Comment by hgs3
2 years ago
Why are antitrust laws so reactive? Why not have proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria? Ideally, the criteria would be aggressive enough to kill large corporations leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses. The result would be markets with increased competition, more innovation, lower prices, more options for employment and self-employment, and the elimination of Big Corp's big money political influence.
> leaving behind only small to medium-sized businesses
I only partially agree. If you kill all big businesses your country will no longer be able to compete with outsiders in industries where economies of scale matter. A few examples: cars, computer chips, cloud computing. This in turn means a lot of jobs and talent will go elsewhere.
In the US during the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis I had some pretty strong opinions about banks. Is there any justification for having a mammoth bank that is "too big to fail"? (Serious question.)
Approaching "too big to fail" status might be a good marker for when a corporate entity needs to be split. We should not be beholden to oversized companies.
> Why are antitrust laws so reactive? Why not have proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria?
I've skimmed past a number of comments that say that Apple isn't a monopoly because it doesn't have a large enough share of the market. So is the DoJ too early or too late on this one?
Anyway, it shouldn't be about the size of the company, just how they act.
Some of today’s big corporations and mega hedge funds are almost bigger than the good old British Empire. Are we definitely sure that they will not just use that power for their own good only.
> Why not have proactive laws that break up companies if they grow beyond a certain size criteria
That's not proactive, that's just reactive to different indicators.