If buying a company is illegal, there’s still no (practical) way to prevent the buying company say, “we’ll put you in your own separate Bioware team, no management changes for at least a year, we’ll hire anyone who wants to come over” etc. Basically, you’d have the exact same situation practically, just the legal bollocks would be different and it’d be slightly less convenient.
Good. So much of adjusting people’s behaviour is just making it more convenient to do the right thing and less convenient to do the wrong thing. It’s impossible to get people to behave perfectly all the time, but the more inconvenient you make it to do the wrong thing, the more the human tendency toward laziness will keep them passively on the right path. There are no desire paths in a hedge maze.
Same way it makes this negative thing more inconvenient - there are legit reasons for a company to own another one, because it basically just helps organisation and accounting.
What legit reasons? Seriously. What real world situations are there where allowing companies to own companies promotes a healthy society/economy/etc.? (Not just benefitting the shareholders, and not just the accountants. That’s not enough.)
Well not allowing it is just an inconvenience, as I said, so it’s really a benefit for the accountants in this comparison. But if you’re saying that has a big effect on discouraging the harmful form of ownership, the innocuous forms would be discouraged as well. That means also companies would be less likely to merge at all (regardless of resulting struxture) which would be unhealthy for the economy as it prevents synergising. But for the record I don’t think it would have a massive effect on either case.
If buying a company is illegal, there’s still no (practical) way to prevent the buying company say, “we’ll put you in your own separate Bioware team, no management changes for at least a year, we’ll hire anyone who wants to come over” etc. Basically, you’d have the exact same situation practically, just the legal bollocks would be different and it’d be slightly less convenient.
Good. So much of adjusting people’s behaviour is just making it more convenient to do the right thing and less convenient to do the wrong thing. It’s impossible to get people to behave perfectly all the time, but the more inconvenient you make it to do the wrong thing, the more the human tendency toward laziness will keep them passively on the right path. There are no desire paths in a hedge maze.
But it will also make legit things slightly less convenient.
How?
Same way it makes this negative thing more inconvenient - there are legit reasons for a company to own another one, because it basically just helps organisation and accounting.
What legit reasons? Seriously. What real world situations are there where allowing companies to own companies promotes a healthy society/economy/etc.? (Not just benefitting the shareholders, and not just the accountants. That’s not enough.)
Well not allowing it is just an inconvenience, as I said, so it’s really a benefit for the accountants in this comparison. But if you’re saying that has a big effect on discouraging the harmful form of ownership, the innocuous forms would be discouraged as well. That means also companies would be less likely to merge at all (regardless of resulting struxture) which would be unhealthy for the economy as it prevents synergising. But for the record I don’t think it would have a massive effect on either case.