Should the US government break up some of the largest corporations?

[Murica!]

I'm going to say yes, except for the technology industry(Intel,Microsoft,AMD etc.)

[TNF]

Antitrust legislation is reactionary, so no. The idea that small production is inherently better is a bizarre petty bourgeois affectation that ignores the economies of scale and general gains yielded from larger, more complex industrial arrangements.

The answer lies in making those gains work for the people, rather than against them and for profit. Don't break them up, bring them under public ownership and manage them democratically, within the confines of a popularly-determined democratic economic plan.

[bedstuy]

Antitrust legislation is reactionary, so no. The idea that small production is inherently better is a bizarre petty bourgeois affectation that ignores the economies of scale and general gains yielded from larger, more complex industrial arrangements.

Encouraging "small production" is unequivocally not the purpose of anti-trust laws.  But, I guess if you're a marxist, you're relieved of the obligation to pay attention to reality.  "Petty bourgeois!!!"  "Industrial arrangements!!!"  Great economic analysis. 

The point of anti-trust laws is to prevent monopolistic behavior that restrains competition in the market.  I guess marxists need to dislike that idea because they want a government monopoly instead of a free market system, but that's the idea, like it or not.

I think it's an unlettered, silly thing to across the board say large corporations should be broken up.  There's nothing necessarily wrong with a large corporation.  But, there are probably some candidates for antitrust action that we should think about, big banks, telecom, etc.  Unfortunately, we won't because of money in politics.  Oh well.

[Del Tachi]

I'm going to say yes, except for the technology industry(Intel,Microsoft,AMD etc.)

If they're any companies that need to be broken up by Uncle Sam, its definitely within the telecom industry. 

[Jose Canseco]

In certain cases (McDonalds, Berger King, disgusting junk food, and cheat meals).

[Murica!]

Antitrust legislation is reactionary, so no. The idea that small production is inherently better is a bizarre petty bourgeois affectation that ignores the economies of scale and general gains yielded from larger, more complex industrial arrangements.

The answer lies in making those gains work for the people, rather than against them and for profit. Don't break them up, bring them under public ownership and manage them democratically, within the confines of a popularly-determined democratic economic plan.

I would love for this to happen, but it's just not realistic(for now that is)for that to happen in the US.

[TNF]

It isn't realistic only so long as there's not an organized left. Once that happens (and I believe it will within the early or middle part of this century), it's fair game.

[Murica!]

It isn't realistic only so long as there's not an organized left. Once that happens (and I believe it will within the early or middle part of this century), it's fair game.

True.

[Blue3]

I used to think yes, now I think now.

Economies of scale.

And eventually, we'll get a big business that's doing a lot of good, and to break it up would be detrimental.

[politicus]

I'm going to say yes, except for the technology industry(Intel, Microsoft, AMD etc.)

Why make an exception for Microsoft, it would be one of the most obvious candidates. Amazon and Google are other good cases,

Monopolies (incl. companies with near total market dominance) are bad not just for economic reasons, but also because they are too powerful and "economy of scale" shouldn't be a carte blanche for creating and maintaining them. There is also the obvious "too big to fail" problem, if a company can not be allowed to go bankrupt without public intervention it should be broken up.

[Murica!]

I'm going to say yes, except for the technology industry(Intel, Microsoft, AMD etc.)

Why make an exception for Microsoft, it would be one of the most obvious candidates. Amazon and Google are other good cases,

Monopolies (incl. companies with near total market dominance) are bad not just for economic reasons, but also because they are too powerful and "economy of scale" shouldn't be a carte blanche for creating and maintaining them. There is also the obvious "too big to fail" problem, if a company can not be allowed to go bankrupt without public intervention it should be broken up.

The problem with Microsoft is that too many people rely on it, and I'd rather not be forced to use Mac OS X.

[Goldwater]

I'm going to say yes, except for the technology industry(Intel, Microsoft, AMD etc.)

Why make an exception for Microsoft, it would be one of the most obvious candidates. Amazon and Google are other good cases,

Monopolies (incl. companies with near total market dominance) are bad not just for economic reasons, but also because they are too powerful and "economy of scale" shouldn't be a carte blanche for creating and maintaining them. There is also the obvious "too big to fail" problem, if a company can not be allowed to go bankrupt without public intervention it should be broken up.

The problem with Microsoft is that too many people rely on it, and I'd rather not be forced to use Mac OS X.

Why would you be? Isn't the idea behind anti-trust laws to create more competition? So breaking up Microsoft should actually create more options than them and Apple.

[H. Ross Peron]

Antitrust legislation is reactionary, so no. The idea that small production is inherently better is a bizarre petty bourgeois affectation that ignores the economies of scale and general gains yielded from larger, more complex industrial arrangements.

Encouraging "small production" is unequivocally not the purpose of anti-trust laws.  But, I guess if you're a marxist, you're relieved of the obligation to pay attention to reality.  "Petty bourgeois!!!"  "Industrial arrangements!!!"  Great economic analysis. 

The point of anti-trust laws is to prevent monopolistic behavior that restrains competition in the market.  I guess marxists need to dislike that idea because they want a government monopoly instead of a free market system, but that's the idea, like it or not.

I think it's an unlettered, silly thing to across the board say large corporations should be broken up.  There's nothing necessarily wrong with a large corporation.  But, there are probably some candidates for antitrust action that we should think about, big banks, telecom, etc.  Unfortunately, we won't because of money in politics.  Oh well.

This basically.

[Murica!]

Antitrust legislation is reactionary, so no. The idea that small production is inherently better is a bizarre petty bourgeois affectation that ignores the economies of scale and general gains yielded from larger, more complex industrial arrangements.

Encouraging "small production" is unequivocally not the purpose of anti-trust laws.  But, I guess if you're a marxist, you're relieved of the obligation to pay attention to reality.  "Petty bourgeois!!!"  "Industrial arrangements!!!"  Great economic analysis. 

The point of anti-trust laws is to prevent monopolistic behavior that restrains competition in the market.  I guess marxists need to dislike that idea because they want a government monopoly instead of a free market system, but that's the idea, like it or not.

I think it's an unlettered, silly thing to across the board say large corporations should be broken up.  There's nothing necessarily wrong with a large corporation.  But, there are probably some candidates for antitrust action that we should think about, big banks, telecom, etc.  Unfortunately, we won't because of money in politics.  Oh well.

Marxists? They're borderline Anarchists, with the only difference being that they believe in the state during the Revolution.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, obviously.

[Deus Naturae]

No, there's nothing inherently wrong with bigness if it occurs as the result of many people buying a company's products. It's another matter if a company becomes large as a result of other factors (entry barriers to competition, special privileges, or outright government-granted monopolies as in the case of the telecom industry), but in those situations the solution is to eliminate those factors, not arbitrarily prosecute large firms.

Why would you be? Isn't the idea behind anti-trust laws to create more competition?

Ostensibly yes, but in practice this is almost never the case. Historically, most anti-trust cases have been prosecuted against companies that were expanding output and reducing prices (the exact opposite of what economists believe to be the result of monopoly power). In reality, the purpose of anti-trust regulation is not the destruction of anti-competitive monopolies for the benefit of consumers, but the destruction of more productive and efficient firms for the benefit of their competitors.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I would love to see democracy in all workplaces.  One person, one vote.  Employees elect their managers and decide their pay and bonuses.

This can be accomplished in large companies...but should gain a foothold in smaller companies first.

Breaking up monopolies is good.  More importantly, we should be more skeptical of mergers and acquisitions...and there should be a strong labor component inthese decisions and approvals.

[bedstuy]

I would love to see democracy in all workplaces.  One person, one vote.  Employees elect their managers and decide their pay and bonuses.

This can be accomplished in large companies...but should gain a foothold in smaller companies first.

Breaking up monopolies is good.  More importantly, we should be more skeptical of mergers and acquisitions...and there should be a strong labor component inthese decisions and approvals.

That wouldn't work as well as shareholders electing a board of directors.  Employees are often at cross-purposes with the best interests of the corporation.  Ultimately, the only people with the long-term best interests of the corporation at heart are the residual claimants. 

[DemPGH]

Some of the largest corporations? Yes, obviously. That's if we're going to have the shark pool, laissez-faire system that we have where it takes money to make money. Under proper regulations or public ownership, then probably not.

My view is that if we're talking about a monopoly that offers a service or product that is essentially required (Internet, TV, fuel, etc.), and you have a couple of monopolies that do little more than gouge and offer poor customer service, yes, they should undoubtedly be broken up. They just quell competition and force you to buy their product, unless you want to be a hermit.

[Deus Naturae]

My view is that if we're talking about a monopoly that offers a service or product that is essentially required (Internet, TV, fuel, etc.), and you have a couple of monopolies that do little more than gouge and offer poor customer service, yes, they should undoubtedly be broken up. They just quell competition and force you to buy their product, unless you want to be a hermit.

That's because ISP's and cable companies are granted franchise monopolies by local governments. If you want to get rid of those monopolies, all you have to do is get rid of the local monopoly grants.