10 ms·

> Any value that something this large has, is in its ability to exhaust resources from the ecosystem, control the market, the workers and the ability to resist

> Any value that something this large has, is in its ability to exhaust resources from the ecosystem, control the market, the workers and the ability to resist changing its behavior when better things come along. It is no news that big-co can induce great harm, but let us not get swallowed into conspiratorial thinking. Large companies first and foremost benefit from economies of scale, not any dictatorial dynamics they might pursue. This is important, because when we decide to draw a line based on size (easy) and not on demonstrated harmful behavior (difficult), we have to answer the question "how big exactly we should allow corporations get then?". The answer to this question will determine if we as a society can enjoy certain things or not, because some goods' and services' existence requires that economies of scale. > Breaking up large companies isn't even about them. It is about us and the world we want to live in. Remember the wage fixing scandal between Pixar, Google, Apple and bunch of other companies in the bay? How is multiple companies colluding related to the question of a single company being broken up? Again, what they did was wrong, but let's not smuggle unnecessary emotional rhetoric into a rational argument. > That is too much power for a company to have or wield. Power concentrates whether we like it or not. Who should wield that power? Nation states? Religions? Or do we mandate a constant break up? You might break up your nation's companies but that doesn't prevent another country's corporations dominating the world market including yours, unless you pull a NK. Yes corporate power concentration can/does cause great harm, but I haven't heard a suggestion that can actually work in the real world. How about strengthening the opponent process of government and other democratic processes to undertake the difficult task of disincentivizing demonstrated harmful behavior? Developing mechanisms more sophisticated than "just break it up"? American big-co's are not the only big-co's in the world, maybe compare notes with how other nations handling these?

thomasz 6y ago
Being able to significantly alter public perception and influence the political process is one of the most important advantages of scale.
- acituan 6y ago
  Yes, and maybe our political and public perception apparatus doesn’t scale well to the long tail of public interest topics and a singular strong entity with clear goals is simply taking advantage of that mismatch.
mrkurt 6y ago
> Large companies first and foremost benefit from economies of scale, not any dictatorial dynamics they might pursue. Economies of scale are dictatorial dynamics. Economy of scale means you're putting unbalanced pricing pressure on suppliers.
- acituan 6y ago
  > Economies of scale are dictatorial dynamics. Economy of scale means you're putting unbalanced pricing pressure on suppliers. I think you are confusing economies of scale with monopolistic/monopsonistic dynamics.
  - mrkurt 6y ago
    Nope. Not confused at all.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      But economies of scale are independent of the supplying market - having one skilled industrial engineer (who may be the owner) set up a fully automated line to make screws would be an economy of scale as the automated would sustain a lower price per item vs a manned line or masses of tinkers machining every screw by hand. Said situation also says nothing about your suppliers as a bunch of small steel producers vs one massive steel monopoly themselves. The economic power wielded is a maximia of the difference per item in efficency essentially - as any attempt to leverage it would result in the old less efficient way being cheaper and negate the competive edge. To call the hypothetical sole industrial engineer "dictatorial" is quite the strange definition.
      - mrkurt 6y ago
        Automation and production efficiency isn't what people mean by "economies of scale", though, especially in relation to antitrust. When large companies make gains from "economies of scale" it's almost always because they've attacked margins, usually by wielding enough power they can convince suppliers to make less money, sometimes by replacing other parts of the vertical market by doing things in house. If you think about the tech giants, they're not making gains by automating more production. They're buying up fiber, building their own chips, creating their own shipping companies, etc. They are big enough to alter most markets in ways that are favorable to them.

thomasz 6y ago

Being able to significantly alter public perception and influence the political process is one of the most important advantages of scale.

acituan 6y ago
Yes, and maybe our political and public perception apparatus doesn’t scale well to the long tail of public interest topics and a singular strong entity with clear goals is simply taking advantage of that mismatch.

mrkurt 6y ago

> Large companies first and foremost benefit from economies of scale, not any dictatorial dynamics they might pursue. Economies of scale are dictatorial dynamics. Economy of scale means you're putting unbalanced pricing pressure on suppliers.

acituan 6y ago
> Economies of scale are dictatorial dynamics. Economy of scale means you're putting unbalanced pricing pressure on suppliers. I think you are confusing economies of scale with monopolistic/monopsonistic dynamics.
- mrkurt 6y ago
  Nope. Not confused at all.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    But economies of scale are independent of the supplying market - having one skilled industrial engineer (who may be the owner) set up a fully automated line to make screws would be an economy of scale as the automated would sustain a lower price per item vs a manned line or masses of tinkers machining every screw by hand. Said situation also says nothing about your suppliers as a bunch of small steel producers vs one massive steel monopoly themselves. The economic power wielded is a maximia of the difference per item in efficency essentially - as any attempt to leverage it would result in the old less efficient way being cheaper and negate the competive edge. To call the hypothetical sole industrial engineer "dictatorial" is quite the strange definition.
    - mrkurt 6y ago
      Automation and production efficiency isn't what people mean by "economies of scale", though, especially in relation to antitrust. When large companies make gains from "economies of scale" it's almost always because they've attacked margins, usually by wielding enough power they can convince suppliers to make less money, sometimes by replacing other parts of the vertical market by doing things in house. If you think about the tech giants, they're not making gains by automating more production. They're buying up fiber, building their own chips, creating their own shipping companies, etc. They are big enough to alter most markets in ways that are favorable to them.