And that’s fair, I’m not saying breakup is a foregone conclusion or necessity (although personally I lean that way) but it at least needs to be an intelligent discussion that actually takes anti-trust law and history into account and not just screaming “Scalability” like knowing how to build software gives you an ironical monopoly on understanding anti-trust law and economics despite having zero comprehension of anti-trust history.
So, let me get that straight, you are arguing that law should be applied not because it does or doesn’t make sense, but because from legal point of view, it is applicable? Gotcha, then i agree, a lot of tech can technically fall under definition of monopoly, which is archaic, but again, it takes years for goverment to catch-up to ideas, like for example that Tobacco is harmful
Nice try, but you’re still not getting it, not debating my points and clearly don’t understand the how’s and why’s of anti-trust and poorly trying to rationalize it based on your overly simplistic point. Nobody is claiming those laws are archaic or don’t make sense, I’m saying you just have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to anti-trust. Back to the code cave!
It sounds like some of the people here have over-inflated egos. Being able to compete with Google is laughable. The breadth of their information makes them impossible to beat, and the idea that they are a search engine is so out of date it’s hard to take your arguments seriously. Google/Amazon are able to influence industries just by mentioning that they might get involved with them. They have access to information that their competitors don’t, because Kroger isn’t involved with the navigation/maps game, because CVS doesn’t have the worlds biggest supply chain.
And this isn’t really a socialist policy either, unless you consider The Economist as a uber-left socialist magazine.
That’s all well and good, but, as described above, all you need it to be really smart and use that intelligence to create software and use virtual infrastructure to displace GOOG and AMZN. It could happen at any moment, as soon as some intelligent person decides it is time to stop playing DOTA.
On the topic on if big tech breakup is relegated to the Dems, I remember the book I read that convinced me to consider this as a valid cause was written by Johnathan Tepper (The Myth of Capitalism). He is probably more apolitical than anything, but if I had to place him, definitely right leaning kind of guy… or at least accepted by conservatives.
people villify monopolies because in theory they decrease competition, restrict supply, and increase price to maximize profit. but it would be tough to make that case for tech as everything is already free to consumers. they may be overcharging companies that advertise on their platform because of their monopoly and ultimately those companies will either see their profits decline (which they have), or increase what they charge to their consumers (which they arent)
the reason why they cant pass their costs to the consumers is because the tech giants are actually increasing competition between their customers. large cos with their large ad budgets used to destroy the lil cos because there were large fixed costs. but with google, its pay per click/view so in effect, your ad budget, no matter how big or small, had the same effect per dollar. this increased the brand value of the small cos relative to the big cos.
also tech cos, imo, are using those profits on research which would have a higher roi than the dino cos. money should fall to those who can maximize its value. tech is what i would like to call good monopolies that are pushing humanity forward. old cos are bad monopolies that just want a fatter check to send back to their investors, who will very likely leave it behind to their trust fund baby!
You provide a interesting perspective when it come to the issue of costs to the consumer. Although the book I read suggest that when tech gets very large innovation actually starts dropping, you remind me to perhaps collect more information on that point. However what was the deciding factor for me when it comes to oligopolies and monopolies was the issue of power they assume. Not only do they have the influence to lobby in Washington so regulations stay in their favor, the gain the power to potentially exploit the consumer (and workers for that matter). This the opposite of what I want capitalism to do for me. When I was reading “The Myth of Capitalism” I was remaining skeptical and thinking of all the externalities that would go along with breaking up oligopolies and monopolies. I was thinking: Is what would be gained by doing this be worth the cost? Are some operations better off large while others should be kept small? When I made up my mind, it was the power situation that solidified the issue for me.
i disagree with this. it doesn’t matter who the monopoly is rent seeking from so long as it is rent seeking. everything comes back to people so if the monopoly is rent seeking from retail/service corps, and those retail/service corps are not passing on that additional cost in the price of their products, then those retail/service corps are either: 1) distributing less cash to its investors therefore resulting in less consumer spending, etc., 2) cutting jobs, or 3) experiencing less job growth going forward, and all of these results in tangible economic loss for us humans due to the monopoly’s rent seeking.
simple solution. no M&A allowed for dominant tech firms. that way they would have to actually innovate into new industries rather than eating up smaller rivals. this way their current monopolistic data and user base advantages can be used to stimulate innovation rather than JUST rent seeking.
Yeah, not sure why they’re acquiring firms anyways, all they have to do is write code and scale the computational power, virtually zero barriers to entry. Gigabytes of storage! 1 smart person can literally do everything, these tech companies with thousands of employees are just employing people for charity! Just coincidence things are so consolidated!
They are acquiring because 1 smart person did everything. Not all people want to go ipo route, most want to cache out (including VC). They spectacular prices tech is willing to pay is specifically because IP is so very important. If they wouldn’t be afraid of competition, why would they buy those companies? (Synergies aside). It pains me to see how you are trying to project manufacturing / retail concepts on tech industry. Sad!
Why would you pay billions for something you could replicate in house with one person?
So you’re saying they bought these firms to prevent competition. But they’re not creating a monopoly. Ok. Seems legit.
So now IP is a competitive driver, interesting because IP is also a major driver in determining monopolies…
Also loving the characterization that all of these firms were built on one smart person doing everything. Clearly you’ve never looked at staffing for even a basic startup.
