5 ms·

Are we going to see something like that for microsoft, google, and facebook?

crop_rotation 4y ago
No, the US government can't send them private messages to breakup by themselves. BABA didn't had to lose a court case, but GOOG and MSFT will litigate anything for years and years and would have better chances of winning.
- elforce002 4y ago
  Interesting. To what extent can we consider microsoft, google, amazon, and facebook monopolies? Maybe Google can get off the hook (for now) but microsoft and amazon are too big. No one can compete with those two. - Facebook: social media monopoly with whatsapp, instagram, and facebook. These should be independent companies. - Amazon: This is the biggest offender on this list: AWS, ecommerce, twitch, whole foods, logistics, etc... these should also be independent companies. - Microsoft: After Amazon, MS should be broken up decades ago. - Google: If it wasn't for Ads, google would have probably be in turmoil each year. Google cloud is good (we use them as our cloud provider), but reality is they are far away from AWS in terms of market-share. - Apple: This one is interesting since we know they are big but there's room to compete (to a certain extent). In short, at least MS and Amazon should be on the radar and be broken up within this decade.
  - crop_rotation 4y ago
    See this is all so subjective. I have a totally different Opinion and feel GOOG, MSFT should be the ones broken up. Facebook is not a monopoly on anything (and under threat from TikTok). If having multiple products was a criteria for breaking up companies, there would be too many eligble. Amazon: Neither retail or AWS nor whole foods nor logistics are a monopoly.
  - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
    Monopolies probably aren't the right angle to approach this from. A corporation can be "too large" without being a monopoly, though in the past that was their primary route to getting to that size. Perhaps it would be better to simply have a law that any company whose average market cap during a two year period exceeds 1% of the country's GDP is automatically broken up. Such a law might not even need to be used, as companies wanting to avoid a government lead break up would on their own either start spinning off parts of the company or paying dividends to shareholders to shed value from the company. Shareholders could then use those dividends to invest elsewhere or use it for spending in the economy. Buying up competitors or merging with them would also be tempered at the higher levels since it would risk creating an entity that gets broken up by the government. I'm sure the companies with the potential to be broken up by such a law would be very much against it and spend whatever it took to defeat the law. They might also try to convince the public that they have to be allowed to be gigantic in order to compete with similar entities from other countries that don't have a limit on size.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    There's too much focus on "monopolies" and the word "monopoly" itself. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was about trusts, which are by definition different companies that work together to control a market. The FTC should be focused on trade, and the size of these companies hinders trade and eliminates competition. Facebook should never have been allowed to acquire Instagram or WhatsApp. If competition is key to a free market, what distortion happens when rich companies can simply buy competitors, ensuring they don't have to actually compete? Google should never have been allowed to buy DoubleClick for the same reason. Some of the others are tougher, simply because blocking acquisitions is easier and more popular than breaking up divisions that appear to be developed in-house. To say Amazon shouldn't be allowed to buy Whole Foods wouldn't raise a lot of ire, but to say Amazon should be a separate company from AWS flies in the face of how many people think things ought to work.
- paganel 4y ago
  At this point one has to wonder if it hadn't been better had FDR won his way against the Supreme Court back in the day.
  - crop_rotation 4y ago
    If he had you might be regretting the very same decision had a later President packed the court for his own less benevolent agenda.
    - edgyquant 4y ago
      Every president would do this to control congress by now.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      You don't need FDRs precedent if you're willing to just ignore the rules and refuse to seat a new judge who was appointed by the current president.
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    No, it wouldn’t have been. Populist dictators aren’t a good alternative to monopolies.
  - refurb 4y ago
    FDR has a lot of really bad ideas that went along with ideas like Social Security and the FDIC, so I'm going to give a "no" on that. The Agricultural Adjustment Act was a terrible system of quotas to create artificial scarcity to boost prices. I'm glad the Supreme Court shot it down.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  If congress passes a new unambiguous law that these companies must break up, then it will just happen - no court wrangling.
  - crop_rotation 4y ago
    Why would they not challenge it in court for being unconstitutional? Whether they win or not is irrelevant, it will still go to Court.

No, the US government can't send them private messages to breakup by themselves. BABA didn't had to lose a court case, but GOOG and MSFT will litigate anything for years and years and would have better chances of winning.

elforce002 4y ago
Interesting. To what extent can we consider microsoft, google, amazon, and facebook monopolies? Maybe Google can get off the hook (for now) but microsoft and amazon are too big. No one can compete with those two. - Facebook: social media monopoly with whatsapp, instagram, and facebook. These should be independent companies. - Amazon: This is the biggest offender on this list: AWS, ecommerce, twitch, whole foods, logistics, etc... these should also be independent companies. - Microsoft: After Amazon, MS should be broken up decades ago. - Google: If it wasn't for Ads, google would have probably be in turmoil each year. Google cloud is good (we use them as our cloud provider), but reality is they are far away from AWS in terms of market-share. - Apple: This one is interesting since we know they are big but there's room to compete (to a certain extent). In short, at least MS and Amazon should be on the radar and be broken up within this decade.
- crop_rotation 4y ago
  See this is all so subjective. I have a totally different Opinion and feel GOOG, MSFT should be the ones broken up. Facebook is not a monopoly on anything (and under threat from TikTok). If having multiple products was a criteria for breaking up companies, there would be too many eligble. Amazon: Neither retail or AWS nor whole foods nor logistics are a monopoly.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  Monopolies probably aren't the right angle to approach this from. A corporation can be "too large" without being a monopoly, though in the past that was their primary route to getting to that size. Perhaps it would be better to simply have a law that any company whose average market cap during a two year period exceeds 1% of the country's GDP is automatically broken up. Such a law might not even need to be used, as companies wanting to avoid a government lead break up would on their own either start spinning off parts of the company or paying dividends to shareholders to shed value from the company. Shareholders could then use those dividends to invest elsewhere or use it for spending in the economy. Buying up competitors or merging with them would also be tempered at the higher levels since it would risk creating an entity that gets broken up by the government. I'm sure the companies with the potential to be broken up by such a law would be very much against it and spend whatever it took to defeat the law. They might also try to convince the public that they have to be allowed to be gigantic in order to compete with similar entities from other countries that don't have a limit on size.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  There's too much focus on "monopolies" and the word "monopoly" itself. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was about trusts, which are by definition different companies that work together to control a market. The FTC should be focused on trade, and the size of these companies hinders trade and eliminates competition. Facebook should never have been allowed to acquire Instagram or WhatsApp. If competition is key to a free market, what distortion happens when rich companies can simply buy competitors, ensuring they don't have to actually compete? Google should never have been allowed to buy DoubleClick for the same reason. Some of the others are tougher, simply because blocking acquisitions is easier and more popular than breaking up divisions that appear to be developed in-house. To say Amazon shouldn't be allowed to buy Whole Foods wouldn't raise a lot of ire, but to say Amazon should be a separate company from AWS flies in the face of how many people think things ought to work.
paganel 4y ago
At this point one has to wonder if it hadn't been better had FDR won his way against the Supreme Court back in the day.
- crop_rotation 4y ago
  If he had you might be regretting the very same decision had a later President packed the court for his own less benevolent agenda.
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    Every president would do this to control congress by now.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    You don't need FDRs precedent if you're willing to just ignore the rules and refuse to seat a new judge who was appointed by the current president.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  No, it wouldn’t have been. Populist dictators aren’t a good alternative to monopolies.
- refurb 4y ago
  FDR has a lot of really bad ideas that went along with ideas like Social Security and the FDIC, so I'm going to give a "no" on that. The Agricultural Adjustment Act was a terrible system of quotas to create artificial scarcity to boost prices. I'm glad the Supreme Court shot it down.
londons_explore 4y ago
If congress passes a new unambiguous law that these companies must break up, then it will just happen - no court wrangling.
- crop_rotation 4y ago
  Why would they not challenge it in court for being unconstitutional? Whether they win or not is irrelevant, it will still go to Court.