3 ms·

I don't think it is super complicated . You can enshrine a company's right to define its market or the price for its products, hold those rights sacrosact and

I don't think it is super complicated . You can enshrine a company's right to define its market or the price for its products, hold those rights sacrosact and still punish apple. The issue at the core is not a company's right to X. Instead, it is: Has this company thru dominance of their market have achieved a monopolistic power ? If so, that's the avenue you take to undo their abuse. If the abuse cannot be rectified by market actors or new entrants, they you slap the anticompetitive monopoly with restrictions of what they can or cannot do. EDIT: I personally think that there should be straightforward threshold criteria to be defined as a monopoly automatically, such as (numbers made up) exceeding: - 0.1% of revenue in aggregate political donations, or - 0.5% of profits in aggregate political donations, or - Annual Revenue > US per capita x 100,000, or - Annual profits > US per capita x 10,000 - Etc.

fooker 3y ago
The issue with straightforward thresholds is you can escape those with creative accounting. There’s is a reason it’s more subjective.
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
  YEs, its to give large monopolistic or corrupt companies a way out . You can do it an OR statement so its either the accounting threshold, or the subjective. The point is large companies should prepare to divest themselves before they get too large. Right now power is too tempting and its not a viable strategy for CEOs to think about. At least in tech there is some turnover at the top. For traditional industries its the same (fewer) names at the top.What is happening in banking, in automotive, in insurance, in pharma, is not an accident.
realusername 3y ago
> If the abuse cannot be rectified by market actors or new entrants, they you slap the anticompetitive monopoly with restrictions of what they can or cannot do. That's pretty clear in the Google / Apple case, the only change of tariffs ever made was made as a reaction to an antitrust lawsuit and copied over.
wilg 3y ago
Well a monopoly is famously not the same thing as a large company.
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
  i'd argue that's what most monopolies are arguing to escape scrutiny.
  - wilg 3y ago
    Is this just a complicated way of explaining that you don't understand or care what a monopoly is?

fooker 3y ago

The issue with straightforward thresholds is you can escape those with creative accounting. There’s is a reason it’s more subjective.

IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
YEs, its to give large monopolistic or corrupt companies a way out . You can do it an OR statement so its either the accounting threshold, or the subjective. The point is large companies should prepare to divest themselves before they get too large. Right now power is too tempting and its not a viable strategy for CEOs to think about. At least in tech there is some turnover at the top. For traditional industries its the same (fewer) names at the top.What is happening in banking, in automotive, in insurance, in pharma, is not an accident.

realusername 3y ago

> If the abuse cannot be rectified by market actors or new entrants, they you slap the anticompetitive monopoly with restrictions of what they can or cannot do. That's pretty clear in the Google / Apple case, the only change of tariffs ever made was made as a reaction to an antitrust lawsuit and copied over.

wilg 3y ago

Well a monopoly is famously not the same thing as a large company.

IG_Semmelweiss 3y ago
i'd argue that's what most monopolies are arguing to escape scrutiny.
- wilg 3y ago
  Is this just a complicated way of explaining that you don't understand or care what a monopoly is?