[bungeonsBaggins]

> On the other side we see politicians - bureaucrats that never built anything in their lives. Parasites living off our work. Greedier and greedier every year they forcefully confiscate more and more of our sweat and blood while "giving" us crappier and crappier services in exchange.

Slow down there, John Galt.

How is discouraging monopolistic practices going to line the pockets of these parasitic bureaucrats? If Apple has enough control of the marketplace that nobody can meaningfully compete with them, do you think that's better or worse for "us"?

[nickpp]

> How is discouraging monopolistic practices going to line the pockets

Three easy ways come to mind:

1) Play the stock market using the insider info on decisions and regulations politicians know well in advance.

2) Regulations and laws once enacted have to be implemented. So many compliance chief or consultant positions suddenly opening up at multinational corporations.

3) Cheap populism moves work wonders on economically-ignorant voters. "I smacked Apple/Microsoft/Google" guarantees years of sucking from the public teat

The bitter irony is that the only effective way to deal with monopolies is though free market competition. And regulation is the polar opposite of that: regulation discourages startups and favors the incumbents.

So, yes, heavily regulated markets guarantee less competition which is worse for "us".

[bungeonsBaggins]

So you think that if you wanted to start a business to compete with Apple in any of the spaces talked about in this lawsuit (hardware, web browsing, messaging etc) your greatest challenge to competing in that market would be regulation? Not Apple?