3 ms·
> People don’t like the politics of Paramount’s ownership but from a competition perspective this is the better outcome. This was a much more compelling argume
by roughly 8mo ago
> People don’t like the politics of Paramount’s ownership but from a competition perspective this is the better outcome.
This was a much more compelling argument 14-odd months ago. People don’t like the politics of Paramount’s ownership because they’re aligned with the authoritarians currently trying to take control of the country - this isn’t a dispute over tax policy.
- ls612 8mo agoYes, it’s a dispute about antitrust policy not tax policy. The criteria for that analysis is consumer surplus, not the political beliefs of the owners.
- roughly 8mo agoIt’s not a dispute about antitrust policy either, or at least not directly. Paramount has been aggressively reshaping its content to please the current administration for purposes of buying political favor. There’s an antitrust component to that, in that the more properties they acquire, the fewer voices aren’t effectively controlled by the regime, but the opposition to Paramount’s purchasing spree is political and should be properly seen as such.
- ls612 8mo agoWell political differences is not a valid reason to block a merger in the US (see TWC and AT&T’s merger in his first term for an example of that strategy failing).
- roughly 8mo agoThat was part of Paramount’s offer/threat to WBD, though - “the administration likes us.” I agree with you that it’s unlikely to block the merger, but I think saying this is a win for the consumer is ignoring a whole lot of context.