5 ms·

> Because they built it. Do we tell people building startups that the sky is the limit, unless you become too big or do something too many people consider wrong

by quonn 6y ago

> Because they built it. Do we tell people building startups that the sky is the limit, unless you become too big or do something too many people consider wrong, and in that case we'll take it away from you? So now monopoly power is not a concern anymore? How did we get to this point? Does anyone believe that the fact that a founder can only have, say 10 billion and not 100 prevent anyone from starting a startup? I don‘t think so.

Communitivity 6y ago
Monopoly is a concern, but so is trying to improve the situation through negative reinforcement, by breaking apart the company. Instead, foster competition by handing out grants to competitors on the condition that they can't be sold to the Big Co for 10 years, and provide mentoring to those startups. Also, 10 billion vs 100 is arbitrary and could easily vary from market to market, and is determined by who? Here we edge into the moral question of whether it is ok to be a billionaire, and the discussion taps into the current outrage against the 1%. I think it is ok to be a billionaire, if and only if you give back to the community commensurately - something like a 50% flat income tax (no deductions, applies to all income including investment earnings/interest) if your net worth is over 1 billion.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >I think it is ok to be a billionaire, if and only if you give back to the community commensurately How is it even remotely your business how much money other people have given somebody? A billionare (assuming they didn't inherit it) has already given way more back to the community than the average person, because they brought into existance something that collectively brought billions of dollars of value to people.
- ViViDboarder 6y ago
  > Instead, foster competition by handing out grants to competitors on the condition that they can't be sold to the Big Co for 10 years, and provide mentoring to those startups. With what goal? More gigantic conglomerates? Or after ten years, they get rolled up into an existing one? To me, this sounds like it would make the problem worse. What is your concern with negative reinforcement? Pretty much our entire legislation is based on the concept of fines and punishment.
Grimm1 6y ago
They're not a monopoly though. Like 40% market share in eCommerce and like 15% in retail overall isn't close to a monopoly. Yes they compete in other spaces, the onus is on their competitors not to suck.
- cybwraith 6y ago
  40% in ecommerce would definitely be able to have monopoly power which would often be enough to trigger an anti-trust response, historically. What producer of a consumer good sold through Amazon could afford to lose 40% of their retail presence/revenue overnight? Well in the current environment, Amazon has that power. Its extremely unbalanced and lets them really crush any rising opposition unless you trust they won't unfairly wield that power.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    >What producer of a consumer good sold through Amazon could afford to lose 40% of their retail presence/revenue overnight? Well in the current environment, Amazon has that power. Are there any examples of them actually doing this?
    - ViViDboarder 6y ago
      Of them having 40% of the market place? The comment is referring to the fact that companies trying to sell goods online are given a choice to either forego 40% of potential revenues or work with Amazon. This gives Amazon an enormous amount of leverage over suppliers.
      - logicchains 6y ago
        No, of them forcing anybody off their platform. >The comment is referring to the fact that companies trying to sell goods online are given a choice to either forego 40% of potential revenues or work with Amazon. This gives Amazon an enormous amount of leverage over suppliers. Antitrust law (at least in the US) is conducted on the basis of harm to consumers. If Amazon's negotiating power with suppliers results in better prices/outcomes for consumers, then there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. As a producer, nobody is obligated to buy what you're selling. http://sites.middlebury.edu/econ0450f10/files/2010/08/bastiat.pdf http://sites.middlebury.edu/econ0450f10/files/2010/08/bastia... is a nice argument why laws should try to benefit consumers, not producers.

by quonn 6y ago

Communitivity 6y ago

Monopoly is a concern, but so is trying to improve the situation through negative reinforcement, by breaking apart the company. Instead, foster competition by handing out grants to competitors on the condition that they can't be sold to the Big Co for 10 years, and provide mentoring to those startups. Also, 10 billion vs 100 is arbitrary and could easily vary from market to market, and is determined by who? Here we edge into the moral question of whether it is ok to be a billionaire, and the discussion taps into the current outrage against the 1%. I think it is ok to be a billionaire, if and only if you give back to the community commensurately - something like a 50% flat income tax (no deductions, applies to all income including investment earnings/interest) if your net worth is over 1 billion.

logicchains 6y ago
>I think it is ok to be a billionaire, if and only if you give back to the community commensurately How is it even remotely your business how much money other people have given somebody? A billionare (assuming they didn't inherit it) has already given way more back to the community than the average person, because they brought into existance something that collectively brought billions of dollars of value to people.
ViViDboarder 6y ago
> Instead, foster competition by handing out grants to competitors on the condition that they can't be sold to the Big Co for 10 years, and provide mentoring to those startups. With what goal? More gigantic conglomerates? Or after ten years, they get rolled up into an existing one? To me, this sounds like it would make the problem worse. What is your concern with negative reinforcement? Pretty much our entire legislation is based on the concept of fines and punishment.

Grimm1 6y ago

They're not a monopoly though. Like 40% market share in eCommerce and like 15% in retail overall isn't close to a monopoly. Yes they compete in other spaces, the onus is on their competitors not to suck.

cybwraith 6y ago
40% in ecommerce would definitely be able to have monopoly power which would often be enough to trigger an anti-trust response, historically. What producer of a consumer good sold through Amazon could afford to lose 40% of their retail presence/revenue overnight? Well in the current environment, Amazon has that power. Its extremely unbalanced and lets them really crush any rising opposition unless you trust they won't unfairly wield that power.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >What producer of a consumer good sold through Amazon could afford to lose 40% of their retail presence/revenue overnight? Well in the current environment, Amazon has that power. Are there any examples of them actually doing this?
  - ViViDboarder 6y ago
    Of them having 40% of the market place? The comment is referring to the fact that companies trying to sell goods online are given a choice to either forego 40% of potential revenues or work with Amazon. This gives Amazon an enormous amount of leverage over suppliers.
    - logicchains 6y ago
      No, of them forcing anybody off their platform. >The comment is referring to the fact that companies trying to sell goods online are given a choice to either forego 40% of potential revenues or work with Amazon. This gives Amazon an enormous amount of leverage over suppliers. Antitrust law (at least in the US) is conducted on the basis of harm to consumers. If Amazon's negotiating power with suppliers results in better prices/outcomes for consumers, then there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. As a producer, nobody is obligated to buy what you're selling. http://sites.middlebury.edu/econ0450f10/files/2010/08/bastiat.pdf http://sites.middlebury.edu/econ0450f10/files/2010/08/bastia... is a nice argument why laws should try to benefit consumers, not producers.