I like Warren on most things, but this is purely grandstanding; it won’t pass period. We, Democrats, don’t have enough of a viable majority in Senate to get the most important bills to pass (thanks Sinema, Manchin, and all of the fascist-friendly GOP), and when so many Republicans, and some Dems, take large amounts of contributions from many of the companies this would affect, it’s more than dead-on-arrival… it’s dead before conception.
6 Likes
Hopefully not… don’t care what anyone says, but I have inside track on this more than most and four years of rule under what the Republican party has become isn’t good for anyone.
2 Likes
Here’s some of the text:
Prohibited Mergers. The legislation makes “prohibited mergers” illegal, including:
o Deals valued over $5 billion
o Deals resulting in market shares over 33% for sellers or 25% for employers
o Deals resulting in highly concentrated markets under the 1992 agency guidelines
Overhauling the Merger-Review Process. The legislation gives the antitrust agencies stronger tools to stop the most harmful mergers, including:
o Allowing the agencies to reject mergers in the first instance without court orders
o Requiring the agencies to reject certain mergers, including prohibited mergers
o Prohibiting firms with a history of corporate crime or antitrust violations in the last ten years from acquiring other companies
o Directing the agencies to scrutinize the labor impacts of each deal and reject mergers harmful to workers
o Prohibiting private-equity “roll up” strategies that quickly consolidate industries
o Involving relevant state attorneys general and agencies (such as the Department of Defense for large defense deals), promoting a “whole of government” approach
o Allowing state attorneys generals to sue to block harmful mergers
o Transforming merger litigation into simple evaluations of agency process instead of complex, expensive court battles over a deal’s potential competitive effects
o Stripping merger litigation from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Breaking Up Prohibited Mergers. The legislation establishes procedures for the government to conduct retrospective reviews and break up harmful deals, including:
o Requiring the agencies to review every prohibited merger from the 21st century
o Allowing the agencies to review any consummated merger
o Requiring a break-up if the merger resulted in a market share above 50%, a highly concentrated market under the 2010 agency guidelines, or materially harmed competition, workers, consumers, or small or minority-owned businesses
o Allowing state attorneys general to sue to break up harmful mergers
No way in hell does this go through. It’s saying to block all mergers above 5 billion, to do so without court order and to require break up of all mergers over a certain size retroactively dated to 2000 ignoring the genuine market reasons why such a thing can happen (hint: it’s not always mergers).
It takes away any semblance of review and acknowledgment of different circumstances for a black and white view of morality and this will run businesses out of the US enmasse.
Again, I get where Warren is coming from and some ideas here are strong. Closer review is desired by many. But this would not pass. That said, this is not my country, so I refrain from further comment.
6 Likes
this is the 1st time I have ever heard of her so this isn’t a great look for her LMAO, like I fine with stronger restrictions but what she is trying to do is insanely to resctrictive and feels insanely corrupt in areas like not requiring a court case to block a deal
Warren is the opposite of corrupt. The piece has been discussed and why it’s DOA, no need to dogpile or shametrain.
1 Like
I can’t speak for her past, as I have said before its the 1st time I have heard of her, but some of these requests like not needing a court case would almost definitely lead to a position of corruption for the governent it tells us that they see themselves as above the law and why should we assume they would stop there, they could grab that inch and then run a mile with it
2 Likes
So, are we talking about the ABK deal guaranteed to get shot down or what? Im not following…
Nope.
The bill will be shot down.
9 Likes
if it went though any tech merge of 5 billion dollars or more being shot down granted it won’t pass lol
There really isn’t any need to discuss Warren’s bill any more; anyone with a modicum of awareness knows that the makeup of Congress currently, as well as her own party, guarantees that this will never see a vote.
lets change the topic then: which publisher do you think will be bought next and by who? Personally I think Ubisoft by amazon
nah
Would be nice to have Ubi+ included in Prime. Probably would only work on PC though
They would put Ubisoft+ in Amazon Luna.
Ubisoft also has a lot of IP which could be made into movie or TV franchise which is good for amazon due to amazon prime video (namely assassins creed, tom clancy, far cry, watch dogs and rayman)
1 Like
We need to sacrifice Ubisoft for future Microsoft acquisitions 
1 Like
I mean, is ubisoft that major of a loss, I am not saying Ubisoft can’t make good games anymore but…they are ubisoft games, they are not great
The loss might be Ubisoft+ in Game Pass. I would personally favor the slow decline of Ubisoft for Ubisoft+ deal in GPU. After all if Ubisoft is in trouble, Microsoft could give it an olive branch without acquisition.
I mean, it depends, amazon could just kill off ubisoft + if they acquired ubisoft and that would kill any new ubisoft games coming to game pass at least most likely assuming they bought them
Amazon could kill it in favor of Amazon Luna. But they would do it gradually. And they would not probably release Ubisoft games in Game Pass that’s also true.
But that’s why I am in favor of the decilne of Ubisoft and Microsoft getting sweet Ubisoft+ deal.