Is It Time To Break Up Big Tech?

Matt Stoller and Geoffrey A. Manne debate antitrust law and Big Tech.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Is It Time To Break Up Big Tech?

HD Video Download

Economic researchers Matt Stoller and Geoffrey A. Manne debate the resolution, "The U.S. government should break up large technology companies like Amazon, Meta, and Google to protect workers, suppliers, consumers, and democratic institutions."

Arguing in favor of the resolution is Stoller, the director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project and the author of Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy.

Taking the negative is Manne, the president and founder of the International Center for Law & Economics.

The debate is moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

• Post Production: John Osterhoudt

Comments

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

No

[TJJ2000]

No. But it is time to break-up the Big [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire Co.
...or at the least dis-arm them.

[Alberto Balsalm]

Is it time to break up the Democrat/Republican Duopoly? How about we get some leaders that aren't intellectually bankrupt and morally corrupt.

[TJJ2000]

[Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] *is* the intellectually bankrupt & moral corruption point-of-sale.

It is literally 'Guns' will make sh*t for me ideology.
And only a leftard can explain how that figures out to be sustainable and moral.
With an endless list of BS excuses really - instead of any explanation.

[MWAocdoc]

"Is It Time To Break Up Big Tech?"

No. See? I didn't even have to listen to the "debate" to know that!

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Economic researchers huh? Sounds like a pretty dismal job. I'm guessing that a guy who remembers how to solder a copper pipe adds more value to humanity. But do carry on.

[JFree]

No need to break up Big Tech. They are going to have the same accounting frauds as Enron soon enough. And their notions of AI and AGI will prove to obliterate their businesses. THAT is what will eliminate the bubble.

What we're going to need is the ability to put them in prison (and if necessary get forensic accountants to strengthen the fraud and embezzlement laws) when their frauds become unveiled.

[JFree]

The coercion re Big Tech arises from 401k plans. There is $12 trillion in 401k plans with roughly 500 billion added every year. That is invested in index funds - notaby the SP500. Unlike old-fashioned pension plans, there is no price discovery. No competition between one investment style and a different one or one manager and another. No notion of whether stock prices even reflect their value as an investment. No decision making about whether company A is more/less deserving of investment than company B.

There is always an intermediary between savings and investment. 401k plans (and FICA taxes during the era of trust funds) are the savings side - but BOTH are govt savings plans. As is the notion of reforming SS by privatizing it (ie making it look like 401k plans). Index funds however break the pricing connection between savings and investment. The money saved goes into those index components with an absolutely rigid allocation. There is no decision to invest in Nvidia v Visa v Pfizer v McDonalds. 401k savings go to all in a passive non-thinking bid for those 4 of 7.13%/1.09%/0.23%/0.36% .

No one can choose to NOT invest in Big Tech unless they forgo saving via a 401k. The Top10 concentration in the US market is, by far, the highest in US history. As recently as 2014, the biggest10 had 16% concentration. Dating back to the beginning of 'public' companies it was never higher than 30% and then only for a year or so. Currently in 2025 it is 38%. There is no 'market' solution when every paycheck 38% of people's 401k contributions will get swept into the Mag7/BigTech. That can only change when everyone becomes unemployed and ceases to contribute to a 401k.

[JFree]

And since there is no reaction to this. The grifters in Big Tech and VC's KNOW this passive bid and its effect. It is why they are using media releases to create the revenue circles around AI. Where Altman/OpenAi (a total grifter) promises to spend trillions (that he doesn't have) on AI with this company and that company for the sole purpose of goosing the stock prices of those BigTech companies so that their insiders can cash out more and more options at higher prices.

It is also why VC's have been dead with IPO's for the last dozen years - because IPO's mostly 'spread assets' within a particular sector - and VC's want tech at least highly highly concentrated so they can use stock options as money. That is very different from the dotcom bubble where all those new IPO sock puppets dissipated the narrative.

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

It's time to break up lots of near monopolies on power and regain our government from the ruling elites.

AIPAC should be required to register as a foreign lobbying group like every other lobbying groups that focuses on lobbying for a foreign government. It should not matter if 100% of the members are citizens of the United States, although I wonder how many members are also citizens of Israel.

Campaign Finance should, not reward the incumbent over the challenger, Ballot access laws should not favor the establishment parties and punish third parties. There should be term limits to keep a steady amount of turnover and less entrenched corrupt lifetime members and more naive new comers who have not been corrupted by power yet.

We should reduce the federal government by over 75%, we should decrease the military spending by over 50%. We should pass protect the guard bills in all 50 states requiring a formal declaration of way passed by congress for any guard members become involved in any foreign conflict.

Several large companies should be broken up to return innovation rather than market protectionism. Enough that it keeps the other corporation honest.

None of this is universal as both debaters pretend. It must be far more targeted and limited than Matt believes, but Jeffery is wrong in that it does need to happen.