3 ms·

Beyond a certain size corporations shouldn't be allowed to acquire companies.

by ginko 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nasdaq-txn 3y ago
With what reasoning?
- ginko 3y ago
  What's the value to society of having large companies get larger? IBM is clearly running on fumes by now. Extending its life by pulling down more small companies with them only makes things worse for everyone.
  - nosefurhairdo 3y ago
    If society doesn't value what IBM produces then they'll go out of business. There are many factors to optimal organization size, and there are different ways of handling acquisitions that can preserve the acquired organization to varying extents. I work for an org that got acquired by IBM and my job (and org) has been remarkably unaffected. Just different folks enjoying the profits. Like all things, there is much more nuance than "big corporation bad."
  - gunapologist99 3y ago
    What's the value to society of large companies not getting larger? What is even the relevance? Does everything have to be judged in terms of its value to society, and if so, why? Should we talk about your value to society? You're arguing for a draconian regulatory response (it sounds like) to what should be a market issue.
- internet101010 3y ago
  They kill competition by bundling stuff together and increasing the price.
thrwaway1337 3y ago
Why? There's nothing inherently bad about acquisitions In fact, strong (~free) capital markets in which acquisitions happen frequently allow for more efficient (~optimal) allocation of resources over the long run, even if any single acquisition may not be locally optimal
- inetknght 3y ago
  > In fact, strong (~free) capital markets in which acquisitions happen frequently allow for more efficient (~optimal) allocation of resources I argue that's an opinion. I also argue that allowing for does not mean ensures. I also argue that, in practice, acquisitions happening freely typically result in "more efficient" allocation of humans to the detriment of those humans. Also, "more efficient" allocation of resources often increases the cost of those resources to other humans consuming those resources. So yes, it's a valid opinion but in practice the stated results are infrequently achieved and come with significant costs that aren't accounted for in a purely free market situation.

Beyond a certain size corporations shouldn't be allowed to acquire companies.

by ginko 3y ago

Beyond a certain size corporations shouldn't be allowed to acquire companies.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nasdaq-txn 3y ago

With what reasoning?

ginko 3y ago
What's the value to society of having large companies get larger? IBM is clearly running on fumes by now. Extending its life by pulling down more small companies with them only makes things worse for everyone.
- nosefurhairdo 3y ago
  If society doesn't value what IBM produces then they'll go out of business. There are many factors to optimal organization size, and there are different ways of handling acquisitions that can preserve the acquired organization to varying extents. I work for an org that got acquired by IBM and my job (and org) has been remarkably unaffected. Just different folks enjoying the profits. Like all things, there is much more nuance than "big corporation bad."
- gunapologist99 3y ago
  What's the value to society of large companies not getting larger? What is even the relevance? Does everything have to be judged in terms of its value to society, and if so, why? Should we talk about your value to society? You're arguing for a draconian regulatory response (it sounds like) to what should be a market issue.
internet101010 3y ago
They kill competition by bundling stuff together and increasing the price.

thrwaway1337 3y ago

Why? There's nothing inherently bad about acquisitions In fact, strong (~free) capital markets in which acquisitions happen frequently allow for more efficient (~optimal) allocation of resources over the long run, even if any single acquisition may not be locally optimal

inetknght 3y ago
> In fact, strong (~free) capital markets in which acquisitions happen frequently allow for more efficient (~optimal) allocation of resources I argue that's an opinion. I also argue that allowing for does not mean ensures. I also argue that, in practice, acquisitions happening freely typically result in "more efficient" allocation of humans to the detriment of those humans. Also, "more efficient" allocation of resources often increases the cost of those resources to other humans consuming those resources. So yes, it's a valid opinion but in practice the stated results are infrequently achieved and come with significant costs that aren't accounted for in a purely free market situation.