| ▲ | Aerroon 2 days ago | |
>they suddenly remember who their campaign contributors are, and can then create reasons to avoid actually solving any of these problems. There are very real concerns when you break up a company though. Rockefeller's wealth shot up a lot when Standard Oil was broken up. That could easily make a politician that's "politician out to get the big companies" into "politician making billionaires richer." | ||
| ▲ | vintermann a day ago | parent | next [-] | |
> Rockefeller's wealth shot up a lot when Standard Oil was broken up. Most owners (weighted by share) do NOT seem to want their big monopolies broken up, despite the track record of Standard Oil. | ||
| ▲ | tombert 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |
Tough to say for sure, but I think it's probably still better to have more billionaires if there's more competition. I wasn't around during the breakup, but my parents told me that phone service got considerably better and cheaper after the AT&T breakup, which makes enough sense to me: if a consumer can drop you for someone else, you have a reason to try and compete on service and/or price. | ||