[rickyplouis]

I often see many people show immediate solidarity with Amazon as soon as the ideas of anti-trust or monopoly are brought up. If the government is allowed to break up a large corporation then where does it stop? Will they come after my small business next?

The ironic part of this is that the same large companies they are showing solidarity with are implementing anti-competitive practices to prevent smaller entrants from standing a chance. Between google and facebook's unknown algorithms, Apple's secretive approval process for iOS apps, and Amazon's practice of pushing their products up and pushing new entrants out, the large companies already act as gatekeepers for their dominion.

Perhaps it's marketing, maybe it's brand loyalty, but it seems bizarre that people are more willing to give control of their lives to a large corporation than to have any government intervention.

[roosterdawn]

You raise an interesting point, but I wonder if the point is less that people trust the brand than they _distrust_ the government. Do you think it might be possible that however much people distrust corporations, they at least trust the corporation to function unlike the government, which they only trust to deepen dysfunction?

[rayiner]

You’re absolutely right and there is proof of this: https://news.gallup.com/poll/5248/big-business.aspx

Scroll down to “In general, do you think there is too much, too little or about the right amount of government regulation of business and industry?“ Well over 2/3 of Americans thing there is the right amount of regulation of businesses, or that there should be even less.

Scroll further to: “ In your opinion, which of the following will be the biggest threat to the country in the future -- big business, big labor or big government?”

Just 26% say “big business” is the biggest threat, while a whopping 67% say “big government” is the biggest threat.

[waheoo]

Americas version of democracy is next level messed up.

Start voting for people you want in power.

Stop voting for the lesser evil.

Yes you cant always avoid it but a functioning democracy involves a forcing of ideologies to work together through multi party systems and the resulting coalitions.

[danaris]

Until and unless we have a completely different method of electing people (for instance, single transferable vote, preference voting, etc—I don't personally know which system is best for our particular circumstances), voting for anyone but the Democrat or the Republican on the ballot at the general election is going to be anywhere from very unlikely to get you somewhere (at the local level) to laughably impossible (at the national level, especially presidential elections).

Given the way our various systems interact, "multi-party systems" and "coalitions" are simply not possible.

[catalogia]

> "Start voting for people you want in power. Stop voting for the lesser evil."

I can do that, but I can't make other people do that. So your "advice" isn't really actionable is it?

[klyrs]

> Start voting for people you want in power.

> Stop voting for the lesser evil.

This is tantamount to calling for individuals to write-in their fave candidates. Do you actually think that will work?

[rayiner]

Only a minority of people view the candidates they’ll be voting for as “the lesser evil.” For the rest, they’re voting for the person they want in power. The recent Democratic primary is proof of that. There are a lot of progressives in the Democratic coalition who will vote for Biden because he’s the “lesser evil.” But all those voters who woke up at the last minute and drove Biden to a decisive victory did so because that’s who they wanted. They want someone to basically maintain the status quo and make modest changes, and do so without the racist tweets.

[scarface74]

I think a lot of the people voted for Biden because he was more electable than Sanders. I don’t share that opinion - Sanders scares the hell out of me.

I consider myself a bleeding heart pro capitalist pig. In other words I believe in a social safety net funded by taxes and the free market.

[rickyplouis]

I agree to an extent. I'm one of those people that believes corporations are more likely to function and government intervention is likely to deepen disfunction. However, I don't share the same laissez faire attitude that many share about big businesses.

As stated by Buffett in Bray's article, anti-trust enforcement has fallen so far into the favor of large corporations the past few decades that the average age of public companies has increased. One would think that public opinion should reflect the swing of the pendulum, but this hasn't entirely been the case.

[aaronbrethorst]

Will they come after my small business next?

I’m familiar with the phenomenon of the “temporarily embarrassed millionaire,” but I’ve never heard of anyone seeing themselves as a temporarily embarrassed oligarch before.

No, they won’t come after your small business.

[tobz1000]

That's not how I understood it. I think OP's first paragraph is better read with some quote marks:

> I often see many people show immediate solidarity with Amazon as soon as the ideas of anti-trust or monopoly are brought up. "If the government is allowed to break up a large corporation then where does it stop? Will they come after my small business next?"

[scarface74]

You mean the same nanny state that comes after people who braid hair? Yes, the government will in fact come after small businesses.

[znpy]

> I often see many people show immediate solidarity with Amazon as soon as the ideas of anti-trust or monopoly are brought up. If the government is allowed to break up a large corporation then where does it stop? Will they come after my small business next?

If the govern doesn't go after Aamzon, Amazon will probably come after your small business.

[scarface74]

Should the same government have gone after Apple and iTunes that killed off the mom and pop record store? Businesses die all the time when consumer preferences change.

[znpy]

well, on one hand, maybe. keep in mind that apple is also killing repair stores with their unfair anti-repair tactics and policies.

on the other hand, it's different: amazon spans so many kind of items that it's killing a huge kind of mom an pop stores. Amazon has enough revenue that it can adjust its pricing, even with losses, to drive away customers from competitors.

[logicchains]

>Amazon's practice of pushing their products up and pushing new entrants out

How is this any different from supermarkets that have their own generic, no-label brand that they push?

[Jasper_]

I have never seen a supermarket "push" generic brands, unless you just mean it's cheaper. Amazon does not attempt to be impartial shelf space, it has "Best Choice" and "Amazon Pick" labels and sorts and ranks search results.

If a grocery store consistently made you dig to the back of a shelf to find a Smuckers product but not it's own, I imagine there would be a similar lawsuit.

[chongli]

Believe it or not, grocery stores charge money for shelf space. Premium shelf space at eye level commands premium prices. The reason Smuckers is highly visible and not buried at the back or on the bottom shelf is because they’ve paid the premium price to be visible.

So of course they’d sue —- for breach of contract. But don’t think for a second that grocery stores are just trying to be fair with the shelf space. They of course don’t charge themselves for placement of their own brands.

[bostik]

You do know supermarkets (or chains) charge brands for their physical position?[0] Items close to eye height get more attention from shoppers, and as majority of people are right-handed, the shelves on the right-hand side[ß] are more likely to be used first.

ß: supermarkets have spent decades optimising the customer travel patterns inside their stores so they know very well which way majority of the traffic flows on any given aisle.

0: https://qz.com/807723/inside-the-secret-backroom-deals-big-b...

[basch]

>impartial shelf space

Why? Did grocery stores sign some kind of contract to be neutral platforms?

Ikea, Costco, Target all push their own brand. Oftentime, at Walmart, Mainstay will be your only option for some items.

[sjg007]

Walmart has it's own brand.

[basch]

Mainstay, the brand I mentioned, is a Walmart brand.

[scarface74]

I absolutely categorically distrust government power. The bar is very high for me to even consider government intervention being the right thing. The current government has a public dislike for the tech industry which has nothing to do with any inherent issues with monopoly.

While, I believe that Democrats who want to involve themselves in the private markets have good intentions - the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Neither side knows enough nor things deeply enough to understand that everything has tradeoffs and especially in tech. The former generation of tech giants fell as technology changed and through disruption - not government intervention

[api]

> If the government is allowed to break up a large corporation then where does it stop? Will they come after my small business next?

This is like the corporate / upper class version of the "everyone in America is a temporarily embarrassed millionaire" trope. Maybe American millionaires are temporarily embarrassed billionaires?

If you are not in the Fortune 100, the idea of anti-trust ever applying to your business should never cross your mind. It's absurd. If you are in the Fortune 100 and anti-trust comes up, ease your mind by going out on your favorite yacht.

In fact history shows that breakups often increase shareholder value in the long term, so just make sure you own some of all the shards and you'll probably get richer.

As far as the government messing with you: yes, they can, but it won't be with anti-trust. There are a million ways the government can mess with you without ever going there.

[RIMR]

I live in Seattle, and it's basically the opposite phenomenon.

Everyone uses Amazon, but there's always an underlying belief that they are evil (even from employees). Trying to defend their practices isn't wise.

Yet the city council bends to their will rather than the will of their constituents... No surprise that Seattleites find them oppressive.