3 ms·
That's easier said than done. Often times, refusing to allow a merger will mean that one of the competitors will just go out of business, and avoiding that will
by ksdale 7y ago
That's easier said than done. Often times, refusing to allow a merger will mean that one of the competitors will just go out of business, and avoiding that will require propping up a competitor.
- Swenrekcah 7y agoThen go out of business they must.
- greedo 7y agoThe result of that is a merger on the cheap. The surviving companies get to acquire talent, patents, trade secrets at a far cheaper rate. This would essentially kill off any company's chance of merging if it wasn't relatively healthy.
- ksdale 7y agoRight, I was just responding to the parent's assertion that preventing a monopoly doesn't require propping up competitors. Sometimes it does require that, and we should be conscious of the trade off we'd make in that situation.