|
I agree that we often reason backward from our conclusions - I'll even admit that sometimes an analogy is a useful way of explaining our reasoning. However, even were the analogy to the Soviet Union presented coherently, the interpretation of the benefits of its breakup require glossing over two decades of economic turmoil, repressive governments, loose nukes, the collusion of government officials in the pillaging of national assets and ghastly breakdowns in the rule of law in both Russia and the other former republics [and satellite states]. Lots of really bad shit happened after the wall came down [yes, and before it came down]. But, for the sake of avoiding speculations over counterfactuals and arguments over what counts as better, let's suppose that the analogy has some merit and that there is a case for breaking up Microsoft. Let me further suppose that that case is not based on traditional antipathies, and is instead founded upon a business case analysis. Under these suppositions, why is there a case for breaking up a very profitable Microsoft, but not one for breaking up the far less profitable and vastly less focused Siemens? [software, light bulbs, trains, power plants, MRI's, financial solutions] The other thing that needs to be provided are cases where a large profitable company with minimal physical assets was successfully broken up. Absent a well reasoned internal business case for breaking Microsoft up, I am of the opinion that the business case is external: the possibility of breakup (or even the mere suggestion thereof) creates uncertainty -> creates volatility in the share price -> creates opportunities for arbitrage. Until there's a business case based on profits put forth, that's the only money trail I can follow. |