4 ms·

I think breaking up the ISPs and media conglomerates would be much more impactful. I can't think of a single market segment where Google and Amazon lack effect

I think breaking up the ISPs and media conglomerates would be much more impactful. I can't think of a single market segment where Google and Amazon lack effective competition. Facebook is already bleeding users, and how would you break up a social media company in an impactful way anyhow? Facebook's ventures outside of social media aren't even close to being monopolies.

swarnie_ 8y ago
> I think breaking up the ISPs and media conglomerates would be much more impactful. While i agree with you wholeheartedly i don't know anyone who has ever got elected by attacking the media and big business.
- moate 8y ago
  Do you mean both at the same time? If not, Teddy Roosevelt and Donald Trump would like to speak to you about their campaigns.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Yeah, they are not monopolies in the classical sense, so the regulatory position has to be much more nuanced. But there are issues: + Amazon uses profits from AWS to dump in other sectors, selling goods and services below market value. The weird situation could mean Amazon pumps many billion dollars a year into pushing major grocers (who operate on thin margins) out of business. This is not good for anyone - but it's not a case of 'monopoly' so much. + Google is dumping in adjacent areas of tech - giving away Android for free, for example. There should be some regulatory tweaks here, but it's going to be tricky. As you point out - a much easier win would be to break up value chain consolidation over all. Carriers, tech providers, content creators, content distributors - might benefit from being separate entities. I don't think there are any net benefits to society from these entities being consolidated. There are no economies of scale, no proper synergies. There are however, huge incentives for investors to have AT&T own content creation and distribution obviously, so they can subsidize their own assets and not others. There's no long win for consumers so it makes sense to keep them separate. Finally - there might be an opportunity on platforms. I think that the Apple store may be an anti-competitive issue - the notion that you don't control/own the $1K device you just bought is getting ridiculous. I would require platform makers to at allow open access to the platform. Same would apply to mobile phones being 'locked' onto a network - that should just not happen.
- basch 8y ago
  Predatory pricing to push companies out of business is absolutely illegal, and covered under anti-trust law. It's also very hard to prove without getting the intent in writing.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    "Predatory pricing to push companies out of business is absolutely illegal" It's impossible to prove in most cases because it may have nothing to do with intent. Amazon's advantage in 'groceries' is inherently structural. They can sell bananas for 10 cents less than Safeway because their opex may be subsidized, or they can transport cheaper, not 'because they are acting predatorily'. The nature of this value chain overlap is inherently problematic. The thought of 'putting grocery chains out of business using surpluses from AWS' never has to even cross Bezo's mind, or the minds of anyone in the entirety of Amazon. It can happen due simply to structural issues. For much the same way, it's impossible to have a free trade deal with China, so long as they have political controlled financial system and currency. 'Dumping' will be an artifact of the system as a whole. Nobody even needs to think it for it to happen.
    - basch 8y ago
      I really like Stratechery's analysis of Whole Foods as an amazon customer. https://stratechery.com/2017/amazons-new-customer/ https://stratechery.com/2017/amazons-new-customer/ specifcally https://stratechery.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/stratechery-Year-One-270.png https://stratechery.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/strateche... In this model, Amazon WANTS grocery stores to stick around, and buy groceries from Amazon wholesale grocery. The same way that amazon wants AWS to be everyones platform, and for their business to flourish.
      - sonnyblarney 8y ago
        Yes, in that model, they want 'other grocery makers to exist' But Amazon is going to open a regular grocery store chain soon, so it won't be just Whole Foods. What Amazon 'wants' is to make money. If they can control all of the food distribution in the US, they will make not only all the profits from that market - they'll make a 'monopolizers surplus' from having the power to charge higher prices in the long run. That cash-cow is much bigger than the partial cash-cow of owning only an intermediary layer.
furst 8y ago
Facebook owns Instagram, Whatsapp, and dozens other platforms. Sure, Facebook proper is bleeding users, but the platform gaining the most users right now is Instagram, which is still Facebook. Google would be fairly easy to break up among Alphabet subsidiaries, and Amazon could be split among Amazon.com, AWS, and Whole Foods. She actually gets fairly specific about what she her plan is if you actually read the medium article linked in the first paragraph of the OP.
- basch 8y ago
  If youre going to break up Amazon, AWS, and Whole Foods for being vertically integrated, how can you not break up the oil companies or the agriculture companies or the chemical companies.
  - SamuelAdams 8y ago
    You could also argue that Apple is "too vertically integrated" and separate them into either a Laptop / Phone company or a Hardware / software company. Or break out music / media / Beats into it's own company too.
    - basch 8y ago
      I think it would be easier to argue that Apple is being anticompetitive by having undocumented API's only their apps can use, and by not allowing end users to change default mail, map, and browser apps etc.
    - bhl 8y ago
      That would be horizontal integration. But that’s even a hard argument to make since Apple doesn’t have a monopoly or large market share of any of those segments — remember how Apple’s growth was supposed to slow down since their customer base has been saturated? Maybe luxury products but that’s a stretch. Apple isn’t vertically integrated since they outsource some of their manufacturing and assembly to other companies.

swarnie_ 8y ago

> I think breaking up the ISPs and media conglomerates would be much more impactful. While i agree with you wholeheartedly i don't know anyone who has ever got elected by attacking the media and big business.

moate 8y ago
Do you mean both at the same time? If not, Teddy Roosevelt and Donald Trump would like to speak to you about their campaigns.

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Yeah, they are not monopolies in the classical sense, so the regulatory position has to be much more nuanced. But there are issues: + Amazon uses profits from AWS to dump in other sectors, selling goods and services below market value. The weird situation could mean Amazon pumps many billion dollars a year into pushing major grocers (who operate on thin margins) out of business. This is not good for anyone - but it's not a case of 'monopoly' so much. + Google is dumping in adjacent areas of tech - giving away Android for free, for example. There should be some regulatory tweaks here, but it's going to be tricky. As you point out - a much easier win would be to break up value chain consolidation over all. Carriers, tech providers, content creators, content distributors - might benefit from being separate entities. I don't think there are any net benefits to society from these entities being consolidated. There are no economies of scale, no proper synergies. There are however, huge incentives for investors to have AT&T own content creation and distribution obviously, so they can subsidize their own assets and not others. There's no long win for consumers so it makes sense to keep them separate. Finally - there might be an opportunity on platforms. I think that the Apple store may be an anti-competitive issue - the notion that you don't control/own the $1K device you just bought is getting ridiculous. I would require platform makers to at allow open access to the platform. Same would apply to mobile phones being 'locked' onto a network - that should just not happen.

basch 8y ago
Predatory pricing to push companies out of business is absolutely illegal, and covered under anti-trust law. It's also very hard to prove without getting the intent in writing.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "Predatory pricing to push companies out of business is absolutely illegal" It's impossible to prove in most cases because it may have nothing to do with intent. Amazon's advantage in 'groceries' is inherently structural. They can sell bananas for 10 cents less than Safeway because their opex may be subsidized, or they can transport cheaper, not 'because they are acting predatorily'. The nature of this value chain overlap is inherently problematic. The thought of 'putting grocery chains out of business using surpluses from AWS' never has to even cross Bezo's mind, or the minds of anyone in the entirety of Amazon. It can happen due simply to structural issues. For much the same way, it's impossible to have a free trade deal with China, so long as they have political controlled financial system and currency. 'Dumping' will be an artifact of the system as a whole. Nobody even needs to think it for it to happen.
  - basch 8y ago
    I really like Stratechery's analysis of Whole Foods as an amazon customer. https://stratechery.com/2017/amazons-new-customer/ https://stratechery.com/2017/amazons-new-customer/ specifcally https://stratechery.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/stratechery-Year-One-270.png https://stratechery.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/strateche... In this model, Amazon WANTS grocery stores to stick around, and buy groceries from Amazon wholesale grocery. The same way that amazon wants AWS to be everyones platform, and for their business to flourish.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      Yes, in that model, they want 'other grocery makers to exist' But Amazon is going to open a regular grocery store chain soon, so it won't be just Whole Foods. What Amazon 'wants' is to make money. If they can control all of the food distribution in the US, they will make not only all the profits from that market - they'll make a 'monopolizers surplus' from having the power to charge higher prices in the long run. That cash-cow is much bigger than the partial cash-cow of owning only an intermediary layer.

furst 8y ago

Facebook owns Instagram, Whatsapp, and dozens other platforms. Sure, Facebook proper is bleeding users, but the platform gaining the most users right now is Instagram, which is still Facebook. Google would be fairly easy to break up among Alphabet subsidiaries, and Amazon could be split among Amazon.com, AWS, and Whole Foods. She actually gets fairly specific about what she her plan is if you actually read the medium article linked in the first paragraph of the OP.

basch 8y ago
If youre going to break up Amazon, AWS, and Whole Foods for being vertically integrated, how can you not break up the oil companies or the agriculture companies or the chemical companies.
- SamuelAdams 8y ago
  You could also argue that Apple is "too vertically integrated" and separate them into either a Laptop / Phone company or a Hardware / software company. Or break out music / media / Beats into it's own company too.
  - basch 8y ago
    I think it would be easier to argue that Apple is being anticompetitive by having undocumented API's only their apps can use, and by not allowing end users to change default mail, map, and browser apps etc.
  - bhl 8y ago
    That would be horizontal integration. But that’s even a hard argument to make since Apple doesn’t have a monopoly or large market share of any of those segments — remember how Apple’s growth was supposed to slow down since their customer base has been saturated? Maybe luxury products but that’s a stretch. Apple isn’t vertically integrated since they outsource some of their manufacturing and assembly to other companies.