Monopoly concerns over AT&T and Time Warner mega-merger

Source: RT
October 25, 2016

Telecommunications company AT&T has agreed to purchase the content division of Time Warner for $85 billion. There are concerns that the deal between the two mega companies will create a monopoly. RT America’s Manila Chan has the latest on the deal and why some object to it.

Advertisements

Breaking: Bayer buys Monsanto: the Empire strikes back

QuestionEverything
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
September 16, 2016

This is the largest corporate cash buyout in history.

Mega-giant Bayer put $66 billion on the table, and mega-giant Monsanto said yes.

Think GMOs, crop seeds, pesticides, medical drugs.

Keep in mind that one of the consultants on the European side of this deal is the Rothschild Group.

But that’s not all. Dow and DuPont are planning to merge. Recently, another biotech giant, Syngenta, was swallowed up by the state-owned ChemChina. And this just in: two major Canadian fertilizer manufacturers, Potash Corp of Saskatchewan Inc. and Agrium Inc. are merging.

Consolidation, monopoly. The Empire strikes back.

The global rebellion against GMOs and pesticides, particularly Monsanto’s Roundup, is one of the reasons for these deals. But lurking in the background is another factor, exemplified by the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) treaty.

If the TPP passes, corporate tribunals will take over the adjudication of disputes in which a nation rejects importing toxic pesticides, medical drugs, or GMOs. These tribunals will decide whether that nation is permitted to refuse importation.

Of course, the tribunals will favor mega-corporate interests. But now, with the mergers involving Bayer, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta, and ChemChina, the devastating clout of the tribunals will be that much more powerful.

The ability to shove toxic products down the throats of populations will elevate.

This is the corporate face of Globalism.

This is a giant step in the direction of controlling the world’s food supply.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
________________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The GMO Scrapbook: It’s Official: I.G. Farbensanto Back In…

 THE GMO SCRAPBOOK: IT’S OFFICIAL: I.G. FARBENSANTO BACK IN ...
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
September 19, 2016

This is a story to put a scowl on your face, for the “deal” I blogged about a few weeks ago about the “merger” of Mon(ster)santo and the big German chemical firm of Bayer, which along with Hoechst and BASF was a component company to the old IG Farben cartel. Well, to be truthful, it wasn’t so old, for as I pointed out in The Nazi INternational the cartel was only finally completely liquidated in 2003. As we know, the component companies live on, and one of them, Bayer, is up to its old tricks, targeting the notorious American GMO Mons(ster)santo for a merger. Well, that deal is now inked, and we’re watching the birth of a new creature: Monster-IG Farbensanto. So many people noticed this story that it would be impossible to thank them all, but here’s the stories:

Bayer Buys Monsanto

http://spitfirelist.com/news/bayer-buys-monsanto/embed/?wmode=transparent#?secret=6CFT8RqAXl

Now, as the previous article notes, the legal firm assisting with this largest cash buyout in history – yes, Bayer had that much money on hand – was Sullivan and Cromwell.

There’s also this little tidbit(shared by Ms. C.M.):

YES Monsanto did buy the blackwater mercenary group

Ok, so now Bayer, a founding corporate member of the old IG Farben cartel, has bought Mon(ster)santo, which in turn had bought the Blackwater mercenary group, and which helped the USA drop tons of Agent Orange on Vietnam – and oh, by the way, for those of you who haven’t read Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery, the Carl Duisberg Society helped sponsor Mohammad Atta to Germany. Who’s Carl Duisberg? He was the former head of Bayer during and after World War One who helped found the IG Farben cartel. And… one more thing, let’s not forget under all these new “free trade” agreements, it will be virtually impossible for anyone to sue a company for just about anything, and virtually impossible for anyone to write anything without violating their twisted understanding of copyright.

Bayer, Mon(ster)santo, Blackwater mercenaries.

What could possibly go wrong?

There’s a pattern here that disturbs (well, actually, several patterns), not the least of which is Bayer’s position not only as a major pharmaceutical firm, but also as a major agribusiness company, now acquiring yet another notorious company, with notorious methods for dealing with farmers, and which owns a notorious mercenary “security” firm. This is a corporate move to consolidate control of medicine, pharmaceuticals, and agribusiness in one big happy Reich… er, one big happy cartel. Then we have the 1942 IG Farben-sponsored plan for a postwar European federation which…

Continue Reading at: GizaDeathStar.com
______________________________________________________________

Profile photo of Joseph P. Farrell
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Bayer raises bid to purchase Monsanto to over $65 BILLION

Monsanto

Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
September 13, 2016

German pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG seems to know no limits in its quest to acquire the world’s most notorious agricultural company. The drug manufacturer has recently pushed its offer for procuring Monsanto up to a whopping $65 billion.

Bayer has confirmed that the two corporations are currently engaged in “advanced negotiations,” though it seems less like negotiating and more like Monsanto trying to take Bayer for everything they have. The original offer from Bayer averaged out to $122 per share, or $62 billion. Their new $65 billion offer averages out to about $127.50 per share. Bayer would also assume Monsanto’s $9 billion in debt, which pushes their offer up by an additional 2 percent. However, Monsanto is apparently seeking a jaw-dropping $130 per share, at least according to Bloomberg.

The attempted wooing of Monsanto is just one of many consolidations that have occurred lately in the agricultural industry. Bloomberg reports, “China National Chemical Corp. agreed in February to acquire Syngenta AG, while DuPont Co. and Dow Chemical Co. plan to merge and then carve out a new crop-science unit.” These kinds of deals in the crop and seed industry threaten to leave just a few oversized global giants in the Big Ag industrial complex.

If Bayer and Monsanto were to merge, they would create what would be one of the world’s largest agricultural suppliers. Monsanto is presently the world’s largest seed manufacturer, and Bayer currently offers their own “crop-protection” products (if you can really call them that). Between the two, they will make for a nearly-untouchable conglomerate. Monsanto has announced that it is considering Bayer’s offer, but the company is not the GMO giant’s only suitor; several other companies are seeking to acquire Monsanto as well.

In spite of their tremendous offer, Monsanto reportedly feels that their company is somehow being undervalued, but is still “open” to negotiation. Clearly, Monsanto is blind to the growing aversion to its name and products.

While the apparent ego of the company is worrisome, there are many more things to be concerned about, especially if this deal were to come to fruition. If two massive companies tied to the agricultural industry join forces, it could spell disaster for farmers and food prices. Their consolidation would lead to fewer choices for farmers, and you know what happens when there is a monopoly: prices skyrocket. With farmer bargaining power limited, it’s natural to expect seed prices to increase. And that means that the price of produce in supermarkets will increase along with them.

Robert Lawrence, a professor from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and the founding director of the Center for a Liveable Future, told Market Watch, “The consolidation and driving out of smaller competitors, and controlling the marketplace and raising prices of seeds and pesticides for farmers worldwide is going to be a real shock to the food system.”

The merger could also mean fewer options for consumers, and may even effect the availability of organic crops and crops grown with fewer pesticides. Given the size of the two companies, the potential for them to further reduce farmers’ options is very real.

You would think that with the growing demand for organic, pesticide-free produce, Bayer would not be so interested in Monsanto; after all, that name has become something of a dirty word.

However, Bayer reportedly took Monsanto’s poor image into account, but made their offer to acquire the company anyway. This isn’t surprising though; anytime two large companies such as these merge together, the net result will always be more power. Even if people don’t like them, the increase in market share will still inevitably yield more economic power. And with economic power comes political power. As if Monsanto doesn’t already have their claws deep enough into our political system, merging with Bayer would surely grant them invincibility.

The most frightening thing about this acquisition is its potential to make Monsanto a stronger force in the agricultural industry, and consequently, further reduce the availability of non-GMO foods.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

USAToday.com

Bloomberg.com


MarketWatch.com

Verizon-Yahoo Deal Shows Once Again the Need to Remove Intellectual Property Rights

government-dissent-mental

Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 26, 2016

Verizon is buying Yahoo for $4.8 billion … It’s official: The sale completes Yahoo’s evolution from influential search pioneer and web portal juggernaut to, in the end, a once-dominant brand that lost its way. Parties as diverse as Warren Buffett and The Daily Mail were interested in buying Yahoo. But after a sale process that dragged on for months, Verizon (VZ, Tech30), long viewed as the frontrunner, is walking away with Yahoo’s more than one billion monthly active users. –CNN Money

Another huge merger has taken place. Perhaps a billion consumer emails plus related technology will change hands, further stratifying the Internet and providing less opportunity for others.

If people believe the pace of technological innovation has slowed in the past years, they are probably correct. As ZeroHedge pointed out in May, “Venture capital investments in Silicon Valley fell almost 20 percent in the first quarter [of 2016] from a year earlier to $4.9 billion.”

We would argue this is part of a larger trend. With such gigantic companies dominating the Internet, there is less room for groundbreaking innovation.

These large companies act as gatekeepers, preserving what has already been accomplished and ensuring to a large degree that what is now developed doesn’t threaten what has come before.

As usual, intellectual property rights are at fault. Absent court enforced intellectual property rights, the pace of technological innovation might actually pick up and technology might move in new or unexpected directions.

We’ve argued before that in the modern era, intellectual property rights are not performing the functions that were intended.

This is not surprising. We certainly know from “human action” that no law works as intended. In fact, laws are basically price-fixes, redistributing wealth and reducing opportunity.

Here’s a statement by Justice William O. Douglas as pertains to a case entitled A & P. TEA CO. v. SUPERMARKET CORP., (340 U.S. 147, 1950).

Every patent is the grant of a privilege of exacting tolls from the public. The Framers plainly did not want those monopolies freely granted. The invention, to justify a patent, had to serve the ends of science – to push back the frontiers of chemistry, physics, and the like; to make a distinctive contribution to scientific knowledge.

Who exactly decides what is a “distinctive contribution.” Like most such law, the guidelines themselves are so vague as to prevent any sensible enforcement.

Here’s an excerpt from an article in the Atlantic entitled, “The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them).”

Our patent system is a mess. It’s a fount of expensive litigation that allows aging companies to linger around by bullying their more innovative competitors in court. Critics have suggested plenty of reasonable reforms, from eliminating software patents to clamping down on “trolls” who buy up patent portfolios only so they can file lawsuits. But do we need a more radical solution? Would we be possibly be better off without any patents at all?

That’s the striking suggestion from a Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis working paper by Michele Boldrin and David Levine, professors at Washington University in St. Louis who argue that any patent system, no matter how well conceived, is bound to devolve into the kind of quagmire we’re dealing with today.

In fact, the quagmire is not just one of litigation.

The real issue is one of monopoly. Google is a good example. It is very obvious that Google has a close relationship with US intel and military interests.

From Insurge Intelligence, HERE:

Insurge, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project, breaks the exclusive story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’

It is actually intellectual property rights that give Google its reach and depth. The result is a CIA controlled operation paid for by taxpayers.

It is ultimately the US judicial system that enforces intellectual property rights and the intel control attached to them.

Why should taxpayers pay to enforce Google’s intellectual property rights? It should be up to Google to enforce those rights.

Intellectual property rights are supposedly essential because otherwise there would be no incentive to innovate. In fact, we can see that applying the force of the state to technological advances probably retards innovation in the modern era.

It certainly has given US intel and military interests control they would not otherwise have had so easily.

It is increasingly obvious that intellectual property rights only benefit the largest of entities on a  regular basis because it is only the largest entities that can afford to make a corrupt system work to their advantage.

In only a couple of decades the Internet has gone from a flexible and innovative environment to one that seems a good deal more regimented and increasingly less creative in the largest sense.

Conclusion:  Intellectual property rights along with corporate personhood and monopoly fiat money are culprits here. Get rid of these corporate props and the size and breadth of companies will radically subside, providing increased opportunity for everyone else – and ultimately benefiting both consumers and investors.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

Merge-Santo – New Threat To Food Sovereignty

[Editor’s Note]

This is a rather disturbing trend that if successful will pose great risk to the global food supply, people’s health, and ultimately food freedoms most are already highly lacking.
———————————————————————-

“If the marriages of DuPont-Dow and Syngenta–Chem China go through and Monsanto merges with Bayer’s Agricultural division, the three will control more than 65% of global pesticide sales and almost 61% of commercial seed sales. If Monsanto and BASF strike a deal instead, the Titanic Three will still have almost 61% of pesticides and more than 57% of seeds”  [Bold Emphasis Added]

This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2016
Visit our Re-post guidelines

Merge-Santo: New Threat to Food Sovereignty
Source: GreenMedInfo
GMI Reporter
March 25, 2016

Briefing Note
23 March 2016

ETC Group

Now, world agriculture has three mega-mergers in play: Merge-Santo – New Threat to Food Sovereignty.  If we act, we can stop the Big Six from becoming the Titanic Three.

As ETC first warned in May[i] last year and again in February[ii] this year, the pressure of two mergers among the Big Six Gene Giants would make a third merger inevitable. In the last few days the business media have reported that Monsanto is in separate talks with Bayer and BASF – the two German giants among agricultural input companies. While anti-competition regulators are fussing about the hook up of DuPont with Dow and of Syngenta with Chem China, Monsanto urgently needs to make a match. They hope that if regulators let the other two deals go through, they won’t be able to deny Monsanto a chance to even the score.

If the companies get their way, the first links in the industrial food chain (seeds, pesticides) will be in the hands of just three companies. If the marriages of DuPont-Dow and Syngenta–Chem China go through and Monsanto merges with Bayer’s Agricultural division, the three will control more than 65% of global pesticide sales and almost 61% of commercial seed sales. If Monsanto and BASF strike a deal instead, the Titanic Three will still have almost 61% of pesticides and more than 57% of seeds (see chart below).

Either way, a fourth move will be inevitable. Whichever company is left at the altar (Bayer or BASF) will have to buy or sell since it won’t have the clout to take on the Three. Either could prove irresistible for Deere & Co. or one of the other huge farm machinery companies that are in the best position to ultimately dominate all on-farm related agricultural inputs from seeds and pesticides to fertilizers, machinery, data and insurance.

So What?

Some industry watchers wonder if this latest spate of mergers will really make a difference to an industry which is already tightly-concentrated and where the six Gene Giants that have dominated seed and pesticide markets for the last decade already have so many joint ventures and cross-licensing arrangements that they have a de facto monopoly.

From another perspective, peasant organizations and agroecologists neither buy corporate seeds nor want their pesticides. According to recent estimates[iii], at least 90% of the seeds that peasant farmers plant every year come from their own bins or are bartered with neighbours in local markets. Since these are the peasants that actually feed 70% of the world’s people, the machinations of multinationals could be considered of no matter.

Causes for Concern:

Commercial seeds may only make up 10% of peasants’ seed supply but the corporations have virtually all of the “face time” with policymakers. Trade, farm subsidies, labour laws, patents, land use, phytosanitary regulations, infrastructure spending and marketing policies are skewed to the interests of the biggest agribusinesses and the 100 million farms they claim as clients. The 570 million peasant families[iv] that really feed the world bear the burden of these skewed policies – not just as a direct attack – but as collateral damage. The more concentrated the lobbying power of industrial agriculture, the more destruction to the Peasant Food Web and agroecological food systems.

The threat is not only concentration but also integration. When pesticide companies began buying seed companies in the 1970s, the companies first denied it was happening and, later, argued that the synergies were beneficial. Four decades later, allowing seeds and chemicals to combine has done an enormous damage to plant breeding. The agrochemical giants concentrate overwhelmingly on a handful of commodity crops (corn, soybean, cotton, etc.) engineered primarily to tolerate proprietary chemicals. The result has been a decline in the quality of plant breeding for conventional varieties and an increase in the use of crop chemicals. The impacts are especially devastating for farmers who want to get off the pesticide treadmill – they can’t get good seed and can’t escape their neighbour’s drifting pesticides.

Policymakers – who refused to acknowledge the negative impacts of the seed/chemical complex –  will now confront the next level of integration. The world’s seed and pesticide businesses are small potatoes compared to the fertilizer and farm machinery industries. The farm machinery behemoth, Deere & Co., all by itself, has sales equivalent to about two thirds the sales of the entire seed industry.  For the big three tractor companies that share 49% of the world market, taking over the big three seed/pesticide companies (with even greater concentration) seems a nice fit.
If national anti-competition regulators allow the three seed and pesticide mega-mergers to go ahead, the slippery slope into machinery or fertilizer combinations will be hard to arrest.

Winning Grounds: 

The mergers already on the table will not be decided in Washington or Brussels and victory won’t go to the highest-paid lawyers. It’s all about national politics and shareholder profits.

Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com

—————————————————————————-

© March 25 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.”