3 ms·

Consolidation is bad, and big megacorps effectively break the market dynamic that fosters healthy competition, innovation, and reduces the cost of goods/service

Consolidation is bad, and big megacorps effectively break the market dynamic that fosters healthy competition, innovation, and reduces the cost of goods/services. I am happy to see acquisitions by megacorps blocked in general. But really we need a revision of antitrust law for the modern era, and we need it to be enforced.

nobody9999 6y ago
>But really we need a revision of antitrust law for the modern era, and we need it to be enforced. What revisions would you like to see? The underlying activities that make up the behavior we call "antitrust" haven't really changed. I'd say the solution is much more about muscular enforcement than revising the law. That said, there may be something I'm missing here.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  I'm being vague, but I think my concern is that the focus on "monopolistic behavior" is archaic. Harm to a healthily competitive environment can result from a few big players existing rather than a single dominant one. It may not even require certain "behavior" as much as a large entity with lots of capital simply existing. There are also big barriers to entry in any business that is built on network effects - even there, we need a mechanism to enable competition.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >I'm being vague, but I think my concern is that the focus on "monopolistic behavior" is archaic. I take your point. However, at least in the United States[0], the law does not require an entity to be a monopoly to engage in behavior that is anticompetitive and/or violates anti-trust laws. In fact, the topic at hand (Visa's proposed acquisition of Plaid) doesn't have a "monopoly" component at all. Rather, IIUC the DOJ is arguing that it runs afoul of section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act[1] which addresses mergers and acquisitions that limit competition. I don't disagree with your assessment of the situation, but I do think that existing law (and jurisprudence expanding on that law) address the vast majority of the issues impact competition today. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Act_of_1914#Section_7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Act_of_1914#Section_7
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Override the caselaw to take "consumer welfare" off its special pedestal. The higher order effects are much more important, I would also allow sufficiently-employee-owned companies to be exempt in certain respects, to keep the co-op path to socialism open :).
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Override the caselaw to take "consumer welfare" off its special pedestal. The higher order effects are much more important, What might those "higher order effects" be? I'm not being snarky here, I'm just not clear what it is that you're arguing for that makes "consumer welfare" unimportant. It's a provocative position, but you haven't given enough information to evaluate it. Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated!
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      The first part of what I said is actually an oft-repeated opinion you are giving me way to much credit for. A quick google gave me https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2987&context=faculty_scholarship https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl..., which from the little I read does a great job of explaining what's going on.

nobody9999 6y ago

>But really we need a revision of antitrust law for the modern era, and we need it to be enforced. What revisions would you like to see? The underlying activities that make up the behavior we call "antitrust" haven't really changed. I'd say the solution is much more about muscular enforcement than revising the law. That said, there may be something I'm missing here.

throwawaysea 6y ago
I'm being vague, but I think my concern is that the focus on "monopolistic behavior" is archaic. Harm to a healthily competitive environment can result from a few big players existing rather than a single dominant one. It may not even require certain "behavior" as much as a large entity with lots of capital simply existing. There are also big barriers to entry in any business that is built on network effects - even there, we need a mechanism to enable competition.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >I'm being vague, but I think my concern is that the focus on "monopolistic behavior" is archaic. I take your point. However, at least in the United States[0], the law does not require an entity to be a monopoly to engage in behavior that is anticompetitive and/or violates anti-trust laws. In fact, the topic at hand (Visa's proposed acquisition of Plaid) doesn't have a "monopoly" component at all. Rather, IIUC the DOJ is arguing that it runs afoul of section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act[1] which addresses mergers and acquisitions that limit competition. I don't disagree with your assessment of the situation, but I do think that existing law (and jurisprudence expanding on that law) address the vast majority of the issues impact competition today. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Act_of_1914#Section_7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Act_of_1914#Section_7
Ericson2314 6y ago
Override the caselaw to take "consumer welfare" off its special pedestal. The higher order effects are much more important, I would also allow sufficiently-employee-owned companies to be exempt in certain respects, to keep the co-op path to socialism open :).
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Override the caselaw to take "consumer welfare" off its special pedestal. The higher order effects are much more important, What might those "higher order effects" be? I'm not being snarky here, I'm just not clear what it is that you're arguing for that makes "consumer welfare" unimportant. It's a provocative position, but you haven't given enough information to evaluate it. Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated!
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    The first part of what I said is actually an oft-repeated opinion you are giving me way to much credit for. A quick google gave me https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2987&context=faculty_scholarship https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl..., which from the little I read does a great job of explaining what's going on.