3 ms·

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 am

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.

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.