←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 #
Workaccount2 ◴[] No.45109430[source]
Probably about 60% of Americans are Google shareholders.

Not saying we should favor share price over all else, but far more than a few wealthy shareholders will be the benefactors of this.

replies(1): >>45109654 #
1. solardev ◴[] No.45109654[source]
...owning some tiny percentage of stock, often not knowingly. Those same 60% would also benefit from having a less monopolistic Internet. Well, that's the theory at least.

I think a lot of regular users actually might prefer one company that makes all their choices for them so they don't have to deal with decision fatigue so often... the browser wars of the 90s and 2000s were not pretty, either...