>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 19:51:54 -0500 (EST)
>From: Robert Weissman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Subject: [corp-focus] One Big Company
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailman-Version: 1.1
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Id: Sharp-edged commentary on corporate power
><corp-focus.lists.essential.org>
>X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>One Big Company
>By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
>
>Bring 'em on.
>
>A few years ago, even a few weeks ago, we might have opposed the AOL-Time
>Warner merger.
>
>But now we're ready to leave twentieth century thinking behind.
>
>We recognize that this merger has "synergies that make some observers
>drool," as the Wall Street Journal explained. AOL will highlight InStyle
>magazine? Moviefone will pitch Warner Brother movies? Time Warner will
>include AOL disks in promotional mailings? That's progress, baby!
>
>In the past, we might have echoed the concerns of those who worried that
>the merger might interfere with open access to high-speed internet
>connections. AOL has been a leading proponent of open access -- meaning
>those who control high-speed internet access through cable systems or
>other means not have the power to discriminate against internet service
>providers that they do not control or favor. In buying Time Warner, AOL
>suddenly acquires one of the largest cable systems in the country, and
>gains a material interest in opposing open access.
>
>But that's OK. We're satisfied by AOL's verbal commitment that it will
>voluntarily permit open access in the cable systems it will control (though
>Time Warner currently has contractual obligations through 2001 to favor
>Roadrunner internet service).
>
>A few months ago, we might have agreed with media critics like George
>Gerbner, who say that goliaths like AOL-Time Warner undermine media
>diversity, that they are so big that their vast size means there will be an
>array of issues they cannot cover properly because they have a vested
>interest in the outcome.
>
>Now, we say, "C'mon George." AOL Chief Steve Case says he understands and
>is eager to learn more about the importance of journalistic integrity.
>
>Not along ago, we might have sympathized with the views of Robert McChesney,
>author of Rich Media, Poor Democracy: "This is the last nail in the coffin
>for anyone who believed that the internet is the last stronghold of media
>competition."
>
>Now, we tell Bob to get over it. The internet's still a free medium --
>hey, AOL-Time Warner isn't stopping us from sending this column around the
>net. And you want media democracy? Broadband CNN news content will be
>distributed on AOL Plus!
>
>Just a short time ago, we might have noted the consensus that the AOL-Time
>Warner merger will spur a slew of new media and internet consolidations
>("It's what the future is," a chief executive who runs theme parks and a
>movie studio told the Washington Post. "It sure feels like you need to be
>bigger -- bigger yet."), and urged that antitrust authorities block the
>merger to prevent this trigger effect.
>
>Now, we say, "More mergers? That means more synergy!" (As the late Walter
>Adams, one of the leading critics of corporate giantism, said, no merger was
>ever announced without a ritual incantation of the synergistic gains to be
>realized.)
>
>More mergers is exactly what we need.
>
>Microsoft needs a media company to compete. It is already partnered with
>NBC, so we figure it should buy NBC. GE currently owns NBC -- Microsoft
>might as well buy General Electric, too.
>
>And as long as its on a buying spree, it seems highly inefficient to have
>two major multinationals based in Seattle. Microsoft should purchase Boeing.
>And once you have planes, you might as well get cars. We recommend buying
>GM, Ford and Daimler-Chrysler, Toyota and the rest.
>
>Meanwhile, it is obvious that, with the oil companies facing a serious
>political challenge on the global warming issue, they need their own voice.
>We recommend they purchase Disney-ABC. Of course, that would be after
>Exxon-Mobil finishes buying BP-Arco and the other oil companies. With oil
>naturally comes chemicals (DuPont, Dow, etc.) and with chemicals comes
>pharmaceuticals. They should all gravitate to the Exxon-Mobil-Disney pole.
>
>Don't worry about competition, the oil companies still face competition
>from other energy sources, like the food companies.
>
>Speaking of which, with the chicken, beef and pork processors all rapidly
>consolidating, the grain traders merging, the seed business quickly moving
>toward monopoly, supermarkets combining and food processors growing
>larger, it is time to speed the process of creating a single food company.
>Let's call it Philip Morris -- already the largest food company in the
>United States.
>
>The food/tobacco company probably should consider merging with AOL-Time
>Warner. Just think of the synergy of ordering all your food through AOL!
>
>Among the major U.S. media companies, that leaves Viacom-CBS in need of some
>strategic partners. The merger with AT&T -- once it has joined with MCI
>Worldcom-Sprint, and the already combining Baby Bells -- seems obvious: a
>pairing of leading cable companies to gain efficiency.
>
>Then there's Wal-Mart and the other major retailers. They need a major
>internet presence. Hook them up with the AT&T-Viacom combine, and throw in
>Yahoo! and Amazon.com for a little bit of internet spice.
>
>Sadly, for now we have to leave out perhaps the most synergistically minded
>industries: finance, including banks, insurance and securities firms. There
>are endless potential benefits from getting these operations merged with
>internet firms -- but current law blocks combinations between financial
>companies and those in the real economy.
>
>Maybe Congress can tend to that problem this year.
>
>Until then, our major concern will be: can the economy really survive with
>the inefficieny of four competing companies? Aren't there synergies to be
>gained from combinations among the four corporate groups?
>
>Steve Case, Bill Gates, take us to the future!
>
>
>Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime
>Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based
>Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The
>Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common
>Courage Press, 1999, http://www.corporatepredators.org)
>
>(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Focus on the Corporation is a weekly column written by Russell Mokhiber
>and Robert Weissman. Please feel free to forward the column to friends or
>repost the column on other lists. If you would like to post the column on
>a web site or publish it in print format, we ask that you first contact us
>([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
>
>Focus on the Corporation is distributed to individuals on the listserve
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe to corp-focus, send an e-mail
>message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text: subscribe
>
>Focus on the Corporation columns are posted at
><http://www.corporatepredators.org>.
>
>Postings on corp-focus are limited to the columns. If you would like to
>comment on the columns, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
