3 ms·
> On grounds having being state controlled? I'm not sure US regulators do have that power. On some pretend grounds, to be able to wield it as a geopolitical wea
by zzzeek 5y ago
> On grounds having being state controlled? I'm not sure US regulators do have that power. On some pretend grounds, to be able to wield it as a geopolitical weapon? Probably not.
overall, the Commerce Clause in article I of the US constitution grants the federal government power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, which includes import / export restrictions. For example you can't really buy things from Iran or Cuba without major restrictions if at all.
if a trade embargo doesn't fall under the realm of "geopolitical weapon" I don't know what does.
- miracle2k 5y agoThe "probably not" was intended to be an answer to the question "would you support" - apologies, that wasn't clear. My overall point is that details matter for good policy. A regulator having the power to ban a foreign merger for supposed anti-competitive reasons, but really political ones, is not the same thing as, say, a legislative body passing sanctions legislation. In other words, just because the UK wants to ability to sanction a Chinese business does not mean the Competition and Markets Authority needs to granted the ability to interfere with Chinese mergers.