5 ms·

Yeah anti-trust doesn't have to completely kill the company off. In fact it isn't always beneficial to do that. Take Microsoft anti-trust/DOJ speed bumps in t

Yeah anti-trust doesn't have to completely kill the company off. In fact it isn't always beneficial to do that. Take Microsoft anti-trust/DOJ speed bumps in the 90s due to Windows, because they were slowed down slightly it allowed Google, Apple, Amazon and others to crop up to compete. I'd argue we got something out of the Microsoft monopoly (desktop + internet prevalence), something out of the first AT&T monopoly (telephone lines, software, Bell Labs, C++, modern applications) and more. When they are slowed down the competition also brings benefits in Apple + Google for mobile for instance and Google + Amazon for cloud computing. Microsoft became a competitor again and it works better for consumers and developers now. It is definitely time to put some speed bumps on AT&T unless they want to actually increase network capabilities rather than slow them down. ISPs need to be innovative and expanding networks otherwise more competition should be added. A truly competitive ISP would not be so anti net neutrality, they would win with product improvements. Monopolies or big fish can be beneficial, until they start limiting other competitive threats through use of their power/size rather than better products and consumer benefits. When they use their size to bring benefits they bide their time and deserve the top slot and privileged market position. When they get lazy/anti-innovative and they use their size to hold back others, then it is time to hold them back a bit to increase competition.

blackflame7000 8y ago
Is that really the roll of government? To put speedbumps on success, no matter how much, still seems inhibitive to progress. I’ll play devils advocate: what if instead of spending all that money on antitrust litigation that plagues our judicial system, Microsoft invested in hiring, R&D, and continues to maintain their #1 spot. Would that have stopped google and their search engine gold mine, or apples iPhone gold mine. No not at all. And capitalism would have still prevailed with less wasted effort on litigation than had the government not interfered. I believe the only time the government should involve itself in commercial is when safety is a concern
- MetricMike 8y ago
  There's no incentive for Microsoft to have continued investing in hiring or R&D without competition.
  - blackflame7001 8y ago
    So without Big Government, Steve Jobs would have just called it quits then? Get real! Its the entrepreneurial spirit that drove them to compete and what drives any successful company to compete. There's always a new model private jet coming out next year.
    - Karishma1234 8y ago
      > Its the entrepreneurial spirit that drove them to compete The iphone had to be better than blackberry to succeed. Blackberry set the bar for success in some way. In the absence of Blackberry Steve Jobs would have invented something like Blackberry. Big government actually destroys competition and creates monopolies. This "break up companies" using anti-trust or whatever is complete nonsense. The very reason why Monsanto, ATT, Comcast are near monopolistic is because of the government regulations. I bet Zuckerberg will help government draft regulations that will kill competition in early stage and help him grow Facebook bigger. Naive people generally fall for the lets use government to break large corporations because they do not understand the nature of people. There is so much money at stake here that it will always be easier to buy off politicians that will not allow the corporation to break off. (Just the way Obama helped the banks who should have gone bankrupt). The same people however correctly show distrust of government in matters of war, LGBTQ issues and so on. It is just a paradox.
      - blackflame7000 8y ago
        You absolutely hit the nail on the head. It's the wolves in sheep's clothing pretending to be righteous that can ultimately cause the most harm. They prey on good willing empathetic people to get them emotionally distracted by the slight of hand that takes place when Billions are on the line. John Locke might have said babies are born with a tabula rasa. But I suspect genetics play a deep roll in our brain chemistry dictating, for example, why we might take offense to something others find funny. But we can't forget that natural selection applies to Humans too and therefore most humans will save themselves first. The genetic instincts we possess align us to a more Hobbsian tone, that we are Nasty, brutish and short.
- workinthehead 8y ago
  Nope. You (and most libertarian/capitalist cheerleaders, to be fair) whooshed on a classic scenario: Microsoft has no reason to innovate when they're a monopoly. It gets worse. Startup X (you like startups, right?) has a brilliant idea that they bring to market, only for Microsoft to buy them out and kill the idea. Startup Y has a brilliant idea, but they get smarter, they don't sell, and then Microsoft copies their tech and outcompetes them with their war chest. Then they kill the technology. Startup Z has a brilliant idea, but they get even smarter and never bother bringing it to market because Microsoft will just kill it. Go capitalism.
  - asddddd 8y ago
    > Startup X (you like startups, right?) has a brilliant idea that they bring to market, only for Microsoft to buy them out and kill the idea. Why can't X_2 bring the same idea to market again?
    - brisance 8y ago
      Because Big Corp has many advantages, such as being the owner of Startup X's intellectual property.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - blackflame7001 8y ago
        So how did Netflix dethrone Comcast if Goliath always wins?
        thatcat 8y ago
        You're stretcing that analogy way to thin. Comcast took the strategy of continuing to push hardware cable boxes on people because it made them twice as much revenue as netflix despite netflix's high gains in Q4 2017. Now that they've successfully eleminated net neutrality, it will be fairly easy to slow down or charge netflix more for peering and if they successfully buy up hulu / fox to integrate their own original productions it will give them full vertical integration.

blackflame7000 8y ago

Is that really the roll of government? To put speedbumps on success, no matter how much, still seems inhibitive to progress. I’ll play devils advocate: what if instead of spending all that money on antitrust litigation that plagues our judicial system, Microsoft invested in hiring, R&D, and continues to maintain their #1 spot. Would that have stopped google and their search engine gold mine, or apples iPhone gold mine. No not at all. And capitalism would have still prevailed with less wasted effort on litigation than had the government not interfered. I believe the only time the government should involve itself in commercial is when safety is a concern

MetricMike 8y ago
There's no incentive for Microsoft to have continued investing in hiring or R&D without competition.
- blackflame7001 8y ago
  So without Big Government, Steve Jobs would have just called it quits then? Get real! Its the entrepreneurial spirit that drove them to compete and what drives any successful company to compete. There's always a new model private jet coming out next year.
  - Karishma1234 8y ago
    > Its the entrepreneurial spirit that drove them to compete The iphone had to be better than blackberry to succeed. Blackberry set the bar for success in some way. In the absence of Blackberry Steve Jobs would have invented something like Blackberry. Big government actually destroys competition and creates monopolies. This "break up companies" using anti-trust or whatever is complete nonsense. The very reason why Monsanto, ATT, Comcast are near monopolistic is because of the government regulations. I bet Zuckerberg will help government draft regulations that will kill competition in early stage and help him grow Facebook bigger. Naive people generally fall for the lets use government to break large corporations because they do not understand the nature of people. There is so much money at stake here that it will always be easier to buy off politicians that will not allow the corporation to break off. (Just the way Obama helped the banks who should have gone bankrupt). The same people however correctly show distrust of government in matters of war, LGBTQ issues and so on. It is just a paradox.
    - blackflame7000 8y ago
      You absolutely hit the nail on the head. It's the wolves in sheep's clothing pretending to be righteous that can ultimately cause the most harm. They prey on good willing empathetic people to get them emotionally distracted by the slight of hand that takes place when Billions are on the line. John Locke might have said babies are born with a tabula rasa. But I suspect genetics play a deep roll in our brain chemistry dictating, for example, why we might take offense to something others find funny. But we can't forget that natural selection applies to Humans too and therefore most humans will save themselves first. The genetic instincts we possess align us to a more Hobbsian tone, that we are Nasty, brutish and short.
workinthehead 8y ago
Nope. You (and most libertarian/capitalist cheerleaders, to be fair) whooshed on a classic scenario: Microsoft has no reason to innovate when they're a monopoly. It gets worse. Startup X (you like startups, right?) has a brilliant idea that they bring to market, only for Microsoft to buy them out and kill the idea. Startup Y has a brilliant idea, but they get smarter, they don't sell, and then Microsoft copies their tech and outcompetes them with their war chest. Then they kill the technology. Startup Z has a brilliant idea, but they get even smarter and never bother bringing it to market because Microsoft will just kill it. Go capitalism.
- asddddd 8y ago
  > Startup X (you like startups, right?) has a brilliant idea that they bring to market, only for Microsoft to buy them out and kill the idea. Why can't X_2 bring the same idea to market again?
  - brisance 8y ago
    Because Big Corp has many advantages, such as being the owner of Startup X's intellectual property.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - blackflame7001 8y ago
      So how did Netflix dethrone Comcast if Goliath always wins?
      - thatcat 8y ago
        You're stretcing that analogy way to thin. Comcast took the strategy of continuing to push hardware cable boxes on people because it made them twice as much revenue as netflix despite netflix's high gains in Q4 2017. Now that they've successfully eleminated net neutrality, it will be fairly easy to slow down or charge netflix more for peering and if they successfully buy up hulu / fox to integrate their own original productions it will give them full vertical integration.