Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by fiatjaf | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

fiatjaf

It's time to stop breaking up any companies.

View on HN

Even the U of Chicago is now warning about the concentration of corporate power in too few hands.

> Its economists used to champion big firms, but the mood has shifted

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21720657-its-economis...

What about when companies influence government policy to stake out their monopolies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_AT%26T#Monopoly

I'm not a fan of breaking up companies like Google who've gotten where they are by creating a tremendous amount of value. They don't depend on government regulations to enforce favorable rules that they helped write by influencing our legislators.

Think about that critical difference.

Some companies actively undermine free markets by sponsoring the nanny state. In some cases, companies like ADM received 43% of their profits from federal subsidies. Verizon and Comcast use and influence local, state and federal regulations to carve out their duopoly markets. Financial institutions also benefit from favorable regulations that hedge/guarantee risks or subsidize profits in the form of tax breaks.

I don't think we should break up companies either, but we need to first do something about the special interests that are sucking on the teats of our government before we put any moratorium on breaking up companies. Not all monopolies/oligopolies have been earned.

I think we should something about the special interestes that are sucking on the teats of our government, but that something will never be accomplished by breaking up companies.

If the people who want to break companies want to do that because they think those companies have been manipulating the government in their interests, these people should think again: isn't breaking up a company a government action? Isn't the act of breaking up a company a government act that could -- and probably will -- be influenced by a company?

You missed the part where I wrote:

> I don't think we should break up companies either...

Here's my point: I too am hesitant to break up monopolies for most circumstances, but compared to the rampant regulatory capture that's happening all around us every day, it's almost a non-issue.

We should focus on the policies that are actively undermining free economy principles before we shoot for lofty standards.

That is absolutely ludicrous. Monopolies are terrible for everyone except the owners of the monopolies. I've never heard anyone argue for monopolies before.

Even in the game Monopoly, the whole point is to show how bad Monopolies are!

Being large does not imply being a monopoly.

You're attacking a straw man. Someone said we need to stop breaking up companies, implying that breaking up companies (even monopolies) is always bad.

I'm not saying large companies are all monopolies. I'm saying that all monopolies are bad.

> I'm saying that all monopolies are bad.

Including regulated, natural monopolies? (I'm speaking of utilities mainly). Sure they're not great, but I can't think of a better alternative.

Yes, those are bad. Something can be bad without having a better alternative (wars can be examples).

Also, there increasingly are alternatives, like home solar panels.

True, but wars don't generally provide necessary services. That is, most people would like to avoid wars. Most people would prefer to have utilities.

I have. By and large, I agree with you, but there are some arguments to be made in favor of allowing monopolies. I find the story of Bell Labs (mentioned in the article) especially striking: a frankly unreasonable number of innovations and ideas were developed there. The creation and continued existence of Bell Labs as a dominant force would likely have been impossible without Ma Bell's monopoly.

Peter Thiel also makes a case for monopolies in Zero to One (do not interpret as an endorsement).

Monopolies are the creation of government, they are facilitated, enabled, done by governments. When you give the government the power and the legitimacy to break up companies the government will do that at its own discretion, to serve the interests of some other company, or some other greater power.

Also, what is a monopoly? Is Google a monopoly? Google provides an invaluable service for free, if monopoly means higher prices (as every textbook economics teach) for the consumer, I think you should think again about Google.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com