[reaperducer]

I think it is a very silly idea to think that breaking up big companies would wipe out trillions in value to the US economy.

The whole reason there are anti-competition laws is because many smaller companies are better for an economy than one large company.

[remolacha]

Those anti-competition laws are only applicable when a company is using market dominance to exclude new entrants, distorting the free market. Not true in this case. Lots of small companies are not inherently economically better than big firms. It totally depends on the maturity of the market in question. Large firms gain economies of scale, and can pursue opportunities with large upfront capital requirements.

[reaperducer]

The point wasn't about the competition. The point is that many small companies are better for an economy than a single large company.

Let me give you one small example: MediumCo and SmallCo each need 50 stenographers to get the office work done. When the two merge into MegaConHugeCo, it only needs 60 stenographers to get the office work done. "Economies of scale" are great for the giant new company, but throw 40 people into unemployment. That is bad for an economy.

Multiply that by all of the functions of a company, and you understand why the federal government and politicians put so much attention and resources into helping small and medium businesses.