to increase compensation.

What can be done here?  One would be for Congress to institute an annual “acquisition tax” on the top companies with the largest number of acquisitions.  Or have the Federal Government break off companies that have been acquired.  Another could be tax incentives to encourage “divestiture” or to block future acquisitions being made. Also, prohibit future acquisitions.

One thing that shouldn’t be done is for individuals to take it upon themselves to attempt to assassinate executives or to celebrate it.  As a result of this act some people lost a family member and others lost a colleague. Nothing changed for policy holders…. did it?

What Do You Think?

What do you think?  Is there a connection between acquisitions and the size of CEO compensation?  Should algorithms be the main source for accepting or rejecting claims? Do you have a problem with this? Has not only the compensation gap but the physical barriers between the decision makers and customers grown too impersonal?