Elections Liz Warren proposes breaking up tech monopolies

[RetiredSlave]

I only care what she thinks of Anheuser-Busch.

 

[TheOldMan]

She's only 1/1024 right.
Just kidding.
Something needs to happen to break up big techs stranglehold on several things, mainly imo who gets to speak and who doesn't. They are controlling the 1st amendment in dangerous fashion because the laws haven't caught up yet.

 

[Arkain2K]

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

What would be your solutions?

"Solutions" implies there is actually a legal problem here, particularly with vertical business integration, when there isn't any.

Just because Warren choose to call Amazon buying Whole Foods, Facebook buying Instagram, and Google buying Waze examples of "Tech Monopolies" does not make them so, as far as anti-trust laws are concerned.

And so what if Amazon also offers their own housebrand of "Amazon Basics" products on their website alongside with other brands? How long have we been happily buying housebrand "Kirkland" products at Costco again?

Warren has no legal basis nor judicial authority to "roll back" any of those acquisitions, because the Federal courts overseeing those mergers have already determined that they are in compliance with anti-trust laws written by people like Warren.

Unless anti-trust laws are changed to frown upon major vertical integration as they are now with horizontal mergers, all this is just empty campaign noise.

And I seriously, seriously doubt any mainstream politicians on Capitol Hill from either side of the isle have the audacity to actually propose that earth-shattering change that will completely uppend how value-added business works for centuries now - and that includes Warren.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

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.

No offense, but I'm 49 and was still a kid when all that hsppened. I wouldn't think we have a lot of 60 yr old ladies posting on here.

 

[ChickenBrother]

No offense, but I'm 49 and was still a kid when all that hsppened. I wouldn't think we have a lot of 60 yr old ladies posting on here.

You thought wrong, friendo:

 

[Fluffernutter]

How much money did Big Tech give Hillary in '16?

 

[waiguoren]

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.

Thoughts, @Jack V Savage ?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Thoughts, @Jack V Savage ?

Don't know enough about the specifics to have any. My guy reaction is skepticism, but I respect her enough that I'll hold judgment.

 

[ocfightfan]

I don't think this would solve the problem that we are having.

 

[Islam Imamate]

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.

One also wonders what effect something like this might have on future acquisitions. Might potentially reasonable and productive acquisitions be avoided for fear of being reversed in a few years if this or that politician gets elected? I am not well read enough on this kind of thing to understand all the nuts and bolts but it seems like it can have some unintended consequences.

Then again how different is reversing a merger from trust busting in general? In some sense isn't it a similar thing, the breaking up of a monopoly? That might be oversimplifying it to be fair but the end result seems similar enough to me.

 

[Islam Imamate]

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).

Valve not being able to re-release Counter Strike and Left 4 Dead again and again isn't really having a huge impact and such a regulation would seem to reduce the likelihood of Half Life 3 coming out from about .00001% to 0%.

 

[Ruprecht]

Valve not being able to re-release Counter Strike and Left 4 Dead again and again isn't really having a huge impact and such a regulation would seem to reduce the likelihood of Half Life 3 coming out from about .00001% to 0%.

Hah! Hey they released DOTA 2 since then, and last year that card game spinoff that died. You have to include their Campo Santo and VR titles as well. That's just one example though which I thought might be widely familiar, look at how many Steam equivalents are popping up at the moment. The Epic store... no Fortnite (unless an exclusion is made for SaaS). The Unreal marketplace, no Unreal Engine assets from Epic (not sure if they'd be allowed to give it away, as with Paragon). It's not an uncommon model or restricted to games. Microsoft has their Digital store and Azure marketplace. Google with the Play store and G Suite. Etc etc.
Never mind how exactly they'd try to enforce that on Alibaba or Tencent.

 

[Makani]

I have stock in apple, Amazon, and Google. So I wonder how this would impact stocks? That would be a reason to be against it, if it will negatively impact stockholders, which will impact 401ks for a lot of people as well.


Edit: I only just saw this headline earlier today and haven't been able to read much into it, but that is key initial concern

I think you could be argued that obsession with maintaining value for stockholders over stability and maintaining a healthy economic evironment is a problem in itself. It's like arguing that the main problem with universal healthcare is that people in the insurance industry would lose jobs. Isn't that a hazard in any profession? Are we going to quash self-driving cars because they hurt truck drivers?