In practice that would only weaken the US infrastructure. E.g. If companies like Apple and Microsoft were to be broken up, then that would actually severely confine technological innovation, and potentially place the US at a competitive disadvantage, and for what gain? More competition between smaller companies?
More competition is not necessarily a good thing. However, you can regulate said companies, and limit their abilities to exploit people. E.g. Place limits on product pricing so it does not get to expensive - very important for life saving medication.
You have to understand, there are some very motivated political ideologies that want us to believe that breaking up companies is going to protect consumers. It will not. And in fact, it can be quite devastating for technological innovation. So is regulation, but to an lesser extent, and I'd pick the lesser evil of the two any day.
In practice, by breaking up a company, you are basically stealing from shareholders, forcefully taking their property and selling it at a huge discount. The owners (shareholders) may end up owning shares of both halves of a company that is being split, but it will not be the same company, and the new companies ability to make money may have been destroyed or significantly harmed in the process. Then government has to pay some sort of compensating dividend, and I do not see that realistically happen, because it is impossible to accurately determine the damage caused by splitting a company.
In another ownership structure, companies could be broken up on paper, but still operated in a sort of partnership, hence the breaking up might not even make any sense in the first place.
More competition is not necessarily a good thing. However, you can regulate said companies, and limit their abilities to exploit people. E.g. Place limits on product pricing so it does not get to expensive - very important for life saving medication.
You have to understand, there are some very motivated political ideologies that want us to believe that breaking up companies is going to protect consumers. It will not. And in fact, it can be quite devastating for technological innovation. So is regulation, but to an lesser extent, and I'd pick the lesser evil of the two any day.
In practice, by breaking up a company, you are basically stealing from shareholders, forcefully taking their property and selling it at a huge discount. The owners (shareholders) may end up owning shares of both halves of a company that is being split, but it will not be the same company, and the new companies ability to make money may have been destroyed or significantly harmed in the process. Then government has to pay some sort of compensating dividend, and I do not see that realistically happen, because it is impossible to accurately determine the damage caused by splitting a company.
In another ownership structure, companies could be broken up on paper, but still operated in a sort of partnership, hence the breaking up might not even make any sense in the first place.