Antitrust courts and merger blocks are necessary for a competitive market to work for all economic actors in a capitalist system. There are countless economy studies about it and how it is actually better for all economic actors to not have monopolies, duopolies etc.
Now reading comments on this sub, it seems like people are experts in this difficult domain of antitrust law and almost always side with the companies that potentially break the law.
Why is that? Even if you have shares in that company, you will end up better by having a competitive market. I.e. we are all nvidia shareholders if you bought S&P, but it would be better for other companies (and long-term for S&P) to fight a monopoly if there is one and ensure that the rules are respected and nobody abuses a monopoly.
To me this anti FTC, anti DOJ reaction is short sighted and hurts the long term interests of all shareholders, no matter what shares you bought.
30% of my portfolio is GOOG stock and I believe the DoJ case is the best thing that happens to them. A monopolist is lazy, ineficient, not innovating enough because they have their revenue secured. No matter the DoJ decision, it will be breaking the status quo and push GOOG to innovate and create more value for shareholders. The same thing for NVDA. Long term, the worst for them is to be a monopolist and maintain the status quo. Until they become Boeing.
TLDR: No matter what stock you bought, if you are in for the long term, it is in your interest for all the companies to play by the rules and have a competitive, anti-monopolistic, market.
Leave a Reply