Elizabeth Warren Proposes Breaking Up Tech Giants Like Amazon

Post by rexpop » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:31 PM UTC

lotu wrote: post #414

mabbo wrote: post #97

There's precedent to this in the USA. The US Government once passed regulations that caused one of the largest companies in America to break up into three smaller companies. Today those, three companies are entirely independent, employ over 400,000 people combined, and have a combined net work of over $400B. Those companies are Boeing Aircraft (153k employees, $244B market value), United Technologies (202k employees,…

The problem is this type of vertical splitting doesn't solve the problem of large tech companies. It's like treating a burst appendix with a kidney transplant. The problem of Amazon is that it is effectively the only online shopping place, and thus can act as a Monopsony in hiring it's workers for warehouses, splitting AWS out of that doesn't fix that problem. Maybe you could require that distribution centers be owne…

Post by tolstoy77 » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:33 PM UTC

psadauskas wrote: post #211

How about going after Comcast and Verizon first, the actual tech monopolies ? I already don’t use Facebook, I buy things online from places other than Amazon, and have email accounts that aren’t hosted by Google. However, all of that goes over Comcast’s network because that’s my only viable choice for Internet service. Also, while FAANG occasionally do things I don’t approve of, they don’t actively lobby congress for…

Post by vkou » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:36 PM UTC

cowl wrote: post #388

mushufasa wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past couple years, a new legal theory proposed that the definition of monopoloy needs to be updated for the 21st century. Instead of focusing on consumer welfare, antitrust law should focus on 'anticompetitive behavior'. In this argument, amazon is the platform through which all other online sellers go to market, like railroads in the late 19th century. Behaving as both a platform and participant is anticompet…

so we are ok with removing the only thing we as people have going for us, consumer welfare consideration and focus only on how to make it easier for businesses to screw us. Should I feel better that the business that is screwing me is a "small business" instead of a giant? is that the new standard?

Post by dajohnson89 » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:36 PM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #326

psadauskas wrote: post #211

How about going after Comcast and Verizon first, the actual tech monopolies ? I already don’t use Facebook, I buy things online from places other than Amazon, and have email accounts that aren’t hosted by Google. However, all of that goes over Comcast’s network because that’s my only viable choice for Internet service. Also, while FAANG occasionally do things I don’t approve of, they don’t actively lobby congress for…

>But no, because Comcast has -bribed- donated to way more congresspeople than Google... Lobbying is tracked and google spent over 33% more than Comcast - in your own words - bribing members of Congress. The bulk of Google’s lobbying expenditure was for immigration, tax reform and antitrust. I’d say Google’s far better “at playing the game” after all no one is randomly sticking up for Comcast.

Post by Nasrudith » Fri, Mar 08, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #380

pdabbadabba wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) How is that different than a department store? If you go into housewares at Macy's you'll see their own branded stuff along with other brands. So at issue is not the practice itself, but rather that the digital marketplace makes it easier and more efficient. The difference would be Amazon's [alleged] monopoly power. > 2) The consumer (along with Amazon) is a beneficiary here. The losers are brands trying to sell…

> The difference would be Amazon's [alleged] monopoly power. I don't see Amazon as being particularly more of a monopoly than Walmart. If Amazon was a traditional brick and mortar business, would we even be having this conversation?