Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakozaur | Hacker News Reader

Any reasonable antitrust regulation should kill it: https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/2172555...

Unfortunately they let those mergers happen: https://www.economist.com/news/business/21679810-frenzy-deal...

Shareholders benefit at the expense of everybody else (customers, employees, ...). Classical capital vs. labour dillema.

View on HN

This is probably why Broadcom is pulling it's HQ move from Singapore to the US stunt right now. It buys favor with Trump, who appears to operate entirely based on favor and image rather than the rule of law.

How is that any different from any previous head of state? I guess they perhaps were better actors.

The flip flops trump has made between extreme statements then dial backs when people give him a few political points have far more whiplash than any US president that I can recall.

Which previous head of state appeared to base important decisions on who could make him feel the most special that day? Because whether I agreed with their politics or not, I can't recall one.

Dubya made decisions based on what he personally felt his religion was telling him to do.

Side effect of too much executive power. It's problematic that this is even possible.

The alternatives in the US are the judicial and legislative branches.

As opposed to the republican/conservative leaning Congress and Supreme Court (this could get pretty lopsided if something happens to Ruth Bader Ginsburg)?

For example, how many same party congressmen have come out against Trump who aren't planning on a job change or retirement?

Just a note. I'm not taking sides for any political party in my post. Just stating how things look to me in our current branches.

From what I understand, a foreign company purchasing a U.S. company is subject to some pretty intense review (CFIUS). By moving HQ to the U.S. they avoid that review process. It was planned before Trump but Im sure youre right and somehow Trump will help push this right through.

[Edit] Here is a story talking about it from last week. http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-broadcom...

>> Any reasonable antitrust regulation should kill it

Yeah, do you know where we could get some of that?

I'd say Democrats but I'm not so sure anymore.

The Warren side of the party is in ascendancy. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this message pushed hard in 18 and 20.

Here’s hoping.

The third plank is a list of antitrust proposals in line with what Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has called for the party to adopt. Facing rising corporate inequality and markets increasingly dominated by a tiny handful of firms, Democrats will propose a new federal office and federal guidelines that would aim to make it more difficult for companies to merge and easier for federal regulators to call attention to their “anticompetitive” behavior.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/24/16017570/d...

Warren sold out to Clinton, Trump et al will use this to great effect. Clinton turned everybody that touched her into shit and that will be her enduring legacy.

The best opportunity for something true and meaningful like Justicedemocrats[1] to come and revitalize the Democratic party.

1) https://justicedemocrats.com/

Clinton to me is just par for the course politician, the difference being she failed to defend herself from an absurd volume of rhetoric from the Republicans.

So I would restate your sentence - "Republicans turned everybody that Clinton touched into shit."

Spend ten years tearing into any politician (they're still demonizing Clinton!) and I guarantee you'd find them in the same boat she is now.

Ten years? That Vince Foster bullshit started back in 1993. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Vince_Foster

If you consider the press and rhetoric she was getting for overturning death row convictions early in her career you could say they have been doing this to her for over 40 years. She is an intelligent woman and very effective as a litigator, which has made the right regard her as an extreme threat since they became aware of her.

I find it amazing and inspiring that she was able to survive politically and thrive despite ever-increasing smear tactics and baseless character gutting the GOP attempted on her. I find it sorely disappointing that after 40 years of it, the right finally succeeded in taking her down. Regardless of which side of the aisle I am on, as a feminist, I am awe struck by her and think she has done an unfathomable amount to advance the interests of women and all those resisting patriarchy globally.

I also hardly consider her a run of the mill politician. She brought the single-payer fight to the hill. She lost, but the current ACA had a lot of its legwork done by her efforts in 1992-1994. If we ever get single-payer, we will owe a lot of it to her.

Yeah, I believe people in Libya believe the same. It is always fascinating to see how much people bought to the media outlet rhetorics.

She is the only reason I totally abandoned the democratic party and went independent.

Well until the republicans realize that no one gives a shit about Clinton anymore.

I think history will be more kind to her. Hell, GWB has a positive approval rating among democrats now.

Modern democrats seem liberal on social issues, but not much else, unfortunately.

Democrats added antitrust to their 2018 platform. It's a bit milquetoast and avoids mentioning the big players but it appears to be a start. It'll be interesting to see whether it's a throwaway or if they might do something with it.

Probably depends on if we actually get grassroots, progressive Dems into office and force them into a more populist stance. We are also seeing the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Keith Ellison championing more progressive ideals and gaining popularity with the voter base.

Up to people to spread the word on these, if every person knew 1 or 2 progressive politicians (no matter which side, aka in relation to those regressive in the democracts and those progressive in the undemocratic aka the republican, party) and shared that with others there would sooner rather then later be a change - be the impact you want to see.

Adding something to the platform is a start, but as we've seen from the post-financial crisis era, there's a huge difference between having laws that should put bankers in prison, and actually having an executive with a desire to execute them.

Europe sells some, but we don't export much...

Yeah, regulation is one place Europe generates lot of employment. In other industries, not much.

Yeah, true except for cars, heavy equipment, trains, agriculture, banking.....

All on heavy subsidy from the states and unions of states..

It's ridiculous how democrat Hacker News is.

If all we do here in Europe is giving subsidies to each other and living off that, who or what is then creating all that value in the first place?

Debt. https://www.debtclocks.eu/public-debt-and-budget-deficits-co... Not that the US is any better...

Unlike the USA I suppose.

The popular vote was for Hillary Clinton by almost 3 million. 66 million Democrats vs 63 million Republicans, FYI.[1]

[1]http://time.com/4608555/hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final/

I was referring to the extensive subsidies and regulatory capture in the USA. I have no opinion nor do I particularly care about it being “democratic” or “republican”

> It's ridiculous how democrat Hacker News is.

Why?

Because the comment section gets terribly one-sided and emotional.

> It's ridiculous how democrat Hacker News is.

That's because it is international. What is considered "democrat" in the US is pretty much "obvious common sense" in the rest of the world.

Ralph Nader but joining the resistance gets you hunted down by the PR AT-ATs

> Any reasonable antitrust regulation should kill it: […]

Or, alternatively, any reasonable monetary system, under which a $120bn company isn’t able to sell the $60bn[1] of debt required to complete the acquisition.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/business/dealbook/broadco...

The debt would then be owned by Broadcom with Qualcomm.

It seems like the type of monopoly mentioned in the first article is "public monopoly" which is deliberately created by regional gov't. The telecomm industry is also heavily regulated, as is the finance/banking.

Well, the market believes that the deal will not go through. The Broadcom offer is $70, and today's closing price is $62.

How do we propose this happens?

You don't, that's the point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com