5 ms·
>If there are 100 roughly comparable companies, a merger happens, and 99 remain, the competition decreased, but the landscape is still competitive. But still l
by thfuran 3y ago
>If there are 100 roughly comparable companies, a merger happens, and 99 remain, the competition decreased, but the landscape is still competitive.
But still less competitive than it was. So why allow a company like Microsoft to make the field less competitive when it could afford to compete instead of buying its competitors? I think a company even half as large or profitable as Microsoft should have to present a pretty damn compelling case before being allowed to make any acquisition at all let alone that of one of their competitors.
- AlchemistCamp 3y agoYou should “allow” MS to make acquisitions because it’s their money and they should be able to spent it however they choose, within the constraints of the law. Your desire to block acquisitions in general is a dangerous one. Doing so, basically kills venture capital markets, and then we get far fewer startups, less innovative disruption and more entrenched market leaders.
- nine_k 3y agoWhat if a company goes out of business, and fewer remain? Should it be even allowed to close? :) Mergers are different because they create fewer giants in the place where more smaller companies used to be. In extreme cases, it may have seriously bad consequences for broader public, and this is a reason to prevent a merger, or even split a monopoly. But this should be a rather extraordinary event.