Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But we could find ways to break up tech monopolies.
|
Et tu, Sebby?
This is growing in popularity, but it's dumb. I've written about it elsewhere (not with as much rigor as keep telling myself I should) and the simple fact is that to the extent we've got tech monopolies, it's because they are in industries that create consumer-benefiting network effect. You can't break them up without undermining those consumer benefits. And even if you do break them up, you're likely to wind up with adjacent monopolies.
And, frankly, antitrust enforcement against big tech has never really worked. Who benefited from Baby Bells being true monopolies in non-overlapping geographies? No one. Every consumer had one choice, until we took more affirmative steps in the Telecommunication Act of 1996 (or was it '97) and even that didn't help all that much.
And that's even assuming that we can correctly identify where the problems are. How does browser competition look today? Did all the time and money spent litigating over it look at all worthwhile? Hey, look, Microsoft was right that a browser is like the operating system clock in that it's essential to making your computer work and right that competition is a click and a download away (the EU still has in place it's feckless and stupid browser remedy last I looked).
What "ends" tech dominance is innovation. IE isn't really dominant because Firefox, Chrome and Safari are better products (meanwhile, Microsoft is pretty dominant in less consumer-visible spaces still without anyone worrying about them). What broke the phone monopolies was celluar. Etc.
Where enforcement can be of use is in protecting innovation (incidentally, what the agencies are trying to do). If and when the current big tech is stifling innovation, let's worry about that.
But big, mature companies can also act as stimulators of innovation, because they provide a way for innovators and entrepreneurs to exit. Prove the tech, sell out, move on to the next tech. It happens all the time in med tech. Pretty sure it does in Silicon Valley too, but I don't personally touch that much.
We could, of course, invest in research to further fuel innovation, but we've got one party that's against all non-military spending.
Quote:
|
We could also tax tech more creatively (Jaron Lanier has some decent ideas) and use the money for infrastructure, which has a decent multiplier effect.
|
We need to do those things (not sure what Lanier has proposed), but we also just need to come to grips with being a developed economy. We need higher taxes and to spend way less on war and way more on health care and providing for those on the lower end of things.
