4 ms·

That means that country that will do that will not have competitive big tech companies and other countries will have. Also, big companies are needed because th

That means that country that will do that will not have competitive big tech companies and other countries will have. Also, big companies are needed because there are technologies that cannot be produced by small companies. I do not understand recent tendency to make them look bad. Big companies are good for country and economy. Punishing companies for success is harmful for the progress. I think letting market decide is better choice. Overregulation leads to decrease in competition and production. Also, what is bad in it of big companies need to compete for talents? This competition leads for better opportunities and bigger salaries. I think it is good that person has a freedom of choice were to go.

blululu 5y ago
This is not a recent trend. America has had a big political issue over large industry since day one. The Jeffersonian vision of a nation of yeoman farmers (who maybe owned slaves) vs. an industrial economy built on science and technology. This shows up in debates over railroads (anti-trust laws start here). It leads to the financing of canals, and cars (more democratic forms of transportation). It leads to subsidies for single family homes vs multi family living. It leads to the constant struggle to break up AT&T and liquidate telecom equipment manufacturing (lucent had other problems). And yeah it leads to a desire to split up large companies that make good money for the country. Of course a lot of processes also scale with size. With a decent welfare system this greater efficiency could also be tapped to achieve widespread prosperity.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  I agree that central distinction between industrial economy vs. yeoman is a big cultural clash in the US. I don't see what makes cars more "democratic" or anti-trust as firmly on the "yeoman" side of things.
  - blululu 5y ago
    A car is privately owned and oriented toward a small scale family/individual. It can go from anywhere to anywhere at anytime (assuming roads). Unlike a railroad which achieves much greater efficiency but requires more fixed schedules and routes. Everyone must move to the same place at the same time together. A lot of this is imagined but people really did buy into this (same with canals), and given the 200 year distrust of railroads, that gave a lot of political fodder to break up urban rail lines and make cities more car based.
whimsicalism 5y ago
> I think letting market decide is better choice. Overregulation leads to decrease in competition and production. Not intrinsically, obviously, as anti-trust clearly shows. I am not anti-big intrinsically, for many of the reasons identified. But I do think there are obvious downsides to be guarded against. If anything, as technology improves, technological barriers to entry should decrease and less big companies will be needed to work on certain advanced technologies.

blululu 5y ago

This is not a recent trend. America has had a big political issue over large industry since day one. The Jeffersonian vision of a nation of yeoman farmers (who maybe owned slaves) vs. an industrial economy built on science and technology. This shows up in debates over railroads (anti-trust laws start here). It leads to the financing of canals, and cars (more democratic forms of transportation). It leads to subsidies for single family homes vs multi family living. It leads to the constant struggle to break up AT&T and liquidate telecom equipment manufacturing (lucent had other problems). And yeah it leads to a desire to split up large companies that make good money for the country. Of course a lot of processes also scale with size. With a decent welfare system this greater efficiency could also be tapped to achieve widespread prosperity.

whimsicalism 5y ago
I agree that central distinction between industrial economy vs. yeoman is a big cultural clash in the US. I don't see what makes cars more "democratic" or anti-trust as firmly on the "yeoman" side of things.
- blululu 5y ago
  A car is privately owned and oriented toward a small scale family/individual. It can go from anywhere to anywhere at anytime (assuming roads). Unlike a railroad which achieves much greater efficiency but requires more fixed schedules and routes. Everyone must move to the same place at the same time together. A lot of this is imagined but people really did buy into this (same with canals), and given the 200 year distrust of railroads, that gave a lot of political fodder to break up urban rail lines and make cities more car based.

whimsicalism 5y ago

> I think letting market decide is better choice. Overregulation leads to decrease in competition and production. Not intrinsically, obviously, as anti-trust clearly shows. I am not anti-big intrinsically, for many of the reasons identified. But I do think there are obvious downsides to be guarded against. If anything, as technology improves, technological barriers to entry should decrease and less big companies will be needed to work on certain advanced technologies.