5 ms·

It is so sad that the FTC and SEC have completely failed us in the 21st century. Shareholder value above all else.

by snarf21 5y ago

MaxMoney 5y ago
relueeuler 5y ago
How did they fail you?
- tcook_sucks_xie 5y ago
  they created a american oligarchy thats as bad as the russian one justify it how ever you want, same result
  - sebazzz 5y ago
    Did they create the oligarchy or are they a teethless tiger because of it?
  - rosndo 5y ago
    You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. My wife had to flee Russia at 14 because a rival oligarch decided to try and force her father to sign over his business. 3 employees of theirs, including her personal driver, were shot and killed as part of an intimidation campaign. Really, fuck you. This doesn’t happen in America, there is no equivalency here.
- stingraycharles 5y ago
  I have no opinion on this matter, but I assume the parent implies that those agencies should not have approved this deal.
- MichaelMoser123 5y ago
  in the sense that some corporation is turning into the real world equivalent of the fictional Buy N Large from the movie Wall-E
- snarf21 5y ago
  By neutering consumer choice, neutering consumer protections, killing smaller business, making it hard for new companies to compete/innovate, etc.
  - scarface74 5y ago
    And this has what to do with the MGM acquisition?
oh_sigh 5y ago
Do you also feel the same way about the European Union antitrust commission? Because they unconditionally signed off on the deal as well. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/amazon-wins-eu-antitrust-nod-85-billion-mgm-acquisition-2022-03-15/ https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/amazon-wins-e...
- snarf21 5y ago
  Yes, but I don't live in the EU and they aren't funded by my taxes.
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    My point was that the EU commission has a much better reputation than the American one for actually caring about anticompetitive behavior, and even they said that Amazon can buy MGM unconditionally.
    - mardifoufs 5y ago
      I'm not sure that's true. While they have been very good at using antitrust as a leverage for trade disputes... they have been more or less toothless against european conglomerates. They seem to care a lot less about the type of anti competitive behavior that (partly or fully) state owned corporations and large conglomerates would be more likely to indulge in. >One complaint of industrial policy in European antitrust came from no less than the then President of the United States. President Obama suggested that some European antitrust enforcement targeting U.S. tech companies might be essentially an element of European industrial policy. President Obama explained in an interview with Kara Swisher: “We have owned the Internet. Our companies have created it, expanded it, perfected it, in ways [that inefficient European competitors] can’t compete [with]. And often- times what is portrayed as high-minded positions on issues sometimes is designed to carve out their commercial interests.”59 [...] >They note that the European case law more readily accepts refusals to supply and refusals to deal than U.S. case law (although the duty is not broad). Something Gifford and Kudrle fail to mention, however, is that, importantly, in addition to the limits on the European case law, the Guidance Paper also shows deep reluctance to create blanket obligations for rivals. The context for refusals to deal is different in Europe where, unlike the United States, there is a history of state-owned enterprises. In what is per- haps still the leading economic policy book of European competition law, the most recent former chief economist of DG Competition, in his prior academic writing, also shows great reluctance to undertake an aggressive ap- proach with regard to refusals to deal. Source: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1819&context=facultypub https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... The reason we hear more about their enforcement actions is because big tech is mostly American. The US also has a much less arbitrary and more transparent process, where the main focus is economical costs to the customer is the main concern. Not so much for for the black box that is the european DG. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, europe has no reason to want itself dominated by big American tech corporations. But I think some perspective is needed, and I think the paper I linked shows the pros and cons of both approaches pretty well.

It is so sad that the FTC and SEC have completely failed us in the 21st century. Shareholder value above all else.

MaxMoney 5y ago

relueeuler 5y ago

How did they fail you?

tcook_sucks_xie 5y ago
they created a american oligarchy thats as bad as the russian one justify it how ever you want, same result
- sebazzz 5y ago
  Did they create the oligarchy or are they a teethless tiger because of it?
- rosndo 5y ago
  You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. My wife had to flee Russia at 14 because a rival oligarch decided to try and force her father to sign over his business. 3 employees of theirs, including her personal driver, were shot and killed as part of an intimidation campaign. Really, fuck you. This doesn’t happen in America, there is no equivalency here.
stingraycharles 5y ago
I have no opinion on this matter, but I assume the parent implies that those agencies should not have approved this deal.
MichaelMoser123 5y ago
in the sense that some corporation is turning into the real world equivalent of the fictional Buy N Large from the movie Wall-E
snarf21 5y ago
By neutering consumer choice, neutering consumer protections, killing smaller business, making it hard for new companies to compete/innovate, etc.
- scarface74 5y ago
  And this has what to do with the MGM acquisition?

oh_sigh 5y ago

Do you also feel the same way about the European Union antitrust commission? Because they unconditionally signed off on the deal as well. https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/amazon-wins-eu-antitrust-nod-85-billion-mgm-acquisition-2022-03-15/ https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/amazon-wins-e...

snarf21 5y ago
Yes, but I don't live in the EU and they aren't funded by my taxes.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  My point was that the EU commission has a much better reputation than the American one for actually caring about anticompetitive behavior, and even they said that Amazon can buy MGM unconditionally.
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    I'm not sure that's true. While they have been very good at using antitrust as a leverage for trade disputes... they have been more or less toothless against european conglomerates. They seem to care a lot less about the type of anti competitive behavior that (partly or fully) state owned corporations and large conglomerates would be more likely to indulge in. >One complaint of industrial policy in European antitrust came from no less than the then President of the United States. President Obama suggested that some European antitrust enforcement targeting U.S. tech companies might be essentially an element of European industrial policy. President Obama explained in an interview with Kara Swisher: “We have owned the Internet. Our companies have created it, expanded it, perfected it, in ways [that inefficient European competitors] can’t compete [with]. And often- times what is portrayed as high-minded positions on issues sometimes is designed to carve out their commercial interests.”59 [...] >They note that the European case law more readily accepts refusals to supply and refusals to deal than U.S. case law (although the duty is not broad). Something Gifford and Kudrle fail to mention, however, is that, importantly, in addition to the limits on the European case law, the Guidance Paper also shows deep reluctance to create blanket obligations for rivals. The context for refusals to deal is different in Europe where, unlike the United States, there is a history of state-owned enterprises. In what is per- haps still the leading economic policy book of European competition law, the most recent former chief economist of DG Competition, in his prior academic writing, also shows great reluctance to undertake an aggressive ap- proach with regard to refusals to deal. Source: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1819&context=facultypub https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... The reason we hear more about their enforcement actions is because big tech is mostly American. The US also has a much less arbitrary and more transparent process, where the main focus is economical costs to the customer is the main concern. Not so much for for the black box that is the european DG. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, europe has no reason to want itself dominated by big American tech corporations. But I think some perspective is needed, and I think the paper I linked shows the pros and cons of both approaches pretty well.