4 ms·

Pushing these companies to return money to their shareholders instead of keeping it in huge war chests used for buying up any potential competitors would be a g

Pushing these companies to return money to their shareholders instead of keeping it in huge war chests used for buying up any potential competitors would be a good first step. Maybe something along the lines of "any company whose average market cap over the course of a fiscal year exceeds 1% of GDP is automatically broken up". Companies that don't want to be split into pieces would need to find ways to reduce their market cap, one of the quickest being sending dividends to shareholders, who could then invest that money into other parts of the economy or even other potential competitors.

fullarr 3y ago
It would be easier to limit companies to fewer than 200 employees Edit: just a passing thought, I don't advocate for any of these ideas. Just complaining, I have no answers
- xyzelement 3y ago
  How many people do you think are involved in creating the phone or computer you are writing this on?
  - fullarr 3y ago
    That's not an excuse to continue I'm not even anti-corporation, but to pretend everything is fine seems silly
    - xyzelement 3y ago
      I find this "I don't feel good about X, so I am going to propose abolishing X without realizing all the consequences of that" vibe silly and dangerous. From my car to my computer to the clothes I wear, to the medical equipment for my kids' births, etc - everything was produced, sourced, and sold, by a fairly large organization that has optimized for delivering that thing to me. Both the necessities and the comforts of my life are powered by this - and same with you unless you're pretty much living off the land. If you don't like Amazon having your data, or whatever your issue is, don't use Amazon.
      - fullarr 3y ago
        I literally said I'm not in support of my own dumb idea I know things are more complicated You, however, need a mirror. Everything you just said is a wonderful display of willful ignorance. Your head in the sand does not protect you from the world Big Tech, in 2023, is effectively a governmental body. I mean all 7 (or whatever) of the largest companies. They operate in a wildly anti-competitive and anti-free-market way, rivaling even the Railroad tycoons of a bygone era. I'm not anti-corporation, but there needs to be some effort put into correcting this. It's not going to fix itself. Our country would be a lot better off with a lot of small businesses rather than a few gigantic businesses.
        xyzelement 3y ago
        // Our country would be a lot better off with a lot of small businesses rather than a few gigantic businesses. Is that true? Plenty (in fact, arguably most) countries have a much smaller ratio of "big" to "small" companies and many of those are not "a lot better off" than our country and quite to the contrary. So I don't buy this assumption.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Would need a world government to enforce, else China would dominate with huge firms.
nonameiguess 3y ago
Fine if those investors put the proceeds into startups or their own R&D. It has no effect if those investors are largely giant institutions, pension funds, and university endowments that automatically reinvest buybacks and dividends into the same blue chips. That is just giving brokerages an automated way to passively skim profits. They get to just sit on both sides of the finish line with their hands out while money runs laps.
nickpp 3y ago
Many other countries would love if the US would break their Crown Jewels. The value they create is incredible, the whole market moves with them and USA owns the great majority.
- fullarr 3y ago
  I don't care what the rest of the world thinks or wants
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- BeFlatXIII 3y ago
  Value created for whom is the real question.
  - nickpp 3y ago
    For the customers in the first place. Then for the society through the advantages brought by those products/services. Finally for its investors - which may as well be us with how easy is to buy stocks nowadays.
goodbyesf 3y ago
> Pushing these companies to return money to their shareholders instead of keeping it in huge war chests used for buying up any potential competitors would be a good first step. Companies already do that with dividend payouts or share buyouts. Also, the shareholders control these companies. If they wanted the profits returned to then, they would vote for it. > Maybe something along the lines of "any company whose average market cap over the course of a fiscal year exceeds 1% of GDP is automatically broken up". I prefer over 33% market share. I think every market/industry should have at least 3 players. Any company that goes over 33% market share for X period of time gets broken apart. > Companies that don't want to be split into pieces would need to find ways to reduce their market cap, one of the quickest being sending dividends to shareholders Not necessarily. There are companies that don't have a profit or cash on hand with huge market caps. Amazon notoriously made no profit for decades. I think enterprise value is what you are looking for.

fullarr 3y ago

It would be easier to limit companies to fewer than 200 employees Edit: just a passing thought, I don't advocate for any of these ideas. Just complaining, I have no answers

xyzelement 3y ago
How many people do you think are involved in creating the phone or computer you are writing this on?
- fullarr 3y ago
  That's not an excuse to continue I'm not even anti-corporation, but to pretend everything is fine seems silly
  - xyzelement 3y ago
    I find this "I don't feel good about X, so I am going to propose abolishing X without realizing all the consequences of that" vibe silly and dangerous. From my car to my computer to the clothes I wear, to the medical equipment for my kids' births, etc - everything was produced, sourced, and sold, by a fairly large organization that has optimized for delivering that thing to me. Both the necessities and the comforts of my life are powered by this - and same with you unless you're pretty much living off the land. If you don't like Amazon having your data, or whatever your issue is, don't use Amazon.
    - fullarr 3y ago
      I literally said I'm not in support of my own dumb idea I know things are more complicated You, however, need a mirror. Everything you just said is a wonderful display of willful ignorance. Your head in the sand does not protect you from the world Big Tech, in 2023, is effectively a governmental body. I mean all 7 (or whatever) of the largest companies. They operate in a wildly anti-competitive and anti-free-market way, rivaling even the Railroad tycoons of a bygone era. I'm not anti-corporation, but there needs to be some effort put into correcting this. It's not going to fix itself. Our country would be a lot better off with a lot of small businesses rather than a few gigantic businesses.
      - xyzelement 3y ago
        // Our country would be a lot better off with a lot of small businesses rather than a few gigantic businesses. Is that true? Plenty (in fact, arguably most) countries have a much smaller ratio of "big" to "small" companies and many of those are not "a lot better off" than our country and quite to the contrary. So I don't buy this assumption.
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Would need a world government to enforce, else China would dominate with huge firms.

nonameiguess 3y ago

Fine if those investors put the proceeds into startups or their own R&D. It has no effect if those investors are largely giant institutions, pension funds, and university endowments that automatically reinvest buybacks and dividends into the same blue chips. That is just giving brokerages an automated way to passively skim profits. They get to just sit on both sides of the finish line with their hands out while money runs laps.

nickpp 3y ago

Many other countries would love if the US would break their Crown Jewels. The value they create is incredible, the whole market moves with them and USA owns the great majority.

fullarr 3y ago
I don't care what the rest of the world thinks or wants
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
BeFlatXIII 3y ago
Value created for whom is the real question.
- nickpp 3y ago
  For the customers in the first place. Then for the society through the advantages brought by those products/services. Finally for its investors - which may as well be us with how easy is to buy stocks nowadays.

goodbyesf 3y ago

> Pushing these companies to return money to their shareholders instead of keeping it in huge war chests used for buying up any potential competitors would be a good first step. Companies already do that with dividend payouts or share buyouts. Also, the shareholders control these companies. If they wanted the profits returned to then, they would vote for it. > Maybe something along the lines of "any company whose average market cap over the course of a fiscal year exceeds 1% of GDP is automatically broken up". I prefer over 33% market share. I think every market/industry should have at least 3 players. Any company that goes over 33% market share for X period of time gets broken apart. > Companies that don't want to be split into pieces would need to find ways to reduce their market cap, one of the quickest being sending dividends to shareholders Not necessarily. There are companies that don't have a profit or cash on hand with huge market caps. Amazon notoriously made no profit for decades. I think enterprise value is what you are looking for.