Hacker News Reader

There's zero net benefit in breaking up large companies that are driving innovation and improving consumer experiences.

If you don't like the economic result, redistribute some of the growth. Walmart doesn't deserve to be saved by splitting up Amazon if they can't compete.

View on HN

I was gonna say, selling your winners and keeping your losers is exactly what you're _not_ supposed to do when investing.

The thought, clearly expressed in Elizabeth Warren's post, is that Amazon et al are stifling innovation by discouraging entrants and using dominant positions in adjacent industries to crowd out competitors. This isn't a new idea—it's one of the pillars of antitrust.

They're not stifling innovation. Their successes have had massive spillover effects helping other companies to innovate. The Golden Goose is still laying eggs.

This isn't Standard Oil. It's not Ma Bell. When they stop innovating and start extracting rents we can have a reasonable conversation about breaking them up.

When does a company stop innovating and start becoming a rent seeker? Don’t most companies eventually become the latter?

All I can say is that a lot of people disagree with you. If you're interested in that perspective, a good book is "World Without Mind" by Franklin Foer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com