[Moissanite]

We need to go beyond stopping mergers. Any company which sees itself as large or powerful enough to make unveiled threats against a national economy needs to be broken up.

For ultra-large companies (e.g. any company with a market cap over $100B at the moment), default-deny should be the position for any mergers from this point - the burden of proof should be on them to show why the merge would not only be non-harmful, but actually benefit the wider economy.

[anonyfox]

Man, I came in instinctively wanting to argue the opposite point, but reading your thought in this clear way made me second guess myself. You are simply right and I have no _real_ arguments against it (maybe some ideology, but thats not useful), so I changed my mind.

Thanks!

[Arnt]

Well, if a merger is proposed, that's because management has a credible argument that it's a boost for the two companies involved. Say 1%. If one of those is a >$100B company, then that's a $1B boost for the overall economy.

If you assume that a $1B boost for the economy is an argument in favour, then all big mergers are supported by credible arguments. (Which may turn out to be wrong in hindsight, of course, but that hardly affects their credibility at the time.)

This all sounds like an RAA to me: That way of looking at big mergers leads to regarding all of them as good, which is an absurd conclusion, therefore it is an absurd view.

[piva00]

The absurdity comes from simply ignoring the potential net-negative side-effects of a merger, a 1B boost caused by higher prices is a loss for society due to inflation, there are many externalities from a merger that won't be easily priced.

I'm just adding a thought to your point.

[Arnt]

Are you saying that inflation necessarily outweighs all positive effects? That sounds like a remarkable claim to my ears.

[piva00]

No, I'm implying that inflation caused by a diminished competitive environment (the usual with large corporate mergers) coupled with the effects of a company having less competition and more market control does definitely outweigh whatever positive comes from it.

[rich_sasha]

I'd hazard a guess that a lot of America's soft power is through the giant companies it created. Big Pharma, Big Banks, Big Tech...

If CIA wants to tap a foreign dictator, I'm sure they can make a friendly call to some office software maker and ask for a one-off. Embargoes carry so much more pressure if there is no alternative to Made in USA. And so on.

Other countries are generally not in a position to wield this power but totally want to, or recognise the risk and pay through the nose to mitigate it. Look at France, which has built a complete domestic defense industry just to be independent of the USA.

You may argue this power is misused, and that's probably true, but in principle it is a nice-to-have for states, and thus societies, and probably the thing that keeps America birthing decacorns despite the costs.

[ndsipa_pomu]

Some kind of progressively increasing tax could possibly provide a disincentive. If it's based on turnover/sales rather than profit (to avoid creative accounting), then a merger would increase the tax burden compared to keeping two companies separate. It would also penalise the very biggest players, but maybe that would benefit the smaller companies and encourage greater market choice.

[ben_w]

Is there a threat here, though? Even veiled, I don't see more here than "well we'll take our ball and go home", and the actual words are closer to "we and our friends will have to think harder about bringing in more balls".

An actual threat might be closer to "Nice independent nuclear deterrent you got there, be a pity if we stopped supplying security patches for Windows for Warships…"

(But I absolutely agree that any company "too big to fail" should be treated as a potential disaster waiting to happen, and broken apart accordingly; even when I happen to like them or their work, that big is too big).

[Moissanite]

I think "We bring tech jobs and tax revenue, which we will take elsewhere if you're not more compliant" is hard to label as anything other than a threat - particularly in the context of trying to play off the UK against the EU. UK politicians have made hay off the idea that being free of EU bureaucracy would make the UK a more appealing environment for companies; that was always bullshit anyway, but here Microsoft are trying to use it as leverage in the court of public opinion.

[bell-cot]

True in the abstract. But between also-ran countries which get obsessed with creating their own "national champion" mega-companies, and the stable of mega-donors which you need to have a meaningful political career these days, and the win-at-any-cost culture wars...

[BulgarianIdiot]

First you need to prove to me the average company is less competent and aligned with people than the average government.

[pjc50]

Every time this subject comes up people wheel out "the only obligation a company has is to its _shareholders_". Usually when they're complaining about DEI or social obligations being imposed on them.

Competence you can argue, but there is no guarantee that any company is more aligned with _the public as a whole_ than an elected government. It may turn out that they are in particular cases, but elections remain a real means for public to control governments that doesn't apply to companies.

[BulgarianIdiot]

Well, I'm not wheeling out any of that. Politicians are only truly obligated to their sponsors as well, but they won't say that out loud. Does this make things better?

In truth, a government also depends on its voters, and a company also depends on its customers. But none of this what I'm talking about. I'm talking about governments implementing FORCE on corporations because they're big enough to be heard and seen and to challenge them. Is that good? Why?

Take a country like Russia where only what Putin says matters, everyone else is his pawn, even if on paper they may be billionaires holding big companies. Is that an improvement over having genuine corporate voices making their point?

[pyrale]

> Is that an improvement over having genuine corporate voices making their point?

Corporations don't have a voice, and large shareholders usually get more than their fair share of attention.

[pjc50]

People need to distinguish between "force" and "law".

In a rule of law country, governments can't just push around companies at a whim. That's the basis of Disney vs De Santis: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/florida-board-may-ban-disne...

[BulgarianIdiot]

Oh, really. Who defines law?

If you're convinced, for some silly reason, that you live in a legit republic, I recommend researching how a banana republic operates, or say Russia, which is also a democracy & a republic on paper, and learn how every single procedure and institution is subverted and behind the decorum, the rulers are doing whatever they want, basically.

And once you do this... look back to your country with new eyes, and you'll be shocked. It's the same thing. But with more make-up on.

[oblio]

> Take a country like Russia where only what Putin says matters, everyone else is his pawn, even if on paper they may be billionaires holding big companies. Is that an improvement over having genuine corporate voices making their point?

Russia is not a democracy so your premise is flawed from the start.

[BulgarianIdiot]

Oh yes it, they have elections and everything. "But it's just superficial, not real". Well, let's look at France now. People elected someone, and he flipped on them, and their protested. What's the end result, in this democracy? President 1, people 0.

[oblio]

Are you really comparing a representative democracy where the currently elected officials will probably be ousted in a few years with a place where protesting gets you thrown ostentatiously out of a window, to prove a point to everyone?

[MagnumOpus]

No he doesn't have prove anything to you. What kind of non-sequitur is that? Mergers can reduce competitiveness, and governments can be incompetent - both can be true at the same time.

[BulgarianIdiot]

It's very simple. Their argument is that no company should ever challenge a government, that if this happens, the company is too powerful and should be broken apart.

Just to make this clear, in a normal democracy, anyone can challenge a government or institution, even separate individuals, as long as they have merit, legal or moral, to their claim and they can demonstrate it.

The user proposes that by default all claims of a corporation to a country are illegal and harmful and they should be punished and split apart for it.

So... if that's a valid argument, it suggests an unchecked government, with no comparable size organization to challenge it is better somehow. Governments are better. But are they?

Prove it.

[bmacho]

> Governments are better. But are they?

> Prove it.

Two things can be true. One can think that only the state should have hundreds of billions of dollars in cash, not people, organizations or corporations. The same person can fear the government as well, and actively oppose virtually any government control over anything. (Especially if it is spectacularly dangerous and has no benefit.)

[BulgarianIdiot]

We're not discussing a "both ways" situation here. The premise was that big companies should be broken down, while countries should be kept monolithic, strictly overpowering them.

I'm asking... prove to me that governments vs corporations are a kind of conflict where governments are always correct. Because if they ARE NOT... then the idea "we must break up any company before it can even talk to us" is bullshit, isn't it?

[Moissanite]

Someone has to sit at the top of the tree, making decisions whose impact has to be accepted by the people below.

Government is far (far!) from perfect, but at least it aspires in the right direction (where "right" is defined by the zeitgeist of the population, and so by definition what government will tend towards).

Companies are beholden to no-one but the markets. Markets are demonstrably not aligned with what is best for the populace, but rather what is best for owners of capital. We can't change that property of companies easily, but we can, in theory, hold government to a higher standard than "do whatever the highest bidder says". So, I'd like government to stay at the top of the tree.

[0dayz]

Microsoft is not an average company.

And government is only as good as the people let them be.

Corporations are only as good as the regulation and competition.

In other word they are completely different from each other.

[BulgarianIdiot]

You used different words, but describe two entities in a very similar situation.

Except a government is larger and essentially held hostage by the two or so major incumbent parties that have settled into every developed democracy. If people want to make the situation better, what are they supposed to do, exactly?

How did the protests in France go? Citizens destroyed some private property. And that was it. The government is fine and the president is fine.

Why is Microsoft bigger and scarier than the UK government? Be specific and don't hide behind synonyms and fragmented terminology?

UK GDP is $3.131 trillion, and Microsoft's is $200 billion. You actually think Microsoft is way too big in this situation and has to be broken down so the little-wittle government is not threatened by their displeasure? Oh, God.

I'm not even talking about the fact a government has monopoly on its territory, monopoly on using force through police etc. and it has military, what does Microsoft have here that makes it scarier than the damn government, huh?

[0dayz]

You are using very loaded word for something that isn't even remotely true.

People choose which ever party or candidate should represent them in the government, they can at any point decide to vote for new candidates or parties.

Protests are not a legalislative form of action but a means for citizens to raise their concerns.

Microsofts value does not dictate its power, power dictate power.

They got multiple industries under their thumb and have been caught trying to subvert and or destroy competition.

You're welcome to try and create a country where violence, territory and military is democratized/privatized it doesn't change the point that we choose to live in countries where the social contract is that the government has monopoly over certain goods.

[BulgarianIdiot]

Excuse me, but can't you just at any point decide to not use Windows and Office? Well, yes, you can. As well as you can vote for new candidates or parties.

[oblio]

> How did the protests in France go? Citizens destroyed some private property. And that was it. The government is fine and the president is fine.

The French citizens will very likely vote in someone that gives them more of what they want and need.

How do I get Microsoft to stop polluting rivers (made up example)?

[BulgarianIdiot]

Try not making up your examples.

That said you have as much control not using Microsoft products and services, as you have control voting.

[oblio]

Let's just say that I disagree and the opinion you keep expressing here is a fringe opinion.

[Moissanite]

Once I get a vote on board membership for every company operating in my country, I will happily participate in that discussion.

[BulgarianIdiot]

Why on the board? Are you a minister right now in your government, by any chance, to make this comparable? Are you a represented in the parliament/congress? Or maybe you don't understand shareholders, in fact, vote? That's funny.

[Moissanite]

Do you have a promising example of where normal people were shareholders and managed to push through a decision which was against the interests of the board? Sounds from your comments down this thread like you only favour influence being accessible to those with capital, which I disagree with largely based on the fact that it is the world we live in already, and things are not trending in a good direction.