US Senate Bill Would Limit Big Tech Mergers (reuters.com) 30
Two U.S. senators have introduced bipartisan legislation that seeks to make it harder for Amazon and other tech giants to make acquisitions. From a report: The office of Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel, said on Friday that she and Republican Tom Cotton had introduced a bill targeting such companies as Alphabet's Google and Facebook. The bill would make it easier for the government to stop deals it believes break antitrust law by requiring the companies to prove to a judge that the deals are good for competition, and therefore legal. A similar bill, introduced by Democratic Representative Hakeem Jeffries and others, has been approved in the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee and awaits a vote by the full House. Traditionally it is up to the government in antitrust enforcement to show a particular transaction would cause prices to rise or is illegal for other reasons. "We're increasingly seeing companies choose to buy their rivals rather than compete," Klobuchar said in a statement. "This bipartisan legislation will put an end to those anticompetitive acquisitions by making it more difficult for dominant digital platforms to eliminate their competitors and enhance the platform's market power."
Impossible to be good for competition (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not the job of a company to increase the health of the competition in the market. It's the job of a company to win competition, or at least stave off utter defeat.
So it's really too much, in a market economy, to ask companies to plan their mergers so that they make it better for the opposing players.
In a tech innovation land
Re: (Score:2)
Lol the attitude here is so funny. Slashdot can’t stand Facebook and now the government wants greater scrutiny on their deals. The response? Oh we certainly can’t have that.
Create to sell (Score:2)
. "We're increasingly seeing companies choose to buy their rivals rather than compete," Klobuchar said in a statement.
What about start-up companies that are "built to sell"? Create a niche product or service, hype it to hell, then sell it off to [insert big company here] just before the project becomes viable?
You don't have to build the infrastructure to support you app if you can get FaceTwit to buy it before it collapses under its own overhead...
Re: (Score:1)
Are you arguing that these bad faith start-ups should be protected?
Re: (Score:2)
This will be even easier for the large companies. They will just pick up the pieces.
Small companies that have a niche product are usually "acqu-hired", i.e.: the large company just wants the team (and usually the code base as well). .
With no option to be acquired, and with not enough growth to be a viable competitor, these companies will fail.
As soon as they fail, the assets will be gobbled up in bankruptcy court, along with the team.
Much cheaper for the large company.
Good ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Tech companies lack political influence. (Score:3)
It is easy to get politicians of different parties to work together, it just has to be on a topic where their major supporters are not being affected.
The rise or fall of a Tech company will have little effect on voter turnout. And these companies have traits with both parties seem to dislike, as well if they are big and powerful, they will only take power away from them.
If this were for Media Companies, or Energy Companies, or heavily unionized sectors, there will be much more partisan bickering.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Tech companies are also influential with republicans as well. But both sides know tech companies are trying to burn the candle at both ends.
Dangerous Precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
FOR SALE CHEAP: Jefferson Mark-1 Constitution. No longer being used.
Re:Dangerous Precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
And no, FUCK the poor. Some people reproduce at expense of middle class.(disclaimer, I come from poor background)
I think you had a lot of people up until that comment. I come from a poor background as well. The only reason I'm where I am now is I had parents that busted their ass to elevate themselves up from "not having a pot to piss in", to scraping by enough that I at least had a chance. But to think they did it all by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, without any help, is absolutely ludicrous. If it weren't for WIC, SNAP, Housing Assistance, etc. I shudder to think how different my childhood and young adult life would have been. Do welfare kings and queens exist? Absolutely. Am I willing to pay for them, so that those who are genuinely getting shit on and need a hand can get the help they need? Every-damn-day. If I feed 100 families and 5 of them didn't NEED it, it's still a win in my book.
Punching down isn't a good look.
Re: (Score:2)
How many kids from bad boys would be there when women knew that their used up pussy by bad man has now suddenly responsibility of having not so pretty man but good gatherer, good dad?...Do you reckon those couch potato in their thirties will suddenly marry sexually liberated(read: sluts) women?
ffs dude, now poor women are sluts just there to be bred by "bad men"? Waiting for the "good guys" such as yourself to swoop in and rescue them. Tell me you're an Incel without actually saying your an incel...
Local people and a few EU people on a dole were like 5-10% of people...Rest were foreigners from specific region of the world
That's a pretty bold claim, have any actual numbers to go with it?
How much better my life would be without 40% tax?
Nobody on here would argue that taxes for the average person is too low. But how much of that 40% is actually going to the "foreigners from specific region of the world" that you're so bent out of shape about?
Unless you are replying
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
but last 5-6 dates I had 3 years ago - I fucked all of them on a first date. Full on penetration. With one notable exception, one chick i - fingerfucked.
LOL! Are you 12 years old? You sound like a virgin middle school boy talking about "all the chicks he banged last weekend". I call bullshit.
"ALL women are sluts. It's pure biology(I can prove it). Western society just let worst female nature bloom without any restrictions"
And then there's this one, it tells me all I need to know about you and your mindset. You seem like a nice well balanced individual. Cheers, incel.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know? The text of the bill isn't on congress.gov yet.
why not a progressive tax on market cap? (Score:2)
A simpler solution might be a progressive tax on market cap. Something like you have to pay a tax of 0% of the first billion,
0.01% of the second billion, 0.02% of the third billion, etc.. Even at the low rate of 0.01% for every billion dollars of market cap,
it would make it more and more unprofitable to just grow without limit and it would increase profit for shareholders to spin off
independent divisions. A 0.01% tax on market cap per billion would only be a 10% tax on a trillion dollar company but that
Re: (Score:3)
A simpler solution might be a progressive tax on market cap.
An obvious counter-measure would be the rise of private equity, so there would be no public "market cap".
Another obvious counter-measure would be to incorporate overseas and operate through a local subsidiary.
This could break tech investments... (Score:2)
If the goal is to protect smaller companies, then this could help some of them, but would harm others. There has to be a better and more targeted way to regulate large companies.