3 ms·
> The implied conditionality here is troubling me. Reasons to block a merger should be about market power. Why just market power? National security seems like
by ardy42 8y ago
> The implied conditionality here is troubling me. Reasons to block a merger should be about market power.
Why just market power? National security seems like it's also be a valid, defensible reason to kill a deal (it'd have been obvious to block Russian company taking control of a major US defense contractor, especially during the Cold War).
- ggm 8y agoYou can't join together, even though neither of you have Huawei deployed, because your German majority owner has Huawei and we want to leverage an advantage. Merkel isn't in five eyes and we have no other leverage. That's abusing the reasons major mergers like this are referred to the system in peacetime. It's not a hot war, it's not a cold ear, it's a trade war. What happened to the WTO? Did we all just walk off the reservation back to tarrifland?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dsl 8y ago> and we want to leverage an advantage The T-Mobile and Deutsche Telekom networks are heavily integrated. It would be disingenuous to say you can use vulnerable gear as long as it is outside US borders.
- slededit 8y agoChina has developing nation status at the WTO. Thus China has an unfair advantage under WTO rules (in the direct sense - they literally get special treatment). Until that is rectified expect the WTO to not hold much sway over US trade policy.
- majia 8y agoNational security is becoming an umbrella term to justify anything, including tariff on Canadian steel.