3 ms·

It's not a math equation you run through a computer and get a legal result out the other end. Congress (or whatever) could use this measurement as a tool to dri

It's not a math equation you run through a computer and get a legal result out the other end. Congress (or whatever) could use this measurement as a tool to drive investigations so you can stomp out anti-competitive behavior before it becomes a problem

rualca 5y ago
> It's not a math equation you run through a computer and get a legal result out the other end. Not really. This has zero to do with math. At all. We have a buyer and we have a seller, both the buyer and the seller wish to perform a transaction, but then we have a regulator which arbitrarily wants to force them not to execute said transaction because of reasons. And my question is terribly simple: to those who want to force someone like me from buying what I like from a seller I chose but they arbitrarily reject, how exactly do they wish to force me from buying what I'd like from who I chose to buy from? No math, no numbers. I'm asking a very simple question: what then?
- diab0lic 5y ago
  > No math, no numbers. I’m asking a very simple question: what then? The comment you replied to answered your question. The transaction goes through, absolutely no additional regulation or control comes into play at the transaction level. NOTE: I am not supporting this position, or opposing it. I’m just stating what the gp post said.
  - rualca 5y ago
    > The comment you replied to answered your question. It really didn't, instead it weaseled out by putting up a strawman that pretends to put a loophole in a straight-forward and very clear way. In fact, it's blatantly clear by itself the fact that no one proposed a single idea or suggestion about how to enforce that mysterious 10%. No explanation was given on the impact on customers, and how the sellers would be forced to not go beyond that 10%. Why is that? Is the idea undefendable?

3 ms·

It's not a math equation you run through a computer and get a legal result out the other end. Congress (or whatever) could use this measurement as a tool to dri

by batty_alex 5y ago

rualca 5y ago
> It's not a math equation you run through a computer and get a legal result out the other end. Not really. This has zero to do with math. At all. We have a buyer and we have a seller, both the buyer and the seller wish to perform a transaction, but then we have a regulator which arbitrarily wants to force them not to execute said transaction because of reasons. And my question is terribly simple: to those who want to force someone like me from buying what I like from a seller I chose but they arbitrarily reject, how exactly do they wish to force me from buying what I'd like from who I chose to buy from? No math, no numbers. I'm asking a very simple question: what then?
- diab0lic 5y ago
  > No math, no numbers. I’m asking a very simple question: what then? The comment you replied to answered your question. The transaction goes through, absolutely no additional regulation or control comes into play at the transaction level. NOTE: I am not supporting this position, or opposing it. I’m just stating what the gp post said.
  - rualca 5y ago
    > The comment you replied to answered your question. It really didn't, instead it weaseled out by putting up a strawman that pretends to put a loophole in a straight-forward and very clear way. In fact, it's blatantly clear by itself the fact that no one proposed a single idea or suggestion about how to enforce that mysterious 10%. No explanation was given on the impact on customers, and how the sellers would be forced to not go beyond that 10%. Why is that? Is the idea undefendable?