IssueRaiser

My argument is that the point is whether its advantageous to allow companies to continue to grow because whether a company has a monopoly...

My argument is that the point is whether its advantageous to allow companies to continue to grow because whether a company has a monopoly or anticompetitive edge is the central argument behind breaking them up. By allowing companies to become monopolies or near monopolies, you disturb the very unified domestic market that you initially mentioned, which hamstrings growth in the future. I believe companies aren't broken up because they are now so big, it is a logistical nightmare to do so, therefore those companies lobby the crap out of politicians to kick the can down the road. NVIDIA is nearly 3x the market cap of the next non-US firm...is that really the global competition you're looking for?

Posted by mym1990 on Sep 25, 2025, 8:32 PM

Tags

Related issues

Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.2,000 issues0 comments

reliability (Other)

My argument is that the point is whether its advantageous to allow companies to continue to grow because whether a company has a monopoly...

mym1990Sep 25, 2025, 8:32 PM

My argument is that the point is whether its advantageous to allow companies to continue to grow because whether a company has a monopoly or anticompetitive edge is the central argument behind breaking them up. By allowing companies to become monopolies or near monopolies, you disturb the very unified domestic market that you initially mentioned, which hamstrings growth in the future. I believe companies aren't broken up because they are now so big, it is a logistical nightmare to do so, therefore those companies lobby the crap out of politicians to kick the can down the road. NVIDIA is nearly 3x the market cap of the next non-US firm...is that really the global competition you're looking for?

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Start the discussion.

Comment on this issue