5 ms·

Regulation of anti-competitive behavior seems to have been extremely relaxed lately. Amazon's marketplace and Amazon Retail seem at odds with each other, yet t

by swalsh 5y ago

Regulation of anti-competitive behavior seems to have been extremely relaxed lately. Amazon's marketplace and Amazon Retail seem at odds with each other, yet they're allowed to coexest, and everyone is fully aware of the anti-competitive behavior. Intel's chip business needs to be seperated from their foundry business, and the 2 can't be allowed to comingle with each other.

smoldesu 5y ago
What incentive does the US government have to split up highly lucrative, domestic businesses?
- kaashif 5y ago
  The incentive should be that a competitive free market is better for prosperity in the long term. If anti-competitive practices are allowed, the losers are the consumers, whose interests the government are supposed to represent. Obviously it doesn't work that way in practice.
  - buu700 5y ago
    From another point of view, looking at the government as an institution rather than through its role as an advocate of the people, you could also make the case that the government should oppose any massive consolidation of wealth/power as a threat to its own power. FAANG companies each individually have higher annual revenue than most countries' GDPs. In the absence of government intervention, there wouldn't be much to stop them from turning into British East India Companies and establishing banana republics, raising private armies, etc. In an extreme scenario, some kind of corporate Genghis Khan could hypothetically consolidate the S&P 500 into a single megacorp if the DOJ allowed it to happen, and that company's revenue would be about half the US GDP (making it the third largest "economy" in the world). It would effectively be a hostile state right in our own backyard. Would we even have the ability to enforce taxation if they said no? What would stop them from wielding that incredible wealth to effectively buy a majority stake in government?
- toast0 5y ago
  If we're just thinking incentives, why have one highly lucrative, domestic business, when you could have several? A lot of the anti-trust breakups result in several good businesses and maybe some competition/consumer benefits too.

by swalsh 5y ago

smoldesu 5y ago

What incentive does the US government have to split up highly lucrative, domestic businesses?

kaashif 5y ago
The incentive should be that a competitive free market is better for prosperity in the long term. If anti-competitive practices are allowed, the losers are the consumers, whose interests the government are supposed to represent. Obviously it doesn't work that way in practice.
- buu700 5y ago
  From another point of view, looking at the government as an institution rather than through its role as an advocate of the people, you could also make the case that the government should oppose any massive consolidation of wealth/power as a threat to its own power. FAANG companies each individually have higher annual revenue than most countries' GDPs. In the absence of government intervention, there wouldn't be much to stop them from turning into British East India Companies and establishing banana republics, raising private armies, etc. In an extreme scenario, some kind of corporate Genghis Khan could hypothetically consolidate the S&P 500 into a single megacorp if the DOJ allowed it to happen, and that company's revenue would be about half the US GDP (making it the third largest "economy" in the world). It would effectively be a hostile state right in our own backyard. Would we even have the ability to enforce taxation if they said no? What would stop them from wielding that incredible wealth to effectively buy a majority stake in government?
toast0 5y ago
If we're just thinking incentives, why have one highly lucrative, domestic business, when you could have several? A lot of the anti-trust breakups result in several good businesses and maybe some competition/consumer benefits too.