This question has been on my mind for a while.

  • Member of the Month for March.........Phantom17

garrett

Well-Known Member
VIP
Hot Pass Member
Dec 5, 2016
80
40
18
23
IG
skittleblend
Do you guys think that breaking up giant tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon would be good? I'm relatively split on it. On one hand, you have a giant company like Google, who is on top of the search engine market and has incorporated a whole lot of smaller companies (e.g. YouTube). Doing these would keep markets more competitive. On the other hand, there's going to be companies could die off and another competitor could take its place. For example, Facebook could die off and Twitter would be top dog in that market. I'd like to know what you guys think.

Source of this question: https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/technology/us-massachusetts-senator-elizabeth-warren-google-facebook-amazon/1510988/
 

Jason62

Well-Known Member
Hot Pass Member
Mar 14, 2017
89
56
18
33
I dont know why we have to do it for tech, we never did it before with anyone else

 
  • Like
Reactions: garrett

pomcat

Well-Known Member
Hot Pass Member
Jul 31, 2016
142
89
28
52
Everytime thwy break up a big company everything goes to down hill, case in point back when they broke up att every thing went downhill. I know its an old analogy but it still seems they break what aint broke.
 

garrett

Well-Known Member
VIP
Hot Pass Member
Dec 5, 2016
80
40
18
23
IG
skittleblend
case in point back when they broke up att every thing went downhill.
Are you talking about when Roosevelt and Taft filed suits against big trusts that pretty much monopolized the market? e.g Northern Securities, Standard Oil, etc.
 

Rollo75

Well-Known Member
Hot Pass Member
Dec 1, 2018
200
138
43
40
Sydney, Australia
rollo75.blogspot.com
Everytime thwy break up a big company everything goes to down hill, case in point back when they broke up att every thing went downhill. I know its an old analogy but it still seems they break what aint broke.
That's mostly because AT&T was running a natural monopoly. Having the baby bells compete with each other is mostly nonsense, as if you have only one phone line in your house, competition doesn't make sense.

Natural monopolies are best left in the hands of government.
Massive things where the optimal sharing group (the police, water, electric, education, health care) are best left in the hands of government.
Goods and services where the optimal sharing group is small (consumer goods, commodity production, farms, services) are best done privately.

I'm seen as a massive leftist by most of my friends, but really I don't care whether or not a thing is run by government or private enterprise - I want what works the best.

I think that Facebook and Twitter are private services which can very easily be replaced. Google, Facebook, and Amazon don't necessarily need to be broken up.
 

Rollo75

Well-Known Member
Hot Pass Member
Dec 1, 2018
200
138
43
40
Sydney, Australia
rollo75.blogspot.com
NOTHING is best left to the Government.
And this is where the grand narrative of politics runs throughout the ages. It is a grand push back and forth.
I disagree with you, but I think that you are not only entitled to your opinion but I implore you to voice it. That's cool.

I think that we would all do well to remember that there are real people at the other end of a discussion.
Love and friendship are excellent compasses by which to steer a discussion by.

"It has no name, but it would seem to be most like philia; for the character of the person in the intermediate state is just what we mean in speaking of a decent friend, except that the friend is also fond of us."
- Aristotle, Ethics (book IX)

All you have to do is look at standard oil. They cut deals like Wal Mart does today.
I think that if you adjust for inflation, John Rockerfeller was the richest person whoever lived he was billionaire back in 1901.
 

garrett

Well-Known Member
VIP
Hot Pass Member
Dec 5, 2016
80
40
18
23
IG
skittleblend
All you have to do is look at standard oil. They cut deals like Wal Mart does today.
Standard Oil cut prices to undermine their competitors and then incorporate said competitors, effectively creating a monopoly over the oil industry. Here's a tiny line from the link you posted:
"By 1880, Standard Oil owned or controlled 90 percent of the U.S. oil refining business"

Standard Oil was in almost every store around the country back then. If Rockefeller wanted to really get even more money, he could raise the prices of the oil products. Since there was little competition, the consumers had almost no choice but to buy Standard Oil as it was the name brand, and it was kinda hard to find the other brands. You can't compare Standard Oil to Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart has big competitors, the main one being Target.
 

Our Partners