Elections Liz Warren proposes breaking up tech monopolies

[Arkain2K]

I'm all for keeping the market competitive by keeping monopolies in check, but the idea that politicians can just randomly retroactively undo lawful business acquisitions that have previously passed the government's anti-trust scrutiny is just terrible.

Don't want monopolies? Then do something to PREVENT monopolies. Don't greenlit the mergers and then make everyday investors pay for your incompetent when you later change your mind.

 

[Orgasmo]

Hell naw bitch! Don't you touch my FANG stocks!

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I'm all for keeping the market competitive by keeping monopolies in check, but the idea that politicians can just randomly retroactively undo lawful business acquisitions that have previously passed the government's anti-trust scrutiny is just terrible.

Don't want monopolies? Then do something to PREVENT monopolies. Don't greenlit the mergers and then make everyday investors pay for your incompetent when you later change your mind.

If politicians continue to take checks to vote against the interest of the people, don't you think its understandable to pass laws/ policy to correct/ prevent such failures?

 

[Arkain2K]

If politicians continue to take checks to vote against the interest of the people, don't you think its understandable to pass laws/ policy to correct/ prevent such failures?

Anti-trust concerns before a proposed merger can go through are determined and addressed by the Department of Justice and the Federal courts, in accordance to the anti-trust laws previously passed by Congress.

That means lawmakers like Warren must first determine what constitute "Monopolistic behaviors", so the remedy for it can be enforced by the DOJ and the Courts (as in the case of Ma Bell, et al).

These mega mergers usually takes YEARS to complete, from the first bid to the shareholder votes to the regulatory approval. If politicians really want to do something about it, they certainly have ample time to do so.

Congressmen and women should not sit on their hands and watch these monopolies forms right before their eyes while doing nothing, and then dog-whistling for political points and expect judges to legislate from the bench after the fact.

PS: The CVS/Aetna merger got the nods by the DOJ after they agreed to give up their Medicare Part D business to a smaller competitor, but it's still not signed off by the Court yet, and lawmakers certainly don't seem to mind these vertical integrations at all. I'll update that thread in a bit.

 

[bobgeese]

Surely this won’t drive business away from America...

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

You mean Pocahontas.

If she can bring Facebook and Google to heel, I will never insult her standing as an American Indian ever again.

 

[Seano]

This is pure campaign bullshit. No side of the aisle would ever attack the tech industry.

Sounds good though, thats all that matters.

 

[Madmick]

We tried this before with Microsoft. Remember? Didn't work the first time.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

This is pure campaign bullshit. No side of the aisle would ever attack the tech industry.

This is my impression too, so much so that I have a hard time even evaluating whether or not it's a good idea.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

What bothered you about Bell being split. I seem to remember it being a time of a lot of innovation and improvements for consumers in terms of telephones.

I remember it being a time that prices went up.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

If she can bring Facebook and Google to heel, I will never insult her standing as an American Indian ever again.

I can agree with that.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I remember it being a time that prices went up.

Local prices went up in some places but long distance went down. Maybe there were significant regional variances. I was definitely paying less overall, and I think the competition helped fuel the massive changes to phone networks over the next few decades.

 

[Ruprecht]

There's no sectors within Facebook or Twitter that could survive being broken up (adding Instagram and Whatsapp to Facebook is just a shortcut to a feature bump, not a new market segment. As with FriendFeed and LiveRail). Not allowing them to acquire companies with competitive tech might increase competition (although instagram had no revenue when Facebook acquired it), but it's not going to stop them from adding those features into their platform even if acquiring the companies responsible is decided to be anticompetitive horizontal integration. If Facebook were prevented from sharing user data as per their current advertising model, they would no longer be financially viable (it's 89% of their income).
Alphabet and Amazon could of course be broken down, but it'd be about as effective as with Microsoft. In the end Microsoft's O/S monopoly failed to prevent the successful rise of IE competitors anyway.
Vertical integration does threaten to Balkanise services, but the regulatory policies to prevent that would have started with Net Neutrality.
To the extent that cloud infrastructure is vertically integrated there is however competition (Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud Platform, IBM Cloud, Microsoft Azure, Oracle and Alibaba). Despite the fact that in most of those cases the companies appear to be, "offering a marketplace for commerce and participating in that marketplace". Unless you restrict the definition of "commerce" to retail sales (and that would still have a huge impact, for instance it'd mean that Valve could no longer produce software/games because they operate Steam).

 

[grizzard2bid]

Warren is both pragmatic and realistic when it comes to policy. I’m not sure you can say the same for others running. She is the best progressive in the race.

Unfortunately, she is a progressive.

 

[panamaican]

I don't think these companies are monopolies in the traditional sense. This speaks to the way technology has changed the way we view business.

Someone else already mentioned vertical integration vs. horizontal integration. Technology makes such a huge change. You can leverage the same technological prowess to dominate many superifically unrelated fields. How do you categorize that as a monopoly unless you're shifting the thought process away from industries to talent itself.

You'd have to say that Facebook/Amazon/Alphabet can't monopolize the talent pool in X sector or that sector or something equally impossible to measure.

 

[Ruprecht]

I don't think these companies are monopolies in the traditional sense. This speaks to the way technology has changed the way we view business.

Someone else already mentioned vertical integration vs. horizontal integration. Technology makes such a huge change. You can leverage the same technological prowess to dominate many superifically unrelated fields. How do you categorize that as a monopoly unless you're shifting the thought process away from industries to talent itself.

You'd have to say that Facebook/Amazon/Alphabet can't monopolize the talent pool in X sector or that sector or something equally impossible to measure.

Yeah, it's about that synergy, finance and infrastructure investment. The established tech giants acquiring innovative startups is how progress in the field works. Preventing those acquisitions isn't going to lead to a dozen competitors for Amazon or Alphabet.

 

[xcvbn]

There's no sectors within Facebook or Twitter that could survive being broken up (adding Instagram and Whatsapp to Facebook is just a shortcut to a feature bump, not a new market segment. As with FriendFeed and LiveRail). Not allowing them to acquire companies with competitive tech might increase competition (although instagram had no revenue when Facebook acquired it), but it's not going to stop them from adding those features into their platform even if acquiring the companies responsible is decided to be anticompetitive horizontal integration. If Facebook were prevented from sharing user data as per their current advertising model, they would no longer be financially viable (it's 89% of their income).
Alphabet and Amazon could of course be broken down, but it'd be about as effective as with Microsoft. In the end Microsoft's O/S monopoly failed to prevent the successful rise of IE competitors anyway.
Vertical integration does threaten to Balkanise services, but the regulatory policies to prevent that would have started with Net Neutrality.
To the extent that cloud infrastructure is vertically integrated there is however competition (Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud Platform, IBM Cloud, Microsoft Azure, Oracle and Alibaba). Despite the fact that in most of those cases the companies appear to be, "offering a marketplace for commerce and participating in that marketplace". Unless you restrict the definition of "commerce" to retail sales (and that would still have a huge impact, for instance it'd mean that Valve could no longer produce software/games because they operate Steam).

Good arguments all around and props for the Valve/steam point

What would be your solutions?

 

[nhbbear]

Notice she won’t go after the Indian casinos

 

[Mr Holmes]

Is anyone against this, and if so could you explain why?

It would affect my ability to get 5% cash back at whole foods

 

[Ruprecht]

Good arguments all around and props for the Valve/steam point

What would be your solutions?

What exactly is the problem that's being solved?

I struggle to get from,

“We have these giants corporations — do I have to tell that to people in Long Island City? — that think they can roll over everyone,” Ms. Warren told the crowd, drawing applause. She compared Amazon to the dystopian novel “The Hunger Games,” in which those with power force their wishes on the less fortunate.

“I’m sick of freeloading billionaires,” she said.

To the solution she's offering. Starting with a complete lack of any specifics.

Giant companies addressing global markets, with global infrastructure is just a product of the development in transportation and communication (including the internet obviously).
If she's worried about internet Balkanisation along corporate lines (as opposed to state censorship), then the starting place is regulating the internet as a public utility. Down the track that same model could be extended to Cloud Services. I think privacy concerns are more a matter of education and consumer demand. It seems daft to place the emphasis on corporate regulation when the vast majority of users are clamouring for public attention without regards for the existing means of establishing privacy. It's not even just ignorance in regards to privacy now being something you have to actively establish rather than just a presumption, people actively pursue the attention until something goes wrong.
Of course false claims and breaches of their own privacy agreements should be punished, although I'd think that was already addressed by the justice system.