That's wishful thinking. Politicians will never break up Google since they benefit from it.
What I fail to understand is why it's better for society to support these "to big to fail" companies. Why not break them up. Why not plan break them up if they become to "important" for a lack of a better term? How can you not see it as a political failing that taxpayers have to be ready to save a company, just because you failed to bring it under control?
It's mind boggling.
For example, JPMorganChase is “the” big bank lately. It was able to handle the acute financial crisis this year by providing liquidity and a buyer as needed to keep the system from ever losing a deposit. That was likely bad for them as a business, short term, but it happened because the regulators can call up a single organization and get what they want.
Big tech has similar (unrealized) opportunities to keep strategically important things going. One possible example is the ease of releasing the Covid contact tracing system. If there were 20 fragmented parties they may never have aligned.
You can't see what's happening though, because JP Morgan "mistakenly" deleted 47 million emails. [0] Their fine for that came to about 12 minutes worth of revenue.
They "failed" to keep records, firm-wide, right to the top. [1] Again, their punishment was at the "cost of doing business" level.
We're talking about the bank that financed and enabled Epstein here [2].
There are other ways to provide liquidity without relying on these ghoulish overlords who manipulate global markets [3] and finance blackmail operations.
0 - https://www.reuters.com/legal/jpmorgan-chase-is-fined-by-sec...
1 - https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-262
2 - https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/breaking-attorney-general-t...
In the 1900s, Teddy Roosevelt busted up the biggest monopolies and did it boldy. He was a strong believer in capitalism and market forces, and he believed that government had a responsibility to keep market forces working well.
I know we are not in the early 1900s anymore, but I think it is interesting to ponder how the only politicians who dare to say something similar today are the furthest left we can imagine (Bernie Sanders and AOC and the like).
We still have the antitrust laws of Teddy Roosevelt's era, the Clayton Act and the 1890 Sherman Act.
Sherman Act, Section 2:
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony."
The US Justice Department hasn't often applied that standard rigorously, but it can if it wants to.
Also thankfully general regulatory situation (and arguable level corruption) isn't as quite yet as bad as it was back in the 1900s.