6 ms·

I've seen a lot of people point to the fact that when the oil companies broke up many of these people just got richer because they invested in each one of the c

I've seen a lot of people point to the fact that when the oil companies broke up many of these people just got richer because they invested in each one of the child companies. I don't think the purpose of the antitrust actions is to stop people from getting rich, the point is to break up the monopoly. In this regard, splitting up the companies does actually distribute the power, albeit it can make the original owners much more wealthy. The point is the concentration of power, not necessarily the concentration of wealth which people often let their own insecurities befuddle.

awshepard 7y ago
Often, at least in the US, and perhaps other places as well, money is a pretty strong proxy for power, and so concentrating wealth can end up concentrating power as well. I can appreciate the semantic difference between the two, and conceptually agree that breaking up companies _should_ distribute power. But I'm wondering about the long-term implications/success rate of breakups? Antitrust action against Microsoft has been argued to have led to the oligopolistic state of affairs today [1]. The break up of AT&T/Bell System worked in the short term, but the market has re-consolidated into a few big TelCo players. And that's just at the company level. I'd be interested as well whether the increased wealth/increased concentration of wealth among former owners also leads to (in the long term) increased regulatory capture or other side effects spearheaded by those individuals with their increased war chest. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/6/17827042/antitrust-1990s-microsoft-google-aol-monopoly-lawsuits-history https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/6/17827042/antitrust-1990s-m...
- mikelyons 7y ago
  Money _is_ purchasing power, and almost everyone in power today can be bought.
- tabtab 7y ago
  Re: The break up of AT&T/Bell System worked in the short term, but the market has re-consolidated into a few big TelCo players. Because the gov't approved of too many mergers. (Having too few practical TelCo choices has really sucked for our family from a consumer standpoint.)

awshepard 7y ago

Often, at least in the US, and perhaps other places as well, money is a pretty strong proxy for power, and so concentrating wealth can end up concentrating power as well. I can appreciate the semantic difference between the two, and conceptually agree that breaking up companies _should_ distribute power. But I'm wondering about the long-term implications/success rate of breakups? Antitrust action against Microsoft has been argued to have led to the oligopolistic state of affairs today [1]. The break up of AT&T/Bell System worked in the short term, but the market has re-consolidated into a few big TelCo players. And that's just at the company level. I'd be interested as well whether the increased wealth/increased concentration of wealth among former owners also leads to (in the long term) increased regulatory capture or other side effects spearheaded by those individuals with their increased war chest. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/6/17827042/antitrust-1990s-microsoft-google-aol-monopoly-lawsuits-history https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/6/17827042/antitrust-1990s-m...

mikelyons 7y ago
Money _is_ purchasing power, and almost everyone in power today can be bought.
tabtab 7y ago
Re: The break up of AT&T/Bell System worked in the short term, but the market has re-consolidated into a few big TelCo players. Because the gov't approved of too many mergers. (Having too few practical TelCo choices has really sucked for our family from a consumer standpoint.)