The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 could be considered the worst regulation of 21 century. It helped created behemoth corporations, where a single person can misallocate hundred of billon of dollars (Oh, hi Mark), they can buy out any competition.
Right now US economy is basically a centrally planned economy.
I've seen people use those three words to make a dig at zuckerberg before, but I never put 2 and 2 together and realized the quote until just now. I think the comma was essential, made my brain automatically read it correctly... Wiseau voice and all, lol.
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".
There is no mechanism. Finance and startup Bros want to dump their overvalued companies with deceitful accounting on public investors to make a quick profit and socialize the inevitable losses. SOX makes it harder for them to do that.
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).
Reflection AI was founded in 2024. Is it really consolidation when new companies spawn out of nothing and get acquired 2 years later? That's just normal M&A churn.
This is one of those completely factual statements that is not factually complete.
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.
Back in the day, things like these were outlawed and the government tried to ensure competition in the markets:
> 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.
As usual, Wikipedia has it backward. There were very few theaters in existence able to show films produced by the studios. They invested in theaters and found local businessmen to operate them, both as sole proprietors and as partners.
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.
It’s just government intervention in business it knows little, and can only know little, about.
Only a few years earlier none of that existed. Then it did, proved highly successful, then government, which knows not what it is doing, nor can it, comes along and gets involved in something it had no interest in, and contributed little to nothing to.
Huh? new tech companies have proliferated in the US the last few years. M&A is just one side of the coin. Without an exit path -- IPO, acquisition or private credits -- there is very little appetite for new businesses.
Did you know that 151 companies were founded by SpaceX's alumni? Compare to 5 they've acquired (not including XAI)
It should be very clear that Nvidia is not interested in selling you GPUs to run models. But it’s very interested in selling data centers that you can use to run models in a way that everybody on their end “accepts”.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 could be considered the worst regulation of 21 century. It helped created behemoth corporations, where a single person can misallocate hundred of billon of dollars (Oh, hi Mark), they can buy out any competition.
Right now US economy is basically a centrally planned economy.
I've seen people use those three words to make a dig at zuckerberg before, but I never put 2 and 2 together and realized the quote until just now. I think the comma was essential, made my brain automatically read it correctly... Wiseau voice and all, lol.
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".
The PayPal Mafia changed America.
have you heard of this dude named karl marx?
> It helped created behemoth corporations
What's the mechanism for this? Genuine question: I read an overview over Sarbanes-Oxley and it seems like a reasonable idea.
There is no mechanism. Finance and startup Bros want to dump their overvalued companies with deceitful accounting on public investors to make a quick profit and socialize the inevitable losses. SOX makes it harder for them to do that.
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).
Reflection AI was founded in 2024. Is it really consolidation when new companies spawn out of nothing and get acquired 2 years later? That's just normal M&A churn.
If all successful new tech companies are absorbed into existing dominant tech companies, that would in fact be consolidation.
This is one of those completely factual statements that is not factually complete.
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.
5 minutes ago this company didn’t exist. In 5 minutes, it won’t exist again.
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.”
Back in the day, things like these were outlawed and the government tried to ensure competition in the markets:
> 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.
As usual, Wikipedia has it backward. There were very few theaters in existence able to show films produced by the studios. They invested in theaters and found local businessmen to operate them, both as sole proprietors and as partners.
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.
It’s just government intervention in business it knows little, and can only know little, about.
Only a few years earlier none of that existed. Then it did, proved highly successful, then government, which knows not what it is doing, nor can it, comes along and gets involved in something it had no interest in, and contributed little to nothing to.
Citizen Kane type stuff
Huh? new tech companies have proliferated in the US the last few years. M&A is just one side of the coin. Without an exit path -- IPO, acquisition or private credits -- there is very little appetite for new businesses.
Did you know that 151 companies were founded by SpaceX's alumni? Compare to 5 they've acquired (not including XAI)
https://www.alumnifounders.com/stats
Enough with your facts and data.
Obviously my feelings about things I know little about, games I have no skin in, are important.
If you say anything to the contrary the group-think will downvote you.
Shut up bigot.
/s
what are they going to do with all the free money people are investing on them?
Would you prefer these companies going bankrupt and stop existing?
Very much so
Competitive markets have creative destruction
I for one am excited by the prospect of a well-funded open-source competitor to Anthropic, OpenAI, and the Chinese models.
I don't love that it's Nvidia. They're already in some weird incestuous thing with two of those three (and the rest of the market).
I would be too. Where are we going to buy the GPUs though?
It should be very clear that Nvidia is not interested in selling you GPUs to run models. But it’s very interested in selling data centers that you can use to run models in a way that everybody on their end “accepts”.
3 replies →
Eh, given the level of trading between NVidia and the established AI companies will it be a true competitor?
That can happen without consolidation, the funding is already so circular it's dizzying