3 ms·

I agree with the conclusion, but I don't think it should be done through the current antitrust framework. Your first point and most of the others others may or

by netcan 8y ago

I agree with the conclusion, but I don't think it should be done through the current antitrust framework. Your first point and most of the others others may or may not be illegal. If they are legal, what the MPs need to do is their jobs.. make laws. But, most are not directly related to company size and/or market share. Your second point does sound like a trust and I think you're right to link this to the WhatsApp sale. But... Regardless of the FB/WhatsApp conclusion, that is a one-off that won't lead to much systemic change whether it's a fine or an order to de-merge. What we need (imo) is a whole new approach to antitrust that doesn't hinge on a definition of monopoly. Companies beyond a certain size should just be put under a different set of obligations than smaller ones. They should be assumed to have market power by merit of their size. When it comes to gdpr and such, these need to be written differently for large companies. Basically, no more equality before the law for companies. What we get in return is rule of law.

nradov 8y ago
ExxonMobil is a huge company. How much market power do they have over the price of crude oil? Not much, because it's a commodity. Other factors matter far more than size.
- netcan 8y ago
  In theory and on paper.... Making that into a functional legal system, hasn't happened. In any case, half my point is that pricing power is not the operative definition of market power anymore. If xonmobile can/do have all sorts of influence on governments, job markets and such. They can do tax stuff a restraint can't. What I am proposing is that the definition of a monopoly is not useable, for policy. It's fine as an economic & academic concept, not as a legal one.
- int_19h 8y ago
  Large companies aren't bad just because they tend to monopolize the market they operate in. They can also lobby far more effectively, then there's the issue of the job market competitiveness etc.

by netcan 8y ago

nradov 8y ago

ExxonMobil is a huge company. How much market power do they have over the price of crude oil? Not much, because it's a commodity. Other factors matter far more than size.

netcan 8y ago
In theory and on paper.... Making that into a functional legal system, hasn't happened. In any case, half my point is that pricing power is not the operative definition of market power anymore. If xonmobile can/do have all sorts of influence on governments, job markets and such. They can do tax stuff a restraint can't. What I am proposing is that the definition of a monopoly is not useable, for policy. It's fine as an economic & academic concept, not as a legal one.
int_19h 8y ago
Large companies aren't bad just because they tend to monopolize the market they operate in. They can also lobby far more effectively, then there's the issue of the job market competitiveness etc.