3 ms·

Antitrust laws are targeted at specific monopolistic behaviors, not against bigness in general.

A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
You are absolutely correct. That said, 'bigness' invites monopolistic behaviors. I am actually saying: do not let it grow big enough to cause problems in the future. It works in gardening.
- twblalock 7y ago
  We should punish violations of the law if and when they happen, rather than pre-emptively asking businesses if they could please be a bit less successful. Bigness is not a problem in itself, and we should be more appreciative of it as a form of resiliency after this pandemic. Big business has performed better than most other American institutions. Our ability to cope with the shutdowns has been heavily reliant on big business, especially big tech.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
    Should is likely the key word in that statement. You will note how many and public violations of the law get a slap on the wrist that in practice amounts to a little more than the cost of doing business ( Equifax, Wells Fargo, Uber come to mind ). Regular people watch this and each time it happens trust in the basic institutions tasked with making the playing field equal gets drained a little further. As for the point about big business performing better than other American institutions, I would like to point out that it is big business does happen to have rather good representation in our government; definitely better than most citizens do. Of course they do better. It would be weird if they did not. As for the resiliency, I can't get help, but to chuckle, in 2008 tons of big businesses were begging for a bailout. This time around BA and few other big players are not above asking for the same. How resilient are they really? I can give you your point about tech sector ( though an argument could be made the main reason they seem somewhat is immune is shifting the employment cost to the employee -- ie. gig economy ). Big business is not the problem in itself, but pretending it does not have inordinate amount of impact is silly. Its growth, especially if it is causing undesirable changes, should and must be curtailed. Otherwise the best thing you can compare it to is cancer.
    - d1zzy 7y ago
      > As for the resiliency, I can't get help, but to chuckle, in 2008 tons of big businesses were begging for a bailout. This time around BA and few other big players are not above asking for the same. How resilient are they really? So to me that sounds like even more reason to like Amazon, if they survive this without any government bailout money. Because, like you pointed out, other business do not so let's all praise Amazon for being able to do so, right?
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
        I think you misunderstand my argument. I have zero issues giving Amazon credit, where credit is due. It is as big as it is, because it got a whole lot of things right from customer perspective. Compared to even to say BestBuy today, it is still probably best experience I had online. That, however, does not mean that they cannot get so big that I would not want their power limited. So to answer your question: sure.

You are absolutely correct. That said, 'bigness' invites monopolistic behaviors. I am actually saying: do not let it grow big enough to cause problems in the future. It works in gardening.

twblalock 7y ago
We should punish violations of the law if and when they happen, rather than pre-emptively asking businesses if they could please be a bit less successful. Bigness is not a problem in itself, and we should be more appreciative of it as a form of resiliency after this pandemic. Big business has performed better than most other American institutions. Our ability to cope with the shutdowns has been heavily reliant on big business, especially big tech.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  Should is likely the key word in that statement. You will note how many and public violations of the law get a slap on the wrist that in practice amounts to a little more than the cost of doing business ( Equifax, Wells Fargo, Uber come to mind ). Regular people watch this and each time it happens trust in the basic institutions tasked with making the playing field equal gets drained a little further. As for the point about big business performing better than other American institutions, I would like to point out that it is big business does happen to have rather good representation in our government; definitely better than most citizens do. Of course they do better. It would be weird if they did not. As for the resiliency, I can't get help, but to chuckle, in 2008 tons of big businesses were begging for a bailout. This time around BA and few other big players are not above asking for the same. How resilient are they really? I can give you your point about tech sector ( though an argument could be made the main reason they seem somewhat is immune is shifting the employment cost to the employee -- ie. gig economy ). Big business is not the problem in itself, but pretending it does not have inordinate amount of impact is silly. Its growth, especially if it is causing undesirable changes, should and must be curtailed. Otherwise the best thing you can compare it to is cancer.
  - d1zzy 7y ago
    > As for the resiliency, I can't get help, but to chuckle, in 2008 tons of big businesses were begging for a bailout. This time around BA and few other big players are not above asking for the same. How resilient are they really? So to me that sounds like even more reason to like Amazon, if they survive this without any government bailout money. Because, like you pointed out, other business do not so let's all praise Amazon for being able to do so, right?
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
      I think you misunderstand my argument. I have zero issues giving Amazon credit, where credit is due. It is as big as it is, because it got a whole lot of things right from customer perspective. Compared to even to say BestBuy today, it is still probably best experience I had online. That, however, does not mean that they cannot get so big that I would not want their power limited. So to answer your question: sure.