3 ms·

Why is economic predictability good if it has bad outcomes?

by CPLX 3y ago

lolinder 3y ago
If the outcomes were shown to be worse across the board, sure, it would be worth sacrificing predictability for better outcomes. But if we set the precedent of rolling back merger approvals after the fact, I see good reason to believe that the effects on the market would be worse overall than if we just let this bad outcome be a single bad outcome. If we want mergers to be undoable, that needs to be clear at the time of approval. We could probably fix this going forward to strike a better balance between predictability and other outcomes, but we have to make the contingencies known in advance, not pull rugs three years later.
- CPLX 3y ago
  Yeah but why. What about the idea that unlawful things remain unlawful even if someone gets away with them for a little while. That seems pretty logically consistent too.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Are there any allegations of unlawful behavior here? If so, sure, let's make sure there are consequences! But those consequences should be consistent for any company engaging in said behaviors, regardless of whether they were recently merged.
    - CPLX 3y ago
      Yeah what’s what a lawsuit means, that someone is alleging unlawful behavior. It’s a lawsuit, litigated by lawyers, in a court of law. You may see a three letter word reappearing if you look closely. Every court case starts with a document that lists the actions of the defendant while citing the specific laws (statute or tort) alleged to have been violated. As a general rule laws are enforced after the fact by a harmed party asking courts to provide a remedy. In the case of criminal law the party is the people, represented by the state, in the case of civil law it’s often a private individual, group, or organization. This is the normal way laws are applied. People break them and then someone takes them to court to unwind the damage and seek redress.
      - lolinder 3y ago
        You missed my actual point, but the sarcasm is noted: > But those consequences should be consistent for any company engaging in said behaviors, regardless of whether they were recently merged.
        CPLX 3y ago
        The consequences are consistent. If they engage in an illegal merger and someone sues them they'll be subject to the remedy of that court. It's really not that complicated. That's how civil and business law is typically enforced. Your premise is that when a business deal is "approved" it's all set. But that's not really how things generally work, your premise is dubious. The real way things work is people do things and then if they cause unlawful harm they end up getting sued, sometimes by the justice department sometimes by a class action sometimes by someone else.

Why is economic predictability good if it has bad outcomes?

by CPLX 3y ago

Why is economic predictability good if it has bad outcomes?

If the outcomes were shown to be worse across the board, sure, it would be worth sacrificing predictability for better outcomes. But if we set the precedent of rolling back merger approvals after the fact, I see good reason to believe that the effects on the market would be worse overall than if we just let this bad outcome be a single bad outcome. If we want mergers to be undoable, that needs to be clear at the time of approval. We could probably fix this going forward to strike a better balance between predictability and other outcomes, but we have to make the contingencies known in advance, not pull rugs three years later.

CPLX 3y ago
Yeah but why. What about the idea that unlawful things remain unlawful even if someone gets away with them for a little while. That seems pretty logically consistent too.
- lolinder 3y ago
  Are there any allegations of unlawful behavior here? If so, sure, let's make sure there are consequences! But those consequences should be consistent for any company engaging in said behaviors, regardless of whether they were recently merged.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    Yeah what’s what a lawsuit means, that someone is alleging unlawful behavior. It’s a lawsuit, litigated by lawyers, in a court of law. You may see a three letter word reappearing if you look closely. Every court case starts with a document that lists the actions of the defendant while citing the specific laws (statute or tort) alleged to have been violated. As a general rule laws are enforced after the fact by a harmed party asking courts to provide a remedy. In the case of criminal law the party is the people, represented by the state, in the case of civil law it’s often a private individual, group, or organization. This is the normal way laws are applied. People break them and then someone takes them to court to unwind the damage and seek redress.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      You missed my actual point, but the sarcasm is noted: > But those consequences should be consistent for any company engaging in said behaviors, regardless of whether they were recently merged.
      - CPLX 3y ago
        The consequences are consistent. If they engage in an illegal merger and someone sues them they'll be subject to the remedy of that court. It's really not that complicated. That's how civil and business law is typically enforced. Your premise is that when a business deal is "approved" it's all set. But that's not really how things generally work, your premise is dubious. The real way things work is people do things and then if they cause unlawful harm they end up getting sued, sometimes by the justice department sometimes by a class action sometimes by someone else.