Ban All Big Mergers. Period • Hacker News Board

Re: Ban All Big Mergers. Period

#21

Post by AnimalMuppet » Fri, Feb 26, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

pietrovismara wrote: post #4

himinlomax wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would have a lot of unintended consequences.

Everything has unintended consequences. That shouldn't stop change. Especially considering that the current situation is flawed and already has many unintended consequences.

True, everything has unintended consequences. Some are worse than others, though. And some unintended consequences can be worse than the current situation, even when the current situation is flawed.

You're falling for the "politician's syllogism": Something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done. But it's called a syllogism because it's flawed logic. The worse the situation, the more important that we do something that actually helps, not just some random something.

Re: Ban All Big Mergers. Period

#22

Post by quantified » Sat, Feb 27, 2021, 5:08 AM UTC

alexvoda wrote: post #17

pietrovismara wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything has unintended consequences. That shouldn't stop change. Especially considering that the current situation is flawed and already has many unintended consequences.

We should simulate it to research it.

The models we simulate from will probably be politically charged. However, economics itself is highly political, you could at least possibly see the biases and assumptions in the models.

This would probably be the way.

Re: Ban All Big Mergers. Period

#23

Post by quantified » Sat, Feb 27, 2021, 5:10 AM UTC

thedevelopnik wrote: post #9

leksak wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Controversial, sure, however I presume it is controversial because it has become a common trajectory to launch with an intent to eventually be acquired by a bigger player. Has this always been a common intent of new businesses? Depends. What are the arguments for a company holding shares in another? If the purpose a company X has shares in Y and Z to diversify their income stream then perhaps non-voting stocks would…

Yeah, my first thought reading the article was “this will encourage big places to buy small places even more quickly so nobody else can get above the $10B line.” So some other rules would have to be set on smaller acquisitions.

There will be an accounting scramble to establish being above the line, then games and political lobbying to keep or move the bar in a favorable direction.

Re: Ban All Big Mergers. Period

#24

Post by quantified » Sat, Feb 27, 2021, 5:12 AM UTC

pietrovismara wrote: post #4

himinlomax wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would have a lot of unintended consequences.

Everything has unintended consequences. That shouldn't stop change. Especially considering that the current situation is flawed and already has many unintended consequences.

The application of brilliant mathematical and legal minds to gaming the system will be a great intellectual opportunity if rather perverse at the same time.

Re: Ban All Big Mergers. Period

#25

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 27, 2021, 8:49 AM UTC

leksak wrote: post #2

Block megacorps from acquisitions of smaller companies as well. When a corporation is large enough to wield significant political influence, allowing them to buy up and coming disruptors makes it even easier for them to, as the article writes, make a mockery of democratic norms. And thus, by the same token argument, the acquisition of smaller entities should similarly be blocked.

[deleted]