Seems like pretty sensible legislation to me. Not sure why you all are so in favour of corporate mergers, and ragging on Elizabeth Warren. She's a very smart lady.
Seems like pretty sensible legislation to me. Not sure why you all are so in favour of corporate mergers, and ragging on Elizabeth Warren. She's a very smart lady.
First of all, the notion that bigger companies buy out other companies just to kill off the competition is utter stupidity. And using the kind of terms that people like Warren use makes it sound as if the buyer sends out henchmen to threaten the shareholders with bodily harm if they don't agree. A merger of any size requires a willing buyer and willing seller to come together. Who is the government to tell the willing buyer and willing seller that they can't make their deal?
Seems like pretty sensible legislation to me. Not sure why you all are so in favour of corporate mergers, and ragging on Elizabeth Warren. She's a very smart lady.
First of all, the notion that bigger companies buy out other companies just to kill off the competition is utter stupidity.
I agree. But for all its stupidity, it happens surprisingly often.
From the rest of your post, it seems that you have absolutely no understanding of what anti-trust law is, and why it might be a thing.
Seems like pretty sensible legislation to me. Not sure why you all are so in favour of corporate mergers, and ragging on Elizabeth Warren. She's a very smart lady.
You might get flamed for your post, but to a degree I agree. vvswarup said:
Seems like pretty sensible legislation to me. Not sure why you all are so in favour of corporate mergers, and ragging on Elizabeth Warren. She's a very smart lady.
First of all, the notion that bigger companies buy out other companies just to kill off the competition is utter stupidity. And using the kind of terms that people like Warren use makes it sound as if the buyer sends out henchmen to threaten the shareholders with bodily harm if they don't agree. A merger of any size requires a willing buyer and willing seller to come together. Who is the government to tell the willing buyer and willing seller that they can't make their deal?
Do you not remember Microsoft doing this? I remember a number of times they bought software companies only to deep six their product.
Also have you not heard of a hostile takeover? The board may not want to sell, but if a big company comes in and offers way above market price for the stock, enough investors will take the cash to sink an otherwise thriving company. I've seen that happen fairly often as well.
Seems like pretty sensible legislation to me. Not sure why you all are so in favour of corporate mergers, and ragging on Elizabeth Warren. She's a very smart lady.
First of all, the notion that bigger companies buy out other companies just to kill off the competition is utter stupidity.
Whether that's the intent or not, that's often the outcome, and in competition law it's outcomes that matter far more than intentions.
And using the kind of terms that people like Warren use makes it sound as if the buyer sends out henchmen to threaten the shareholders with bodily harm if they don't agree. A merger of any size requires a willing buyer and willing seller to come together.
If you ignore hostile takeovers sure, but even if you ignore those, small companies faced with buyout pressure from a much larger player are rarely in a position to refuse, knowing that if they do so then their business has a target painted on it. That's why so much of the tech startup sector has adapted to the situation and evolved to take angel investor funds, rack up debt in the pursuit of rapid user growth, and then pursue a buy out.
Consolidation into corporate megaliths is rarely in the interests of anyone except the executives of the megaliths. Customers have less choice, employees have less power, and even shareholders get diluted
Elizabeth Warren is the kind of person who is smart but unbalanced. I don't mean 'unbalanced' as in 'crazy,' I mean it in terms of over-emphasizing the importance of some things and under-emphasizing others. And I don't think it's just a negotiating strategy -- I think she really means it. So it's fine for her to be 1 of 100 senators, but I'd say 1 of her in the senate is enough and she must never be president.
So hopefully her good ideas survive the legislative process and the bad ones get cut. The $5 billion cap thing is definitely a bad one. Paying attention to the impact of mergers on employees sounds good, as does changing the burden of proof for DOJ and FTC.
Elizabeth Warren is not a capitalist. She is about as anti-capitalist as it gets. She’s close to being a downright communist in that she thinks the state should control the entire economy from top to bottom, control prices, wages, production, the whole tamale. Her ideas are close to a centrally managed economy, regulate it until it is. A recent poll found that 50% of young Americans think they would like to ‘try’ communism. As if they could change back to capitalism if they wanted to.
You said it better than I could. We have to stand up against their leftist agenda. I have a bill idea to propose how about giving congress members eight year terms only and get rid of their capacity to milk the system the same way they’re accusing big tech of doing. F**king up America but blaming everyone else.
Elizabeth Warren is the kind of person who is smart but unbalanced. I don't mean 'unbalanced' as in 'crazy,' I mean it in terms of over-emphasizing the importance of some things and under-emphasizing others. And I don't think it's just a negotiating strategy -- I think she really means it. So it's fine for her to be 1 of 100 senators, but I'd say 1 of her in the senate is enough and she must never be president.
So hopefully her good ideas survive the legislative process and the bad ones get cut. The $5 billion cap thing is definitely a bad one. Paying attention to the impact of mergers on employees sounds good, as does changing the burden of proof for DOJ and FTC.
Elizabeth Warren is not a capitalist. She is about as anti-capitalist as it gets. She’s close to being a downright communist in that she thinks the state should control the entire economy from top to bottom, control prices, wages, production, the whole tamale. Her ideas are close to a centrally managed economy, regulate it until it is. A recent poll found that 50% of young Americans think they would like to ‘try’ communism. As if they could change back to capitalism if they wanted to.
You said it better than I could. We have to stand up against their leftist agenda. I have a bill idea to propose how about giving congress members eight year terms only and get rid of their capacity to milk the system the same way they’re accusing big tech of doing. F**king up America but blaming everyone else.
You guys have no idea what a centrally managed economy is if you think what Elizabeth Warren stands for even comes close.
Seems like pretty sensible legislation to me. Not sure why you all are so in favour of corporate mergers, and ragging on Elizabeth Warren. She's a very smart lady.
Partly because she, and US merger law, won’t stop two companies in South Korea from merging. So what she’s advocating might potentially put the US at a disadvantage relative to the rest of the world.
Also because the size of the companies involved may not necessarily correlate with a merger being bad for employees. And when the combined business does reduce its workforce that could just as well be that they are run more efficiently as a combined entity. And why on earth would a government want to hamper moves that potentially create more efficient businesses. Becoming more efficient is a key element to remaining competitive in a global market.
It really does seem recently that America has it out for American business. There’s no good reason Biden shouldn’t be hailing Tesla, for example, as the paragon of American ingenuity that it represents, and yet here we are.
Seems like pretty sensible legislation to me. Not sure why you all are so in favour of corporate mergers, and ragging on Elizabeth Warren. She's a very smart lady.
Partly because she, and US merger law, won’t stop two companies in South Korea from merging. So what she’s advocating might potentially put the US at a disadvantage relative to the rest of the world.
Also because the size of the companies involved may not necessarily correlate with a merger being bad for employees. And when the combined business does reduce its workforce that could just as well be that they are run more efficiently as a combined entity. And why on earth would a government want to hamper moves that potentially create more efficient businesses. Becoming more efficient is a key element to remaining competitive in a global market.
It really does seem recently that America has it out for American business. There’s no good reason Biden shouldn’t be hailing Tesla, for example, as the paragon of American ingenuity that it represents, and yet here we are.
Race to the bottom mentality. Abolish all child labour laws too, because some other shitty country might out-compete you by using sweatshops.
"This unconstitutional behavior has to stop," she continued. "My new
bill with Rep. Jones would restore our country's anti-monopoly tradition
by banning the biggest, most anticompetitive mergers and giving the DOJ
and the FTC stronger tools to enforce our antitrust laws and restore
real competition in our markets." Read on AppleInsider
Senator Warren should perhaps dedicate the time to actually read the Constitution and realize that it restricts the government, and not businesses or people. And if she really wanted to target monopolies, and not just pander to anti-business idiots, she'd propose doing something about all the monopolies the government actively supports, even requires.
Comments
From the rest of your post, it seems that you have absolutely no understanding of what anti-trust law is, and why it might be a thing.
vvswarup said: Do you not remember Microsoft doing this? I remember a number of times they bought software companies only to deep six their product.
Also have you not heard of a hostile takeover? The board may not want to sell, but if a big company comes in and offers way above market price for the stock, enough investors will take the cash to sink an otherwise thriving company. I've seen that happen fairly often as well.
If you ignore hostile takeovers sure, but even if you ignore those, small companies faced with buyout pressure from a much larger player are rarely in a position to refuse, knowing that if they do so then their business has a target painted on it. That's why so much of the tech startup sector has adapted to the situation and evolved to take angel investor funds, rack up debt in the pursuit of rapid user growth, and then pursue a buy out.
Consolidation into corporate megaliths is rarely in the interests of anyone except the executives of the megaliths. Customers have less choice, employees have less power, and even shareholders get diluted
Also because the size of the companies involved may not necessarily correlate with a merger being bad for employees. And when the combined business does reduce its workforce that could just as well be that they are run more efficiently as a combined entity. And why on earth would a government want to hamper moves that potentially create more efficient businesses. Becoming more efficient is a key element to remaining competitive in a global market.