4 ms·

I ran across two quotes by Warren that caught my attention: > "unwind tech mergers that illegally undermine competition" > "I want a government that makes sur

by mal10c 8y ago

I ran across two quotes by Warren that caught my attention: > "unwind tech mergers that illegally undermine competition" > "I want a government that makes sure everybody — even the biggest and most powerful companies in America — plays by the rules" The word "illegally" in the first quote really set off my alarm bells. What have large companies like Amazon, Google, FB, etc. done that is considered illegal in this regard? The "by the rules" in the second quote is confusing too. What does that mean? Which rules are being broken? The way I see it: Isn't it the goal of entrepreneurs to be as successful as possible? Let's say I found a way to grow a business to that of the size of some of the bigger ones (which would be awesome). To grow a business that big, consumers obviously like what I'm selling/producing. I get the impression that Warren is saying she doesn't like big businesses because they snuff out the little ones. And maybe that's true, but why is that a concern of the government? There's nothing stopping a smaller company (or even an individual) from coming up with a really good idea and trying that idea out in something like his garage, and then reshaping the next generation... kinda like Amazon did in comparison to Sears. Or Microsoft did with IBM. I'm sure there's going to be plenty of disagreements on my stance, but I guess I'm just not seeing this problem in the same light as Warren.

cooooooffffeeee 8y ago
You're high if you think someone can compete with Amazon out of their garage now. Hell, you can't even sell a product on Amazon without a good chance that Amazon will just slap their Amazon Basics logo on it and undercut you to death. Similar to Wal-Mart many of their competitors are dead because they optimized their supply chain. No one gets that kind of access out of their garage.
- ztratar 8y ago
  And if Amazon is broken up, whoever thinks the US will still win the global E-commerce market against Alibaba is also quite high. The rules are changing. We need to think about the geopolitics here as well. We need US companies to win global markets in an era of increased competition.
  - zip1234 8y ago
    Alibaba is a great example of why Amazon is NOT a monopoly.
    - cdiddy2 8y ago
      Ya, globalization has changed my opinion on how we should handle these situations. How are US companies supposed to compete against other companies that are just as large if we restrict their size within the US? That just gives us a disadvantage against international competitors.
  - cooooooffffeeee 8y ago
    >We need US companies to win global markets why
    - buzzerbetrayed 8y ago
      Because otherwise the companies that do win the global markets do the same thing to US companies that you are saying Amazon does to small companies. How is it a good thing for the US to limit their own companies, when foreign companies don't have the same limitations? Giant companies will still exist, they will just cease to be US based companies.
      - cooooooffffeeee 8y ago
        Fair take. The US could penalize/limit/tariff those outside megacorps like China does though, right? I'm not sure trade should be completely free when an outside competitor can skirt your local laws.
prickledpear 8y ago
It's a little hard to tell if you're asking "are there laws against monopolies?" or "should there be laws against monopolies?". The answer to the first is a certain yes. There are laws against businesses forming monopolies in the United States. You can read up on the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts from the 1890s and 1910s to start with. There is also considerable case law stemming from this legislation. The answer to "should there be laws against monopolies" is a little more open. One theoretical justification for breaking up monopolies, is that in some cases monopolies cause economic inefficiencies. Look up "deadweight loss from monopoly pricing". It's very complicated to measure any efficiencies or inefficiencies from tech monopolies, so I don't think there's a clear answer. It's also not generally agreed upon that economic efficiency should be the goal of government, so there is a lot of room for debate on that question.
- mal10c 8y ago
  Those are great points. I didn't break my main thoughts into those two smaller thoughts. And I also appreciate this comment: > It's also not generally agreed upon that economic efficiency should be the goal of government I think you managed to sum up my thoughts much better than I did.
- Despegar 8y ago
  You've confused some things. "Economic efficiency", as espoused by Bork and the rest of his Chicago School crew, came as a result of consolidation. His argument against strong antitrust enforcement was that it lowered economic efficiency to benefit smaller non-monopoly companies. This of course was a disaster for the American economy and it's taken 30 years of increasing corporate concentration for the politics to finally swing back against monopoly.
- ChrisLomont 8y ago
  >There are laws against businesses forming monopolies in the United States That is not true. There are laws against certain behavior by monopolies. Here's the Sherman Antitrust Act you mentioned, which makes this clear [1]. As such, it's not legal to simply break up a monopoly solely because they're a monopoly. They have to exhibit specified illegal behavior first. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890
rustyboy 8y ago
> "illegal" because Amazon uses their non-retail business profits to identify high selling items, produce them themselves, sell them at a lower price (because they have all the data also), and finally steer customers to those products. They're the market place and a player. This new idea isn't well defined in law, but using your profits from one company to undercut another area is illegal. > "by the rules" is the same idea as "illegal", and even if they're not, the point she's trying to make is the fact they are not breaking rules should be setting off alarm bells because... > "but why is that a concern of the government?" because America loves the free market, and big business is the enemy of it.
- mal10c 8y ago
  I see what you're saying about the first part (the illegal part), thanks for your thoughts on that. I do disagree with your last comment though: > because America loves the free market, and big business is the enemy of it. Sure big businesses can raise prices and cause consumers to pay more. But big businesses can also lower prices too by investing in technologies that save money - which we see all the time. So I guess I don't see big business as the enemy of the free market, after all, there's nothing forcing me to buy from big company A, even if they have a monopoly on a product. The reason is, in a free market, I'm free to discover and pursue ways to side step a monopoly. I don't need the government to help me do that.
- plandis 8y ago
  > and finally steer customers to those products Do you have data that shows this actually happens? Everything else you stated before this part is a win for consumers in my mind. More competitors is generally a good thing.
- elamje 8y ago
  To your first point - Walmart, Target, and almost all Grocery stores in the southern US have private labels for significantly cheaper than name brand labels. They are the market place and players. And they also drive traffic to their products via website and shelf placement. If you say amazon is illegal here, you can’t simply ignore almost all big players are. Not sure that’s illegal anyways since the consumer has plenty of choices at Amazon, Walmart, Target, etc. Historically with Walmart and Target being players and the marketplace, have you seen that damage the consumer? Largely consumers end up getting commodity goods for cheaper, and the goods that are specialized/branded for roughly equivalent prices to other marketplaces.

by mal10c 8y ago

cooooooffffeeee 8y ago

You're high if you think someone can compete with Amazon out of their garage now. Hell, you can't even sell a product on Amazon without a good chance that Amazon will just slap their Amazon Basics logo on it and undercut you to death. Similar to Wal-Mart many of their competitors are dead because they optimized their supply chain. No one gets that kind of access out of their garage.

ztratar 8y ago
And if Amazon is broken up, whoever thinks the US will still win the global E-commerce market against Alibaba is also quite high. The rules are changing. We need to think about the geopolitics here as well. We need US companies to win global markets in an era of increased competition.
- zip1234 8y ago
  Alibaba is a great example of why Amazon is NOT a monopoly.
  - cdiddy2 8y ago
    Ya, globalization has changed my opinion on how we should handle these situations. How are US companies supposed to compete against other companies that are just as large if we restrict their size within the US? That just gives us a disadvantage against international competitors.
- cooooooffffeeee 8y ago
  >We need US companies to win global markets why
  - buzzerbetrayed 8y ago
    Because otherwise the companies that do win the global markets do the same thing to US companies that you are saying Amazon does to small companies. How is it a good thing for the US to limit their own companies, when foreign companies don't have the same limitations? Giant companies will still exist, they will just cease to be US based companies.
    - cooooooffffeeee 8y ago
      Fair take. The US could penalize/limit/tariff those outside megacorps like China does though, right? I'm not sure trade should be completely free when an outside competitor can skirt your local laws.

prickledpear 8y ago

It's a little hard to tell if you're asking "are there laws against monopolies?" or "should there be laws against monopolies?". The answer to the first is a certain yes. There are laws against businesses forming monopolies in the United States. You can read up on the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts from the 1890s and 1910s to start with. There is also considerable case law stemming from this legislation. The answer to "should there be laws against monopolies" is a little more open. One theoretical justification for breaking up monopolies, is that in some cases monopolies cause economic inefficiencies. Look up "deadweight loss from monopoly pricing". It's very complicated to measure any efficiencies or inefficiencies from tech monopolies, so I don't think there's a clear answer. It's also not generally agreed upon that economic efficiency should be the goal of government, so there is a lot of room for debate on that question.

mal10c 8y ago
Those are great points. I didn't break my main thoughts into those two smaller thoughts. And I also appreciate this comment: > It's also not generally agreed upon that economic efficiency should be the goal of government I think you managed to sum up my thoughts much better than I did.
Despegar 8y ago
You've confused some things. "Economic efficiency", as espoused by Bork and the rest of his Chicago School crew, came as a result of consolidation. His argument against strong antitrust enforcement was that it lowered economic efficiency to benefit smaller non-monopoly companies. This of course was a disaster for the American economy and it's taken 30 years of increasing corporate concentration for the politics to finally swing back against monopoly.
ChrisLomont 8y ago
>There are laws against businesses forming monopolies in the United States That is not true. There are laws against certain behavior by monopolies. Here's the Sherman Antitrust Act you mentioned, which makes this clear [1]. As such, it's not legal to simply break up a monopoly solely because they're a monopoly. They have to exhibit specified illegal behavior first. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890

rustyboy 8y ago

> "illegal" because Amazon uses their non-retail business profits to identify high selling items, produce them themselves, sell them at a lower price (because they have all the data also), and finally steer customers to those products. They're the market place and a player. This new idea isn't well defined in law, but using your profits from one company to undercut another area is illegal. > "by the rules" is the same idea as "illegal", and even if they're not, the point she's trying to make is the fact they are not breaking rules should be setting off alarm bells because... > "but why is that a concern of the government?" because America loves the free market, and big business is the enemy of it.

mal10c 8y ago
I see what you're saying about the first part (the illegal part), thanks for your thoughts on that. I do disagree with your last comment though: > because America loves the free market, and big business is the enemy of it. Sure big businesses can raise prices and cause consumers to pay more. But big businesses can also lower prices too by investing in technologies that save money - which we see all the time. So I guess I don't see big business as the enemy of the free market, after all, there's nothing forcing me to buy from big company A, even if they have a monopoly on a product. The reason is, in a free market, I'm free to discover and pursue ways to side step a monopoly. I don't need the government to help me do that.
plandis 8y ago
> and finally steer customers to those products Do you have data that shows this actually happens? Everything else you stated before this part is a win for consumers in my mind. More competitors is generally a good thing.
elamje 8y ago
To your first point - Walmart, Target, and almost all Grocery stores in the southern US have private labels for significantly cheaper than name brand labels. They are the market place and players. And they also drive traffic to their products via website and shelf placement. If you say amazon is illegal here, you can’t simply ignore almost all big players are. Not sure that’s illegal anyways since the consumer has plenty of choices at Amazon, Walmart, Target, etc. Historically with Walmart and Target being players and the marketplace, have you seen that damage the consumer? Largely consumers end up getting commodity goods for cheaper, and the goods that are specialized/branded for roughly equivalent prices to other marketplaces.