3 ms·

I disagree with you. If companies split themselves into smaller companies that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Without having described how exactly the mon

I disagree with you. If companies split themselves into smaller companies that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Without having described how exactly the money would be distributed or the specific criteria I'm not sure how you can confidently say it would create zombie companies. In any case, the point of what I was saying was to help fund strong competitors. You could just as well transfer funds from the top 10% to the third and fourth deciles.

dereg 5y ago
What's your desired outcome of a program like this? The purpose of antitrust is to encourage competition for the benefit of consumers. Improving competition is a necessary, but not sufficient outcome. Creating competition for competition's sake, irrespective of the consumer effect, is against the spirit of antitrust.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  I think competition for competition's sake is good. Historically and inherently it will ultimately result in better outcomes for consumers as ultimately that's the purpose of all companies - providing goods and services.
  - Jcowell 5y ago
    No , Competition should not be for competition sake but for the benefit of the consumer. If competition results in worse conditions for the consumer it should be eliminated. Especially in the tech space where things such as security is sometimes compromised for the sake of competition
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      How exactly would competition not inherently help the consumers?
majormajor 5y ago
I would love taxes or other regulation that encouraged companies to split up, but I think something like an aggressive progressive tax structure on revenue would work better than sending money to the companies at the bottom. A company dying means the people in it would be available to other companies, where they could potentially find better things to do. Very different from a person suffering from poverty (where welfare and such has its place).

dereg 5y ago

What's your desired outcome of a program like this? The purpose of antitrust is to encourage competition for the benefit of consumers. Improving competition is a necessary, but not sufficient outcome. Creating competition for competition's sake, irrespective of the consumer effect, is against the spirit of antitrust.

endisneigh 5y ago
I think competition for competition's sake is good. Historically and inherently it will ultimately result in better outcomes for consumers as ultimately that's the purpose of all companies - providing goods and services.
- Jcowell 5y ago
  No , Competition should not be for competition sake but for the benefit of the consumer. If competition results in worse conditions for the consumer it should be eliminated. Especially in the tech space where things such as security is sometimes compromised for the sake of competition
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    How exactly would competition not inherently help the consumers?

majormajor 5y ago

I would love taxes or other regulation that encouraged companies to split up, but I think something like an aggressive progressive tax structure on revenue would work better than sending money to the companies at the bottom. A company dying means the people in it would be available to other companies, where they could potentially find better things to do. Very different from a person suffering from poverty (where welfare and such has its place).