Right now US economy is basically a centrally planned economy.
More on-topic: I remain amazed by how the past quarter century of American legislation has included one overwhelming boon for corporations after another. Once corporations could give an infinitly higher amount of political contributions when compared to individual citizens, it became clear that the overall well-being and happiness of corporations was the only real political focus. Anything that doesnt directly or indirectly benefit a group of corporations is almost always designed to manipulate the electorate through invented/perceived/embiggened/non-cromulent "social issues".
What's the mechanism for this? Genuine question: I read an overview over Sarbanes-Oxley and it seems like a reasonable idea.
To whatever extent SOX compliance makes it more complex to go public, it has no meaningful effect on legitimate successful companies - if you think going public will allow you to raise the most money, you'll go public; if ZIRP meant you could indefinitely raise private money, you'd stay private. Finance and startup bros want to blame companies staying private on SOX, but it has everything to do with either (1) the companies being deeply questionable from an accounting perspective, or (2) the companies being able to raise whatever investments they wanted in private without taking any of the costs of an IPO (e.g. the IPO pop, which could (simplisticaly) be thought of as money being made by the banks underwriting the IPO rather than by the existing owners/investors).
Obviously not all (tech) companies will prove to be successful.
Although, if we define success as “was acquired, investors / founders came out financial better off” then both absorbed and successful can be true while consolidation never was a concern.
Say government intervenes and prevents this merger, what’s the most likely outcome?
Company won’t exist in 6 minutes.
In all likelihood this company was spun up with the intention it would be purchased by a ”competitor.”
> The major film studios owned the theaters where their motion pictures were shown, either in partnerships or outright. Thus, specific theater chains showed only the films produced by the studio that owned them. The studios created the films, had the writers, directors, producers and actors on staff (under contract), owned the film processing and laboratories, created the prints and distributed them through the theaters that they owned: In other words, the studios were vertically integrated, creating a de facto oligopoly. [...] Ultimately, this issue of the studios' then-alleged (and later upheld) illegal trade practices led to all the major movie studios being sued in 1938 by the U.S. Department of Justice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Paramount_Pic....
Nowadays it seems like "vertically integrated" is something most companies openly aim for.
The investment was out of necessity, not interest in monopolies.
Writers and directors craved an audience, so they appealed to studios for funding. That’s opportunity meeting, not monopolistic practices.
Did you know that 151 companies were founded by SpaceX's alumni? Compare to 5 they've acquired (not including XAI)
Just from basic maths, the GeForce line (except 5090) has and continues to be extremely ‘subsidised’ at street prices compared to their DC lineup; in terms of margins, and $ they’d make instead of using the same fab or memory allocation for e.g. a RTX Pro or higher; which still have massive demand.
If you want 32GB and CUDA, 2x 5060ti 16gb and tensor parallelism 2 is pretty easy to set up in any ATX PC case.
They are a greedy mega cap business like everyone else. But if you rationalise it a bit, if they make geforces too compelling for scalers and neoclouds with more VRAM, the margin shortfall would be in the hundreds of billions.
At least they’re not exiting the consumer market altogether like other players, and at least they continue to deliver on software.