Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Can't we have a system where the bigger the merger, the more compelling the arguments for it should be?

Like a $10M merger should have 1 strong argument in favor of the consumer, a $100M merger should have 2 strong arguments, and a $100B merger should have 5 strong arguments in favor of the consumer (and I'm being forgiving by using a logarithmic scale here).




Hot take: An $X m merger should never go through.

(I haven't thought about the downsides, but I can't see anything obvious?)


It could be split up into several mergers below $X.


I'd assume there would be a rule to prevent structuring




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: