[awshepard]

Often, at least in the US, and perhaps other places as well, money is a pretty strong proxy for power, and so concentrating wealth can end up concentrating power as well. I can appreciate the semantic difference between the two, and conceptually agree that breaking up companies _should_ distribute power. But I'm wondering about the long-term implications/success rate of breakups?

Antitrust action against Microsoft has been argued to have led to the oligopolistic state of affairs today [1].

The break up of AT&T/Bell System worked in the short term, but the market has re-consolidated into a few big TelCo players.

And that's just at the company level. I'd be interested as well whether the increased wealth/increased concentration of wealth among former owners also leads to (in the long term) increased regulatory capture or other side effects spearheaded by those individuals with their increased war chest.

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/6/17827042/antitrust-1990s-m...

[tabtab]

Re: The break up of AT&T/Bell System worked in the short term, but the market has re-consolidated into a few big TelCo players.

Because the gov't approved of too many mergers.

(Having too few practical TelCo choices has really sucked for our family from a consumer standpoint.)

[mikelyons]

Money _is_ purchasing power, and almost everyone in power today can be bought.