5 ms·

> Company A is 6 days away from going out of business...But then Company B agrees to buy them for $1...Ban it? versus scenario 2, Company A is profitable. Comp

> Company A is 6 days away from going out of business...But then Company B agrees to buy them for $1...Ban it? versus scenario 2, Company A is profitable. Company B is smaller, but up and coming. An announcement is made that A will buy B and everything will be better. Layoffs ensue, product lines are dropped, employees and customers are very unhappy, but prices and profits are up. Since scenario 2 is quite common today, and scenario 1 is relatively uncommon, yes, ban it, that's a better way to run markets. We're conducting a thought experiment here. So we think through the implications and try to figure out if there is a way to achieve benefits for all, benefits that we know exist. Don't be scared of a single negative scenario, have to look at the big picture, what is better overall. I'm glad billionaires have the freedom to build kooky submarines that other multimillionaires can climb aboard and go on dangerous adventures, sometimes ending in the ultimate sacrifice. Why a whole bunch of other people who were uninvolved engage in weeks of hand-wringing, I can't grok at all.

kbenson 3y ago
> that's a better way to run markets. I'm highly skeptical that heavily restricting buying and selling of companies in general will be a better way to run a market when it seems your goal is to prevent monopolies (or put another way, ensure competition). Laser focused policies work for a short periods but tend to be worked around quickly as the thing they regulate falls out of favor in lieu of something functionally the same but different enough it doesn't match. Blanket policies tend to stifle the market in general, causing other problems. Rather than assuming that any specific law actually "solves" the problem, we'd probably be much better off setting criteria we're trying to match and and reassessing regulations regularly to try to meet that criteria. Anything unresponsive will be routed around. The real problem is that we have things that do that (the SEC and FTC) and they're broken. We should fix them, not swap to a sledgehammer as the only tool available.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  >I'm highly skeptical that heavily restricting buying and selling of companies in general will be a better way to run a market when it seems your goal is to prevent monopolies (or put another way, ensure competition) ah, the markets I am talking about are goods and services markets. Financial markets, they take care of themselves, and at the same time garner no sympathy from the majority who don't participate in them. if monopolies emerge some other way, sure, break 'em up just the same.
  - kbenson 3y ago
    There are no "financial markets" and "goods and services markets" beyond arbitrary groupings people make to talk about sectors and types of commerce. It's all the same thing, and companies make use of various aspects of it as they see fit.
- notfromhere 3y ago
  That’s how antitrust enforcement worked before we decided to only care about consumer prices. It worked pretty well. But right now we let the market consolidate to the point where major industries have 2-4 major players with 80-90% market share between them.

kbenson 3y ago

> that's a better way to run markets. I'm highly skeptical that heavily restricting buying and selling of companies in general will be a better way to run a market when it seems your goal is to prevent monopolies (or put another way, ensure competition). Laser focused policies work for a short periods but tend to be worked around quickly as the thing they regulate falls out of favor in lieu of something functionally the same but different enough it doesn't match. Blanket policies tend to stifle the market in general, causing other problems. Rather than assuming that any specific law actually "solves" the problem, we'd probably be much better off setting criteria we're trying to match and and reassessing regulations regularly to try to meet that criteria. Anything unresponsive will be routed around. The real problem is that we have things that do that (the SEC and FTC) and they're broken. We should fix them, not swap to a sledgehammer as the only tool available.

fsckboy 3y ago
>I'm highly skeptical that heavily restricting buying and selling of companies in general will be a better way to run a market when it seems your goal is to prevent monopolies (or put another way, ensure competition) ah, the markets I am talking about are goods and services markets. Financial markets, they take care of themselves, and at the same time garner no sympathy from the majority who don't participate in them. if monopolies emerge some other way, sure, break 'em up just the same.
- kbenson 3y ago
  There are no "financial markets" and "goods and services markets" beyond arbitrary groupings people make to talk about sectors and types of commerce. It's all the same thing, and companies make use of various aspects of it as they see fit.
notfromhere 3y ago
That’s how antitrust enforcement worked before we decided to only care about consumer prices. It worked pretty well. But right now we let the market consolidate to the point where major industries have 2-4 major players with 80-90% market share between them.