3 ms·

Your theory is that Microsoft and Google and Facebook ended up with monopoly power because their industries were just too darned regulated at the time they esta

Your theory is that Microsoft and Google and Facebook ended up with monopoly power because their industries were just too darned regulated at the time they established themselves?

baybal2 5y ago
Yes, they repeatedly sued their respective competitors, and disruptors out of business
- Jensson 5y ago
  Which company did Google sue out of business?
  - wpietri 5y ago
    And let me add to that: How specifically did that suit against a competitor leverage regulations that we should remove?
MontagFTB 5y ago
The regulations may not have existed at the time these companies established themselves, but could have evolved over time. It's a known practice of larger corporations to promote regulations that take them little effort to adhere to. However, those same regulations raise the bar for startups to gain entry and compete in an industry. Ironically enough, it's the regulations themselves that become anti-competitive. This isn't true for regulations categorically, to be sure- the established companies can wield lobbying power for particular regulations to pass. That makes them look good in the public eye, the government wins for adding "oversight", but the actual competitive landscape becomes more encumbered, not less.
- wpietri 5y ago
  Sure, regulations are a way already-established monopolies can entrench dominance. But given that major new monopolies came up in low-regulation areas of business, regulation is not a primary driver of why they exist.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > It's a known practice of larger corporations to promote regulations that take them little effort to adhere to. However, those same regulations raise the bar for startups to gain entry and compete in an industry. Ironically enough, it's the regulations themselves that become anti-competitive. This point about "regulatory capture" is a often brought up as a clever anti-regulation/free market parry, to create a demotivating feeling of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" that breaks in the free marketeers' favor. I think the rhetorical tactic only really works if you look at part of the problem in isolation, and it's eliminated or at least mitigated with the consideration of action in other areas (e.g. more aggressive anti-trust/pro-competition regulation, or the kind of oversight regulated monopolies get).

Your theory is that Microsoft and Google and Facebook ended up with monopoly power because their industries were just too darned regulated at the time they established themselves?

baybal2 5y ago

Yes, they repeatedly sued their respective competitors, and disruptors out of business

Jensson 5y ago
Which company did Google sue out of business?
- wpietri 5y ago
  And let me add to that: How specifically did that suit against a competitor leverage regulations that we should remove?

MontagFTB 5y ago

The regulations may not have existed at the time these companies established themselves, but could have evolved over time. It's a known practice of larger corporations to promote regulations that take them little effort to adhere to. However, those same regulations raise the bar for startups to gain entry and compete in an industry. Ironically enough, it's the regulations themselves that become anti-competitive. This isn't true for regulations categorically, to be sure- the established companies can wield lobbying power for particular regulations to pass. That makes them look good in the public eye, the government wins for adding "oversight", but the actual competitive landscape becomes more encumbered, not less.

wpietri 5y ago
Sure, regulations are a way already-established monopolies can entrench dominance. But given that major new monopolies came up in low-regulation areas of business, regulation is not a primary driver of why they exist.
tablespoon 5y ago
> It's a known practice of larger corporations to promote regulations that take them little effort to adhere to. However, those same regulations raise the bar for startups to gain entry and compete in an industry. Ironically enough, it's the regulations themselves that become anti-competitive. This point about "regulatory capture" is a often brought up as a clever anti-regulation/free market parry, to create a demotivating feeling of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" that breaks in the free marketeers' favor. I think the rhetorical tactic only really works if you look at part of the problem in isolation, and it's eliminated or at least mitigated with the consideration of action in other areas (e.g. more aggressive anti-trust/pro-competition regulation, or the kind of oversight regulated monopolies get).