>Yes, it's 100% the case that the FTC reviews all M&A of sizes substantially smaller than $20B in revenue. Maybe so, but it is not the case that mergers get bl

>Yes, it's 100% the case that the FTC reviews all M&A of sizes substantially smaller than $20B in revenue. Maybe so, but it is not the case that mergers get blocked purely based on the size of the companies involved. It's simply not lawful for the FTC (or other regulators) to do so. >The FTC probably should allow most mergers to go through. That is the status quo and it is clearly unsatisfactory in some areas. >I suggest deference should be given to the liberal side of the equation, with regulation affecting only within certain constraints. I completely understand why you are saying that, and it has always been my preference as well. But the problem is that these constraints have become so difficult to specify that the likelihood of ineffective, counterproductive or abusive regulation has risen dramatically. That's why I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be better to accept that size itself invevitably creates problems that no case by case game of what-a-mole will ever solve. We need simpler rules that can be consistently enforced. I'm far from convinced that my particular idea is any good. I'm just putting it out there as an example for the kind of simplicity that I think we need.