8 ms·

Will there ever be a point where as a society we agree to put an upper cap on the size of companies? Does Amazon really need to absorb even more? Doesn’t that s

Will there ever be a point where as a society we agree to put an upper cap on the size of companies? Does Amazon really need to absorb even more? Doesn’t that stifle competition? I understand that enforcement is hard as the rule wouldn’t be global, but still curious.

alberth 4y ago
> put an upper cap on the size of companies How would you measure “size”? EDIT: What do you mean by "cap" then? Would you force the company to be broken apart into smaller independent companies if it exceeded whatever cap is defined?
- choeger 4y ago
  Simple. Revenue. Tax a company's revenue progressively. (Of course it's complicated to implement this with companies owning companies, but you get the gist.)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - alberth 4y ago
    In the US at least, corporate taxes are progressive. Taxes are on earnings though, not revenues (you could be unprofitable and as such, pay no taxes). Question: so are you suggesting then that just because a company's revenues (I think you mean "earnings") have exceeded X, that they should be completely broken up as a company?
    - choeger 4y ago
      > so are you suggesting then that just because a company's revenues (I think you mean "earnings") have exceeded X, that they should be completely broken up as a company? Yes. But I meant revenues. If we want companies to become smaller, taxing their revenue progressively would compell their owners to split them up into independent entities. Think about it as a progressive VAT.
- hestefisk 4y ago
  Revenue or balance sheet
  - alberth 4y ago
    What happens if the company is unprofitable? Do you mean "earnings"?
- amelius 4y ago
  Number of people employed. If you can rake in billions using a team of 50 people, that is great, and should be allowed. Also, a company like Apple should be allowed. What should not be allowed is for Apple to own its entire supply chain (which would not be possible if company size was limited by number of people).
  - alberth 4y ago
    Employee as the metric doesn't work. Consulting businesses are literally in the business to resell their employed talent. Their "product" is their employees. As such, they type of business by its very nature have a disproportionately large number of employees. E.g. Accenture employees 700,000 people, Tata Consulting 600,000.
    - amelius 4y ago
      Consulting businesses could be an exception.
robertlagrant 4y ago
"Need"?
- ehnto 4y ago
  Does a company need to be beneficial to an organized society, or does a company need to grow at all costs in order to accumulate wealth? I'd argue the first, but America doesn't really have a clear stance. Certainly no consensus. I think this detail confuses the conversation a lot, because when we talk about growth, we could be talking about hard metrics like GDP or stock price, or we could be talking about soft metrics like livability, success, substance and quality, and happiness as a society.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    It doesn't need to do either. This is a false dichotomy. A company needs to be legal, and be useful enough to its customers that it is sustainable. That is what a company needs. There is no "useful to society" as there is no monolithic "society".
    - ehnto 4y ago
      When we're talking about laws we're specifically discussing the interaction between companies and "our society" or our communities. Broad strokes like "society" just make it easier to talk about. A company as big as Amazon exists across thousands of communities, and in contexts that don't even include communities. It can afford to harm some contexts while profiting on others, because it is a monolith. That's why when we talk about business law we need to consider more than just the simple economics, because companies can have greater impacts than that. Anti-competitive laws are just that, they're not about increasing simple metrics, they're about managing the harder to measure externalities of bigger companies like the ability for a market to be competitive, promote innovation, and to make sure customers have enough choice to choose with their wallet.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        > Broad strokes like "society" just make it easier to talk about. I'd say they make it easier to make mistakes in reasoning. Just as unilaterally deciding what "we're" talking about is also a mistake. Positing that Amazon is too big to buy a computer game company is just wrong. This in no way creates a monopoly on computer game creation, which is one of the best industries on the planet in terms of lack of lock-in in the forms of regulation, machinery, or IP law. Have computer, download Godot, get going. Also, Amazon is a silly company to level that charge at. They in no way control a significant amount of the game creation industry. You may be thinking of Microsoft.
WhyNotHugo 4y ago
If regulators that controlled anti-competitive behaviours existed, they'd forbid such acquisition.
tmikaeld 4y ago
Amazon is still tiny compared to the enormous size and width of Samsung, that spans, Electronics, Electro-Mechanics, SDI, SDS, Engineering C&T, Heavy Industries, Life Insurance, Fire & Marine Insurance and more..
- shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
  Okay well break them up too.
  - rvz 4y ago
    Exactly. They also need to be broken up as well.
    - tmikaeld 4y ago
      They are broken up, as separate companies that cooperate between them.
4eleven7 4y ago
Antitrust law does exactly this. If Amazon owning EA overly concentrates market power/forms a monopoly, it'll be rejected and the deal with fail. Why would you want to put an upper cap on the size of companies? It feels like stifling innovation and productivity, which will be overly negative for everyone.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  > It feels like stifling innovation and productivity, which will be overly negative for everyone. From a business perspective that might be partly true. But anti-trust / anti-competition policies are not just to provide a level playing ground for businesses but also consumers. A giant conglomerate might have a higher productivity, but that doesn't mean that benefit will be passed to the consumer unless they have rival businesses to compete with. Competition promotes more innovation and is more socially beneficial to both businesses and consumers than giant conglomerates that just become obese and unhealthy after a point.
- killyourcar 4y ago
  Amazon owning EA will absolutely stifle innovation, especially given their history in the gaming space.
  - master_crab 4y ago
    I’m not disagreeing with the general jist of your argument, but EA hasn’t exactly been a hotbed of innovation in years.
    - moomin 4y ago
      Honestly, whilst very successful, they’ve become so inessential I have forgotten what they actually make anymore.
  - 4eleven7 4y ago
    Why will Amazon stifle innovation? All EA do is release the same games every year with slightly different content (FIFA, Battlefield, Madden, Sims, etc). What am I missing?
tasubotadas 4y ago
Because of limits like these India economy has lost 4 decades of growth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj
- shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
  That's not even close to what we have today in the US. Antitrust basically doesn't exist in the US.
- syzar 4y ago
  Wouldn’t that point more to an issue with the implementation of the limit rather than the existence of the limit? Are all implementations equally bad?
  - tasubotadas 4y ago
    Ah... a classical argument of the "communism was never truly implemented" :). Perhaps. Perhaps initiatives likes these are bound to fail. Not sure how many lives have to be destroyed until people get "statistically significant" results.
    - syzar 4y ago
      If it’s not the implementation that is to blame then one should use an argument that consists of more than one example provided by the highly corrupt governing structures common in India.
ctvo 4y ago
> Does Amazon really need to absorb even more? Doesn’t that stifle competition? The burden of proof is on you. How does this stifle competition? Why can't Amazon own EA? A gut "they'll be too big / successful / profitable" is not enough.
kmlx 4y ago
> Will there ever be a point where as a society we agree to put an upper cap on the size of companies? it would be great if we could first put a cap on the biggest culprit: government.
- blantonl 4y ago
  There is a cap on the biggest culprit, and it's renegotiated and voted on often by elected officials.
  - kmlx 4y ago
    what is the cap and what’s the independent regulator’s name in the US?
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  This government represents the people. Companies represent the interests of their owners. This point would make more sense if I could vote for the leadership team at Amazon.

alberth 4y ago

> put an upper cap on the size of companies How would you measure “size”? EDIT: What do you mean by "cap" then? Would you force the company to be broken apart into smaller independent companies if it exceeded whatever cap is defined?

choeger 4y ago
Simple. Revenue. Tax a company's revenue progressively. (Of course it's complicated to implement this with companies owning companies, but you get the gist.)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- alberth 4y ago
  In the US at least, corporate taxes are progressive. Taxes are on earnings though, not revenues (you could be unprofitable and as such, pay no taxes). Question: so are you suggesting then that just because a company's revenues (I think you mean "earnings") have exceeded X, that they should be completely broken up as a company?
  - choeger 4y ago
    > so are you suggesting then that just because a company's revenues (I think you mean "earnings") have exceeded X, that they should be completely broken up as a company? Yes. But I meant revenues. If we want companies to become smaller, taxing their revenue progressively would compell their owners to split them up into independent entities. Think about it as a progressive VAT.
hestefisk 4y ago
Revenue or balance sheet
- alberth 4y ago
  What happens if the company is unprofitable? Do you mean "earnings"?
amelius 4y ago
Number of people employed. If you can rake in billions using a team of 50 people, that is great, and should be allowed. Also, a company like Apple should be allowed. What should not be allowed is for Apple to own its entire supply chain (which would not be possible if company size was limited by number of people).
- alberth 4y ago
  Employee as the metric doesn't work. Consulting businesses are literally in the business to resell their employed talent. Their "product" is their employees. As such, they type of business by its very nature have a disproportionately large number of employees. E.g. Accenture employees 700,000 people, Tata Consulting 600,000.
  - amelius 4y ago
    Consulting businesses could be an exception.

robertlagrant 4y ago

"Need"?

ehnto 4y ago
Does a company need to be beneficial to an organized society, or does a company need to grow at all costs in order to accumulate wealth? I'd argue the first, but America doesn't really have a clear stance. Certainly no consensus. I think this detail confuses the conversation a lot, because when we talk about growth, we could be talking about hard metrics like GDP or stock price, or we could be talking about soft metrics like livability, success, substance and quality, and happiness as a society.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  It doesn't need to do either. This is a false dichotomy. A company needs to be legal, and be useful enough to its customers that it is sustainable. That is what a company needs. There is no "useful to society" as there is no monolithic "society".
  - ehnto 4y ago
    When we're talking about laws we're specifically discussing the interaction between companies and "our society" or our communities. Broad strokes like "society" just make it easier to talk about. A company as big as Amazon exists across thousands of communities, and in contexts that don't even include communities. It can afford to harm some contexts while profiting on others, because it is a monolith. That's why when we talk about business law we need to consider more than just the simple economics, because companies can have greater impacts than that. Anti-competitive laws are just that, they're not about increasing simple metrics, they're about managing the harder to measure externalities of bigger companies like the ability for a market to be competitive, promote innovation, and to make sure customers have enough choice to choose with their wallet.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      > Broad strokes like "society" just make it easier to talk about. I'd say they make it easier to make mistakes in reasoning. Just as unilaterally deciding what "we're" talking about is also a mistake. Positing that Amazon is too big to buy a computer game company is just wrong. This in no way creates a monopoly on computer game creation, which is one of the best industries on the planet in terms of lack of lock-in in the forms of regulation, machinery, or IP law. Have computer, download Godot, get going. Also, Amazon is a silly company to level that charge at. They in no way control a significant amount of the game creation industry. You may be thinking of Microsoft.

WhyNotHugo 4y ago

If regulators that controlled anti-competitive behaviours existed, they'd forbid such acquisition.

tmikaeld 4y ago

Amazon is still tiny compared to the enormous size and width of Samsung, that spans, Electronics, Electro-Mechanics, SDI, SDS, Engineering C&T, Heavy Industries, Life Insurance, Fire & Marine Insurance and more..

shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
Okay well break them up too.
- rvz 4y ago
  Exactly. They also need to be broken up as well.
  - tmikaeld 4y ago
    They are broken up, as separate companies that cooperate between them.

4eleven7 4y ago

Antitrust law does exactly this. If Amazon owning EA overly concentrates market power/forms a monopoly, it'll be rejected and the deal with fail. Why would you want to put an upper cap on the size of companies? It feels like stifling innovation and productivity, which will be overly negative for everyone.

webmobdev 4y ago
> It feels like stifling innovation and productivity, which will be overly negative for everyone. From a business perspective that might be partly true. But anti-trust / anti-competition policies are not just to provide a level playing ground for businesses but also consumers. A giant conglomerate might have a higher productivity, but that doesn't mean that benefit will be passed to the consumer unless they have rival businesses to compete with. Competition promotes more innovation and is more socially beneficial to both businesses and consumers than giant conglomerates that just become obese and unhealthy after a point.
killyourcar 4y ago
Amazon owning EA will absolutely stifle innovation, especially given their history in the gaming space.
- master_crab 4y ago
  I’m not disagreeing with the general jist of your argument, but EA hasn’t exactly been a hotbed of innovation in years.
  - moomin 4y ago
    Honestly, whilst very successful, they’ve become so inessential I have forgotten what they actually make anymore.
- 4eleven7 4y ago
  Why will Amazon stifle innovation? All EA do is release the same games every year with slightly different content (FIFA, Battlefield, Madden, Sims, etc). What am I missing?

tasubotadas 4y ago

Because of limits like these India economy has lost 4 decades of growth. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj

shakes_mcjunkie 4y ago
That's not even close to what we have today in the US. Antitrust basically doesn't exist in the US.
syzar 4y ago
Wouldn’t that point more to an issue with the implementation of the limit rather than the existence of the limit? Are all implementations equally bad?
- tasubotadas 4y ago
  Ah... a classical argument of the "communism was never truly implemented" :). Perhaps. Perhaps initiatives likes these are bound to fail. Not sure how many lives have to be destroyed until people get "statistically significant" results.
  - syzar 4y ago
    If it’s not the implementation that is to blame then one should use an argument that consists of more than one example provided by the highly corrupt governing structures common in India.

ctvo 4y ago

> Does Amazon really need to absorb even more? Doesn’t that stifle competition? The burden of proof is on you. How does this stifle competition? Why can't Amazon own EA? A gut "they'll be too big / successful / profitable" is not enough.

kmlx 4y ago

> Will there ever be a point where as a society we agree to put an upper cap on the size of companies? it would be great if we could first put a cap on the biggest culprit: government.

blantonl 4y ago
There is a cap on the biggest culprit, and it's renegotiated and voted on often by elected officials.
- kmlx 4y ago
  what is the cap and what’s the independent regulator’s name in the US?
AlexandrB 4y ago
This government represents the people. Companies represent the interests of their owners. This point would make more sense if I could vote for the leadership team at Amazon.