Why is the Federal Trade Commission threatening Apple with a possible lawsuit for abusing its economic power, but not even raising an eyebrow about the huge and growing economic (and political) muscle of JP Morgan Chase or any of the other four remaining giant banks on Wall Street?
Our future well-being depends more on people like Steve Jobs who invent real products that can improve our lives, than it does on people like Jamie Dimon who invent financial products that do little other than threaten our economy.
Apple's supposed sin was to tell software developers that if they want to make apps for iPhones and iPads they have to use Apple programming tools. No more outside tools (like Adobe's Flash format) that can run on rival devices like Google's Android phones and RIM's BlackBerrys.
What's wrong with that? Apple says it's necessary to maintain quality. If consumers disagree they can buy platforms elsewhere. Apple was the world's #3 smartphone supplier in 2009, with 16.2 percent of worldwide market share. RIM was #2, with 18.8 percent. Google isn't exactly a wallflower. These and other firms are innovating like mad, as are tens of thousands of independent developers. If Apple's decision reduces the number of future apps that can run on its products, Apple will suffer and presumably change its mind.
On the other hand, the four largest U.S. financial institutions are so big and the rest of the economy so dependent on them that if one of them makes a bad decision it can take us all down. Between them they hold more than $7 trillion in assets, over half the size of the entire U.S. economy.
So why is the FTC nosing around Apple and not around Wall Street? Because the Federal Trade Commission Act allows the agency to stop "unfair methods of competition" almost anywhere in the economy except in the financial sector. Banks are explicitly excluded.
Another reason for financial reform.
And how are we doing on that front? Senate Dems and Republicans have just agreed to jettison a $50 billion fund in the financial reform bill that would have been used to wind down operations of a failing bank. Republicans had created a smokescreen by alleging that the fund could be used for more bailouts. They don't want the public to see the real problem -- that the biggest banks are so big that if one or two gets into trouble, the Fed or the Federal Deposit Insurance Company will almost certainly have to bail them out in order to protect the financial system. And this implicit guarantee allows them to make even riskier bets that generate even bigger profits -- enabling them to grow even larger.
The only way to make sure no bank is too big to fail is to ensure no bank is too big. The biggest banks should be broken up. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Ted Kaufman (D-Del) have introduced an amendment that would do exactly that. And a growing number of House members are getting ready to do the same.
Hands off Apple. But cut the big banks down to size.
Cross-posted from RobertReich.org
Richard (RJ) Eskow: The Senate Should Debate "Too Big to Fail" On Live Television
It's always so much easier to cut deals in the backroom, isn't it? That way politicians don't have to be held accountable for their actions. The bank lobby is clearly frightened of the democratic process... and it should be.
The administration and its regulatory agencies would rather flex their muscles against anything rather than go up against actual dragons -- aka financial institutions
And those Wall Street financial houses and J.P. Morgan Chase have shamefully foreclosing homes to make their profits. Enriching on the backs of the poor is the lowliest of the most disgraceful human behaviors. Don't expect their karma is going to be good.
Odd. So you support a double-standard, but just the other way around.
to continue to thrive they are gong to have perform better, deeper, and wider less the competitors eat away at their profits. First order of business...............................a new
company name and logo..............................something smart, but earthy, brilliant idea..................have
a
world wide contest for the name and logo of the new improve nonmonoopolistic itunes.
People can send in their ideas to either itunes or their new friendly competitor YOUTUBE
of
a new 4G ANDROID, BLACKBERRY, or IPHONE that is UNLOCKED.
the extraordinary ABUSE OF ITS MONOPOLOY position become greater and greatrer and greater.
Denying that is like denying the weather changes.
A corporation with intellectual property in these times is forced to act protective of it's intellectual "child". Your thoughts were good: locking it in the closet isn't the answer.
Reich isn't truthful about everything he knows. Details of programs like Echelon and interference with economic rights would topple governments. Where Reich is right, the banks are involved in larger schemes of manipulation of all property, including intellectual property. The FTC should be investigating, but government wants to WIN. This isn't a process they can prove or a fight they can win.
I left the democratic party when my chosen candidate forgot winners are losers when they lose sight of important goals.
Chase is so controlling, as to be violent. I'm the poster child for covert surveillance, had a lawsuit to prove it. Being ahead of your time, proves you Read. When I go to Chase to bank I talk to people so brainwashed they don't know who they are. They call this a career, amusing at best.
APPLE is notoriously made
by folks with
no legal rights like pensions, social services, or even education for their children.
100 million migrant workers who have given up their villages and who are on the move
....................think about it the next time you see the APPLE LOGO
The FTC should wait 'till Apple takes down the computer industry and then the gub'mnt can reward it with money.
It'd be only equitable.
2. Apple is not dominant in hardware.
3. iTunes is not a monopoly.
4. iTunes did not achieve domianance via anti-competitive practices.
5. Microsoft achieved dominance in OS via predatory practices.
6. Achieving dominance via predation is illegal.
7. Monopolies in the US are legal.
8. Apple is not a monopoly.