来源：《彭博商业周刊》
原文见刊日期：2021年12月6日
Few issues have generated more misguided legislation in this session of Congress than antitrust reform. In November, two senators introduced the Platform Competition and Opportunity Act of 2021. It’s a companion bill to one put forth in June in the House of Representatives—along with four like-minded proposals—with a relatively simple goal: effectively ban big tech companies from making acquisitions, on the theory this would stimulate competition and better serve consumers.
在本届国会中，几乎没有什么问题比反垄断改革更容易误导立法。11月，两名参议员提出了《2021年平台竞争和机会法案》。这是众议院6月份提出的一项法案的配套法案——还有四项类似的提案——目标相对简单：有效禁止大型科技公司进行收购，理论上这将刺激竞争，更好地为消费者服务。
That theory, offered as though it were self-evident, is in fact dubious. Mergers and acquisitions are typically a spur to efficiency, because they allow companies to create synergies, boost productivity, diversify risk, and gain economies of scale or scope. These benefits are especially pronounced in the tech sector. Acquisitions allow platforms to instantly bring new products to a huge market. They reward investors for taking a chance on promising startups. They encourage entrepreneurship, innovation, and the tolerance for failure that’s made the U.S. venture capital market so strikingly successful.
这个理论，似乎是不言而喻的，但实际上是可疑的。合并和收购通常能够刺激提高效率，因为它们允许公司创造协同效应，提高生产率，分散风险，并获得规模经济或范围经济。这些好处在科技行业尤为明显。收购可以让平台立即将新产品带到一个巨大的市场。他们奖励那些在有前途的初创公司上冒险的投资者。它们鼓励创业、创新和对失败的宽容，正是这些让美国风险资本市场取得了惊人的成功。
By banning mergers, the bill could destroy this ecosystem. Perversely, it would make it harder for new entrants to disrupt existing markets. By placing the burden of proof in merger reviews on companies rather than the government, it would shift the balance of power away from the courts and toward politically appointed bureaucrats. The bill’s very purpose is to dethrone the consumer-welfare standard that’s guided U.S. antitrust policy for decades—and helped make the American tech sector the envy of the world.
通过禁止合并，该法案可能会破坏这一生态系统。相反，这将使新入场企业更难扰乱现有市场。通过将合并审查的举证责任交给公司而不是政府，它将把权力平衡从法院转移到政治任命的官僚手中。该法案的目的就是要废除消费者福利标准。几十年来，这一标准一直指导着美国的反垄断政策，并使美国的科技行业成为全世界羡慕的对象。
The digital economy makes up 9.6% of U.S. gross domestic product, almost as much as manufacturing. It employs nearly 8 million Americans, produces an enormous variety of desirable products, and often gives them away for free. If this is an industry in need of a radical intervention, what do these lawmakers imagine would constitute success?
数字经济占美国国内生产总值(gdp)的9.6%，几乎与制造业相当。它雇用了近800万美国人，生产各种各样令人满意的产品，而且经常免费赠送。如果这是一个需要激进干预的行业，这些立法者认为怎样才能取得成功？
The senators say they’re addressing “our nation’s monopoly problem,” but offer no evidence that the targeted businesses are in fact monopolies. There’s a good reason for that. The targeted companies—Amazon.com, Apple, Facebook parent Meta Platforms, and Google parent Alphabet—might be big, but they’re engaged in fiercely competitive markets. Amazon’s market share of about 40% in e-commerce and less than 7% in overall retail isn’t close to a monopoly by any standard.
这两位参议员说，他们正在解决“我们国家的垄断问题”，但没有提供证据证明这些目标企业实际上是垄断企业。这是有充分理由的。亚马逊(amazon.com)、苹果(Apple)、Facebook的母公司元平台和谷歌的母公司alphabet，这些公司可能规模很大，但它们所处的市场竞争非常激烈。亚马逊在电子商务领域的市场份额约为40%，在整体零售业的市场份额不到7%，以任何标准衡量，都谈不上是垄断企业。
If legislators think that tech mergers demand added scrutiny, they should provide more resources to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission for that purpose. If they object to specific business practices among tech companies, they should outlaw them. What they shouldn’t do is harness antitrust enforcement to vague and unrelated objectives while recklessly destabilizing a successful industry.
如果立法者认为科技公司合并需要更多的审查，他们应该为此向美国司法部和联邦贸易委员会提供更多的资源。如果他们反对科技公司的特定商业行为，他们应该将这些行为定为非法。他们不应该做的是利用反垄断执法来达到模糊和不相关的目标，同时不计后果地破坏一个成功行业的稳定。