F. A winner take all mentality is prevalent at corporate headquarters. This is in part attributable to perceived economies of scale and scope, as well as to network effects, but it may also be a management fad - Jack Welch, whose mantra is that one should be number one or two in the business or get out, is not a bad model. In good times, businesses are confident and tend to see the upside rather than the downside of growing and merging. What antitrust law is designed to accomplish it to prevent anticompetitive conduct. The theory behind it is that open markets and the competitive process will result in optimal benefits for consumers in terms of the price and quality of goods and services.
Competition is also good for businesses - it promotes efficiency, dynamic growth and innovation.
One of the reasons that US firms have done so well internationally is precisely because they were weaned in a climate of competition and rivalry at home. B. Most mergers are motivated by goals of efficiency and improved performance, and from an antitrust perspective are at least competitively benign. Indeed, the average time for review was less than 16 days. C. Simply put, there is nothing inherently bad with firms getting bigger, or with an industry consolidating by eliminating excess capacity and squeezing out inefficiencies, or with firms combining complementary products or services. What we do need to be on the lookout for is the possibility that a merger may substantially lessen competition.