5 ms·

The only problem that I see is that our government didn't breakup companies more often. At&t needs to be broken up by region again. Along with Monsanto, Walmar

The only problem that I see is that our government didn't breakup companies more often. At&t needs to be broken up by region again. Along with Monsanto, Walmart, Comcast, Verizon, Google, Facebook and Microsoft.

gm-conspiracy 10y ago
I see Apple is missing from your list.
- bobajeff 10y ago
  As far as I can tell their market control is limited to just their devices which though still significant isn't enough for a breakup to make sense to me. That's not too say nothing should be done to prevent abuse of the control they do have.
  - amelius 10y ago
    Apple's vertical integration could be broken up, so other companies can take advantage of it.
  - oldmanjay 10y ago
    Walmart isn't even close to market control, so what's the reasoning there? Just too big for you personally?
    - bobajeff 10y ago
      Walmart yeilds quite a bit of market control. I'm not sure on the specifics though but they are a powerful retail force that's wrapped around many lives in the U.S.
      - newjersey 10y ago
        While I am sympathetic to the issue, I'm concerned about how we can achieve our goals within the limits of the legal framework. Should we break up Kelly services or Robert half staffing? Should we break up GitHub?
mrchucklepants 10y ago
The only true monopolies are those backed by the government, which the original AT&T was. There has never been a "monopoly" not backed by the government that did not benefit the customer. Standard Oil and U.S. Steel, the classic examples always used, both drove down prices and increased supply for the market. By the time the government took action both had lost significant market share already as competition improved. The only ones on your list that create problems would be Comcast and Verizon (assuming not wireless) as they are granted local monopolies by local municipalities and governments through right of way access to utility poles, etc. Breaking up the others, as you are suggesting, would only harm consumers.
- whybroke 10y ago
  This is completely incorrect. Every unregulated monopoly catastrophically chokes an economy over time and those that are regulated are almost as disastrous. Your own example, Bell System, is an example of an sub-optimal but obviously adequate regulated monopoly that worked moderately well over a century. And US Steel certainly did _not_ have competition when anti-trust was brought against it. By 1907 there were no longer any competitors and anti-trust attempts only started in 1911. What you do have today, for adopting pro-monopoly policies for decades is, among other things, the highest bandwidth prices in the developed world. Higher even than the comically inept regulated monopoly Telefonica. Which btw has phone plans and per minute charges a fraction of the US and where the idea for charging for an incoming call is unthinkable. And a food supply monopolies that inflates the price of food to stunning levels. The list is endless but my typing patience is not. So here's a link. http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are-too-high-america-needs-giant-dose-competition-too-much-good-thing http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are-...
  - stickfigure 10y ago
    Your own example, Bell System, is an example of an sub-optimal but obviously adequate regulated monopoly that worked moderately well over a century. Ummmmm, no. Whatever your economic viewpoint, there's no credible way you can claim that the Bell monopoly was healthy for the economy. This is the same organization that had to be taken to court to allow new devices to be plugged in. Remember these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler They weren't built because it's more efficient for computers to communicate over soundwaves.

gm-conspiracy 10y ago

I see Apple is missing from your list.

bobajeff 10y ago
As far as I can tell their market control is limited to just their devices which though still significant isn't enough for a breakup to make sense to me. That's not too say nothing should be done to prevent abuse of the control they do have.
- amelius 10y ago
  Apple's vertical integration could be broken up, so other companies can take advantage of it.
- oldmanjay 10y ago
  Walmart isn't even close to market control, so what's the reasoning there? Just too big for you personally?
  - bobajeff 10y ago
    Walmart yeilds quite a bit of market control. I'm not sure on the specifics though but they are a powerful retail force that's wrapped around many lives in the U.S.
    - newjersey 10y ago
      While I am sympathetic to the issue, I'm concerned about how we can achieve our goals within the limits of the legal framework. Should we break up Kelly services or Robert half staffing? Should we break up GitHub?

mrchucklepants 10y ago

The only true monopolies are those backed by the government, which the original AT&T was. There has never been a "monopoly" not backed by the government that did not benefit the customer. Standard Oil and U.S. Steel, the classic examples always used, both drove down prices and increased supply for the market. By the time the government took action both had lost significant market share already as competition improved. The only ones on your list that create problems would be Comcast and Verizon (assuming not wireless) as they are granted local monopolies by local municipalities and governments through right of way access to utility poles, etc. Breaking up the others, as you are suggesting, would only harm consumers.

whybroke 10y ago
This is completely incorrect. Every unregulated monopoly catastrophically chokes an economy over time and those that are regulated are almost as disastrous. Your own example, Bell System, is an example of an sub-optimal but obviously adequate regulated monopoly that worked moderately well over a century. And US Steel certainly did _not_ have competition when anti-trust was brought against it. By 1907 there were no longer any competitors and anti-trust attempts only started in 1911. What you do have today, for adopting pro-monopoly policies for decades is, among other things, the highest bandwidth prices in the developed world. Higher even than the comically inept regulated monopoly Telefonica. Which btw has phone plans and per minute charges a fraction of the US and where the idea for charging for an incoming call is unthinkable. And a food supply monopolies that inflates the price of food to stunning levels. The list is endless but my typing patience is not. So here's a link. http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are-too-high-america-needs-giant-dose-competition-too-much-good-thing http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are-...
- stickfigure 10y ago
  Your own example, Bell System, is an example of an sub-optimal but obviously adequate regulated monopoly that worked moderately well over a century. Ummmmm, no. Whatever your economic viewpoint, there's no credible way you can claim that the Bell monopoly was healthy for the economy. This is the same organization that had to be taken to court to allow new devices to be plugged in. Remember these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler They weren't built because it's more efficient for computers to communicate over soundwaves.