[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.