4 ms·
I agree with you, but I think the main argument is that it lets companies provide better products and potentially cheaper prices from vertical integration. Some
by e_i_pi_2 3y ago
I agree with you, but I think the main argument is that it lets companies provide better products and potentially cheaper prices from vertical integration. Sometimes acquisitions are only done for the human resources, and the customers of the acquirer now benefit from that person. If your competitor knows how to make the same product but cheaper, you can buy them and now your product is cheaper.
In theory it makes tons of sense - why compete when we could work together? But as long as we're requiring companies to be profitable we can't also expect them to make decisions that are net beneficial - only net profitable, and the profit motive for wiping out competitors is clear
- e_i_pi_2 3y agoThis is also ignoring the kinda simple case of buying for IP - if you're a toy maker and you want to sell toys for movies, you can do that for free if you also own the movie and avoid licensing fees. Or maybe you need some specific patent and a competitor won't license it to you as long as they're in business because then you legally have to work at a disadvantage - IP is kinda by definition meant to hurt consumers for a period as a reward for the holder, so removing that would make the products better