←back to thread

858 points colesantiago | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
stefan_ ◴[] No.45108847[source]
When the stock pops 10% on the announcement you got your antitrust enforcement wrong.
replies(5): >>45108915 #>>45108934 #>>45109305 #>>45109323 #>>45109401 #
xyzzy9563 ◴[] No.45108934[source]
Do you think it's better if all companies with competitive moats have a collapse in share price? I'm not really understanding what you're implying here.
replies(1): >>45109001 #
stefan_ ◴[] No.45109001[source]
I don't understand. The court has ruled this already a year ago:

> Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly

What should be the effect of antitrust enforcement to a monopolists share price? We are looking at something structural after all.

replies(1): >>45109067 #
xyzzy9563 ◴[] No.45109067[source]
Why should shareholders have to suffer just because the Google engineers were good at their job?
replies(4): >>45109108 #>>45109127 #>>45109279 #>>45109843 #
solardev ◴[] No.45109108[source]
Because the overall well-being of a society is supposedly more important than a few shareholders' wealth?
replies(2): >>45109239 #>>45109430 #
xyzzy9563 ◴[] No.45109239[source]
Do you know of any societies in the world that have a high quality of life but don’t have wealthy shareholders?
replies(2): >>45109387 #>>45109635 #
1. solardev ◴[] No.45109635[source]
They're not mutually exclusive? Especially with antitrust, where the whole point is to enable a healthier marketplace such that all shareholders of Google's competitors can also benefit (not to mention users).

It's not that high-QoL societies cannot have shareholders, it's that the stock market shouldn't take precedence over laws and regulations and anti-trust enforcement.