3 ms·

> The state-overseen apparatus you might next jump to is a nightmare to me. Markets have to be overseen by the state to some degree, because free markets rely

> The state-overseen apparatus you might next jump to is a nightmare to me. Markets have to be overseen by the state to some degree, because free markets rely on certain conditions being met in order to work optimally. One of these conditions is that the companies in the market must be competing. > You would be ok with different tax rates for different size corporations? You mean like how individuals are taxed at different rates dependent on the size of their income? > A committee / agency to decide what is or is not an oligopoly? We already have that: the court system. I'm not describing anything new here. Competition law in the US dates back at least to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. > So, someone coming up with a new app that does something never done before, that would be a monopoly or oligopoly, right? Having a monopoly by itself is fine; you just can't leverage that monopoly to artificially inhibit competition.

supernova87a 6y ago
If that's what you think of the courts, you are under a serious misapprehension of what the judicial court system is. And this kind of bad information probably contributes to why courts have become so overloaded in the last 20 years. You would call for huge government apparatuses to be created, and you think that "the courts will figure it out". The role of courts is not of fact finder, market minder, or regulator. You should educate yourself on that topic before proposing stuff like this. You would have to create an IRS-like body to determine the monopolistic status of every market, industry, company. And tell me, are you just concerned about big tech companies making 30%, or would you regulate grocery chains that make 4% just the same? It's like people don't think of the details and implications of an idea before proposing that they've got the answer.
- username90 6y ago
  EU already has this, one thing they did was reduce credit card fees by an order of magnitude. This has greatly sped up the move to cashless payments since now the fees are so small that you don't have to bother. Companies working to create bottlenecks in society instead of removing them really is bad for everyone, so governments needs to step in to fix that. https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/262142-if-europe-can-rein-in-credit-card-fees-why-not-us https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/26214...
- weavejester 6y ago
  > If that's what you think of the courts, you are under a serious misapprehension of what the judicial court system is. Then what do you call United States v. AT&T? Or United States v. Microsoft Corporation? > The role of courts is not of fact finder, market minder, or regulator. It's certainly the courts' job to enforce anti-trust legislation. > You would have to create an IRS-like body to determine the monopolistic status of every market, industry, company. You mean like the FTC? But again, it's not whether a company is a monopoly; it's whether they're engaged in anti-competititive practices to maintain that monopoly. The FTC and the Antitrust division of the DoJ investigate antitrust violations, not so-called "innocent" monopolies. > And tell me, are you just concerned about big tech companies making 30%, or would you regulate grocery chains that make 4% just the same? It doesn't matter how much profit a company makes, or how much it charges; it's whether or not it's artificially reducing competition in order to keep prices high. There's typically less barriers to entry to selling groceries, but its certainly not impossible for a grocery chain to engage in anticompetitive practices. > It's like people don't think of the details and implications of an idea before proposing that they've got the answer. You seem to be under the impression this is an idea I'm proposing, but what I'm describing is how competition law has worked for the last century.

supernova87a 6y ago

If that's what you think of the courts, you are under a serious misapprehension of what the judicial court system is. And this kind of bad information probably contributes to why courts have become so overloaded in the last 20 years. You would call for huge government apparatuses to be created, and you think that "the courts will figure it out". The role of courts is not of fact finder, market minder, or regulator. You should educate yourself on that topic before proposing stuff like this. You would have to create an IRS-like body to determine the monopolistic status of every market, industry, company. And tell me, are you just concerned about big tech companies making 30%, or would you regulate grocery chains that make 4% just the same? It's like people don't think of the details and implications of an idea before proposing that they've got the answer.

username90 6y ago
EU already has this, one thing they did was reduce credit card fees by an order of magnitude. This has greatly sped up the move to cashless payments since now the fees are so small that you don't have to bother. Companies working to create bottlenecks in society instead of removing them really is bad for everyone, so governments needs to step in to fix that. https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/262142-if-europe-can-rein-in-credit-card-fees-why-not-us https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/26214...
weavejester 6y ago
> If that's what you think of the courts, you are under a serious misapprehension of what the judicial court system is. Then what do you call United States v. AT&T? Or United States v. Microsoft Corporation? > The role of courts is not of fact finder, market minder, or regulator. It's certainly the courts' job to enforce anti-trust legislation. > You would have to create an IRS-like body to determine the monopolistic status of every market, industry, company. You mean like the FTC? But again, it's not whether a company is a monopoly; it's whether they're engaged in anti-competititive practices to maintain that monopoly. The FTC and the Antitrust division of the DoJ investigate antitrust violations, not so-called "innocent" monopolies. > And tell me, are you just concerned about big tech companies making 30%, or would you regulate grocery chains that make 4% just the same? It doesn't matter how much profit a company makes, or how much it charges; it's whether or not it's artificially reducing competition in order to keep prices high. There's typically less barriers to entry to selling groceries, but its certainly not impossible for a grocery chain to engage in anticompetitive practices. > It's like people don't think of the details and implications of an idea before proposing that they've got the answer. You seem to be under the impression this is an idea I'm proposing, but what I'm describing is how competition law has worked for the last century.