Elizabeth Warren would break up big tech companies

Dec 2018
1,376
480
New England
#1
From a story in the Boston Globe:

""WASHINGTON — Senator Elizabeth Warren proposed Friday to break up some of the nation’s biggest technology companies, casting Google, Amazon, Facebook, and others as the newest villains in the scathing picture of capitalism run amok that has framed her political rise and her presidential run.

'They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else,' Warren wrote in a 1,700-word online post detailing her plan, which would reverse major tech mergers and break up companies, including Apple, that currently operate a marketplace or platform and participate in it."


Does anyone want to defend this nonsense?
 
Apr 2014
2,065
846
Heart of America
#2
From a story in the Boston Globe:

""WASHINGTON — Senator Elizabeth Warren proposed Friday to break up some of the nation’s biggest technology companies, casting Google, Amazon, Facebook, and others as the newest villains in the scathing picture of capitalism run amok that has framed her political rise and her presidential run.

'They’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else,' Warren wrote in a 1,700-word online post detailing her plan, which would reverse major tech mergers and break up companies, including Apple, that currently operate a marketplace or platform and participate in it."


Does anyone want to defend this nonsense?
Only if you don’t like monopolies. Any corporation that is a monopoly or “too big to fail” should be downsized for national security reasons.
 
Dec 2018
479
272
Unionville Indiana
#4
A brief summary of the The Antitrust Laws

Why would the RW and corporate suck ups want to ignore or overturn them?

The antitrust laws proscribe unlawful mergers and business practices in general terms, leaving courts to decide which ones are illegal based on the facts of each case. Courts have applied the antitrust laws to changing markets, from a time of horse and buggies to the present digital age. Yet for over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.
 
Likes: Hollywood
Dec 2018
1,376
480
New England
#5
A brief summary of the anti-trust laws: The Antitrust Laws

Why would the RW and suck ups want to ignore or overturn them?

The antitrust laws proscribe unlawful mergers and business practices in general terms, leaving courts to decide which ones are illegal based on the facts of each case. Courts have applied the antitrust laws to changing markets, from a time of horse and buggies to the present digital age. Yet for over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.
Do you really not see the gaping hole in Warren's argument?
 
Dec 2018
479
272
Unionville Indiana
#8
Um, how about that none of the companies she cited are monopolies?
You worry about the oligopolies and their speculation and profits. I'm more concerned about fostering competition, promoting consumer protections and avoiding another financial crash like the one of 2008. A corporation that is too big to fail is too big to exist.
 
Likes: Hollywood
Dec 2018
479
272
Unionville Indiana
#9
Um, how about that none of the companies she cited are monopolies?
So? These tech mergers fall within the purview of the antitrust laws:

  • Amazon and Whole Foods (2017, sale price: $13.7 billion). With the acquisition of Whole Foods, Amazon has only about 2% of the very competitive US grocery market, but critics of the merger worried the retail giant would close brick-and-mortar stores and kill off future competitors in online grocery shopping.
  • Amazon and Zappos (2009, sale price: $1.2 billion). The online shoe retailer was one of the several competitors Amazon acquired using reportedly aggressive tactics relatively early in its journey to becoming the e-commerce giant it is today.
  • Facebook and WhatsApp (2014, sale price: $22 billion). Buying WhatsApp helped Facebook dominate the global mobile messaging market, and stave off the threat the app posed to its own Messenger service.
  • Facebook and Instagram (2012, sale price: $1 billion). The acquisition of Instagram, a rising competitor, not only made Facebook an unstoppable advertising powerhouse, it could be key to securing Facebook’s future.
  • Google and Waze (2013, sale price: $1.3 billion) Google already dominated the mobile mapping market with its Maps product when it bought Waze, it’s “most viable competitor,” a consumer watchdog said at the time.
  • Google and Nest (2014, sale price: $3.2 billion) The smart-thermostat company recently rejoined Alphabet after several years as its subsidiary. At the time of the initial merger, critics noted that Nest is another trove of data for Google to mine.
  • Google and DoubleClick (2007, sale price: $3.1 billion). Similarly, privacy advocates complained that allowing Google to buy the online advertising company would give it unparalleled access to user data.
“Unwinding these mergers will promote healthy competition in the market ,” Warren writes, “which will put pressure on big tech companies to be more responsive to user concerns, including about privacy.”
 
Last edited:
Apr 2014
2,065
846
Heart of America
#10
Um, which of those companies is a monopoly?
Not sure. It would be a legal definition akin to what Warren is pushing: A company so large that it’s killing all competitors (or simply buying them out). Facebook is an example. It’s unique. Sure, most Millennials are moving toward Instagram (owned by Facebook since 2012) and Snapchat, but Facebook has a unique niche and is hanging on to it. Is that a monopoly? I don’t know and am content to let the courts figure it out.

I do believe it is against the best interests of “We, the People” that a corporation be so big that it’s “too big to fail” and would require a taxpayer bailout if their owners fucked up and drove the company into the ground. It doesn’t matter to me if it’s banks, auto manufacturers, airlines, communications (cable, media) or tech companies.

Congress and the Federal government approving all of these massive mergers is a huge mistake IMO.
 
Likes: Hollywood