3 ms·

> Prohibiting vertical integration prevents that sort of leveraging without having to micromanage every multinational conglomerate. How is policing all forms o

> Prohibiting vertical integration prevents that sort of leveraging without having to micromanage every multinational conglomerate. How is policing all forms of vertical integration in the corporate world not micromanagement of all businesses?

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
It's macromanagement. It's a big clear fault line that regulators can see from outer space, instead of trying to evaluate whether Apple App Store charging Spotify a given percentage is anti-competitive based on a detailed analysis of their cost structure and having to argue about the allocation of fixed costs between business units. It also has the advantage of creating a de facto limit on entity size so we don't end up with corporations more powerful than elected governments. And it's not a prohibition on vertical integration whatsoever, only on vertical integration for companies with market power in any market.
- pembrook 6y ago
  > It's a big clear fault line that regulators can see from outer space Nothing in the world of regulation is a clear fault line. You're just creating different points for regulators and lawyers to fight about. How are you defining "market power in any market?" Is it just if a company gets 20% of a market? 50%? 70%? 90%? This also gets extremely sticky in markets that are still developing. Take Saas for example. Mailchimp arguably has "market power" in email marketing (70%). Should they have been allowed to get into the social post scheduling business? Using your argument, you could call that unfair competition for social post schedulers like Buffer, since Mailchimp already holds market power over one area of the marketing stack. But what if it's more efficient for all businesses to keep their email marketing and social post scheduling in one tool? Are you going to force everybody to be inefficient and use separate tools for everything because you think it's better the for the "social media management Saas" market? Should that even be a market? How granular are you going to get over what's a market and what's just a product feature? Social post scheduling is both a feature, and a market of companies. This solves nothing and only creates more micromanagement headaches for regulators.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > How are you defining "market power in any market?" This is already a concept that exists under established antitrust law. It's complicated and ugly and could probably use some reform, but it's also a different part of the equation. "Does this company have market power" is a separate question from what do we do if they do, for which the proposal is to prohibit vertical integration. > Is it just if a company gets 20% of a market? 50%? 70%? 90%? Market power has very little to do with what percentage of the market the company holds. For example, in a market with two local ISPs where one has 95% of the market and the other has 5%, they could both have market power because the market is so consolidated that the company with 5% could still be able to dictate terms to customers. On the other hand, a company with 99% market share might not have market power, if barriers to entry are low and any attempt to raise prices would cause new competitors to enter the market, as is the case with e.g. Walmart. > Mailchimp arguably has "market power" in email marketing (70%). Should they have been allowed to get into the social post scheduling business? Using your argument, you could call that unfair competition for social media management Saas tools like Buffer, since Mailchimp already holds market power over one area of the marketing stack. I don't see the trouble here. Mailchimp may or may not have market power (I don't know enough about that specific market to evaluate it), but knowing 70% isn't really that informative. If they do have market power then preventing them from leveraging it to destroy Buffer is good. If they don't then they wouldn't be prevented from entering the other market.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

It's macromanagement. It's a big clear fault line that regulators can see from outer space, instead of trying to evaluate whether Apple App Store charging Spotify a given percentage is anti-competitive based on a detailed analysis of their cost structure and having to argue about the allocation of fixed costs between business units. It also has the advantage of creating a de facto limit on entity size so we don't end up with corporations more powerful than elected governments. And it's not a prohibition on vertical integration whatsoever, only on vertical integration for companies with market power in any market.

pembrook 6y ago
> It's a big clear fault line that regulators can see from outer space Nothing in the world of regulation is a clear fault line. You're just creating different points for regulators and lawyers to fight about. How are you defining "market power in any market?" Is it just if a company gets 20% of a market? 50%? 70%? 90%? This also gets extremely sticky in markets that are still developing. Take Saas for example. Mailchimp arguably has "market power" in email marketing (70%). Should they have been allowed to get into the social post scheduling business? Using your argument, you could call that unfair competition for social post schedulers like Buffer, since Mailchimp already holds market power over one area of the marketing stack. But what if it's more efficient for all businesses to keep their email marketing and social post scheduling in one tool? Are you going to force everybody to be inefficient and use separate tools for everything because you think it's better the for the "social media management Saas" market? Should that even be a market? How granular are you going to get over what's a market and what's just a product feature? Social post scheduling is both a feature, and a market of companies. This solves nothing and only creates more micromanagement headaches for regulators.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > How are you defining "market power in any market?" This is already a concept that exists under established antitrust law. It's complicated and ugly and could probably use some reform, but it's also a different part of the equation. "Does this company have market power" is a separate question from what do we do if they do, for which the proposal is to prohibit vertical integration. > Is it just if a company gets 20% of a market? 50%? 70%? 90%? Market power has very little to do with what percentage of the market the company holds. For example, in a market with two local ISPs where one has 95% of the market and the other has 5%, they could both have market power because the market is so consolidated that the company with 5% could still be able to dictate terms to customers. On the other hand, a company with 99% market share might not have market power, if barriers to entry are low and any attempt to raise prices would cause new competitors to enter the market, as is the case with e.g. Walmart. > Mailchimp arguably has "market power" in email marketing (70%). Should they have been allowed to get into the social post scheduling business? Using your argument, you could call that unfair competition for social media management Saas tools like Buffer, since Mailchimp already holds market power over one area of the marketing stack. I don't see the trouble here. Mailchimp may or may not have market power (I don't know enough about that specific market to evaluate it), but knowing 70% isn't really that informative. If they do have market power then preventing them from leveraging it to destroy Buffer is good. If they don't then they wouldn't be prevented from entering the other market.