4 ms·

Smaller companies may be a net benefit over the long term. These super large companies tend to become over dominant in their markets and and start engaging in a

Smaller companies may be a net benefit over the long term. These super large companies tend to become over dominant in their markets and and start engaging in anti-competetive behaviours.

randyrand 5y ago
I'd expect that we'd just see more large companies overseas, and fewer in America.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  If the government succeeds in breaking up America's huge companies, the US's economic advantage will be ceded to other countries. All the FAANG companies are American. What country wouldn't like to have just one of them?
dcolkitt 5y ago
Decades of economic research has consistently confirmed that large corporations have substantially higher productivity and efficiency.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Big businesses are the engines the drive the economy. Small businesses are the future big businesses. A healthy economy needs both. After Japan was burned to the ground in WW2, the US sent in academics to structure the economic recovery. They thought big business was bad, and only allowed small companies to operate. The economy flatlined. Finally, they allowed big business to resume operations. The economy went straight up until 1990 or so when it became moribund for other reasons.
WalterBright 5y ago
> These super large companies tend to become over dominant in their markets and and start engaging in anti-competetive behaviours. This complaint I've heard my entire life about the dominant companies of the day that have since collapsed of their own accord. Companies like RCA, IBM, Sears, Kodak, etc. 10 biggest companies by market cap 20 years ago: GE Cisco Exxon Phizer Microsoft Walmart Citigroup Vodafone Intel Royal Dutch Shell and today: Apple Microsoft Alphabet Amazon Facebook Tesla Berkshire Hathaway TSMC Tencent Nvidia
- enumjorge 5y ago
  The fact that giant companies eventually collapse under the weight of their own greed and complacency doesn’t mean they don’t engage in anticompetitive behavior while they’re at the top.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    It means they were not successful at crushing their competitors.
    - mywittyname 5y ago
      Those largest companies from 20 years ago didn't fail, they are all doing very well (well, GE excepted), they just did not grow nearly as fast as new tech did.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        They were bad investments over that time period. I'm still smarting over my disastrous Cisco investment. How's Intel doing lately? Nvidia ate their ice cream. Cisco and Intel could do no wrong prior to 2000.
    - enumjorge 5y ago
      My point is huge companies can engage can have negative effects on competition even if they eventually fall. How many businesses has Amazon whipped out in the retail space by leaning on the profits from the cloud division? Just the other day we saw documents from the DOJ’s lawsuit against Google for anticompetitive behavior. In the those documents we saw internal communication about a desire for Google to use their dominance in the browser space to create the web into a walled garden [0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28974798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28974798
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        Literally any functioning company has negative effects on its competition. Google turning the web into a walled garden will simply create opportunity for others.

Smaller companies may be a net benefit over the long term. These super large companies tend to become over dominant in their markets and and start engaging in anti-competetive behaviours.

randyrand 5y ago

I'd expect that we'd just see more large companies overseas, and fewer in America.

WalterBright 5y ago
If the government succeeds in breaking up America's huge companies, the US's economic advantage will be ceded to other countries. All the FAANG companies are American. What country wouldn't like to have just one of them?

dcolkitt 5y ago

Decades of economic research has consistently confirmed that large corporations have substantially higher productivity and efficiency.

WalterBright 5y ago
Big businesses are the engines the drive the economy. Small businesses are the future big businesses. A healthy economy needs both. After Japan was burned to the ground in WW2, the US sent in academics to structure the economic recovery. They thought big business was bad, and only allowed small companies to operate. The economy flatlined. Finally, they allowed big business to resume operations. The economy went straight up until 1990 or so when it became moribund for other reasons.

WalterBright 5y ago

> These super large companies tend to become over dominant in their markets and and start engaging in anti-competetive behaviours. This complaint I've heard my entire life about the dominant companies of the day that have since collapsed of their own accord. Companies like RCA, IBM, Sears, Kodak, etc. 10 biggest companies by market cap 20 years ago: GE Cisco Exxon Phizer Microsoft Walmart Citigroup Vodafone Intel Royal Dutch Shell and today: Apple Microsoft Alphabet Amazon Facebook Tesla Berkshire Hathaway TSMC Tencent Nvidia

enumjorge 5y ago
The fact that giant companies eventually collapse under the weight of their own greed and complacency doesn’t mean they don’t engage in anticompetitive behavior while they’re at the top.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  It means they were not successful at crushing their competitors.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    Those largest companies from 20 years ago didn't fail, they are all doing very well (well, GE excepted), they just did not grow nearly as fast as new tech did.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      They were bad investments over that time period. I'm still smarting over my disastrous Cisco investment. How's Intel doing lately? Nvidia ate their ice cream. Cisco and Intel could do no wrong prior to 2000.
  - enumjorge 5y ago
    My point is huge companies can engage can have negative effects on competition even if they eventually fall. How many businesses has Amazon whipped out in the retail space by leaning on the profits from the cloud division? Just the other day we saw documents from the DOJ’s lawsuit against Google for anticompetitive behavior. In the those documents we saw internal communication about a desire for Google to use their dominance in the browser space to create the web into a walled garden [0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28974798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28974798
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      Literally any functioning company has negative effects on its competition. Google turning the web into a walled garden will simply create opportunity for others.