The New Monopoly

Picture the “new monopoly man,” no longer a tuxedo’d little man with a mustache, maybe: Mark Zuckerburg water skiing in a hoodie, or Jeff Bezos, who, well, actually is not the furthest departure visually. Recently a judge declared Google a monopoly. The case may eventually end up in the supreme court, but for now we ... The New Monopoly

Picture the “new monopoly man,” no longer a tuxedo’d little man with a mustache, maybe: Mark Zuckerburg water skiing in a hoodie, or Jeff Bezos, who, well, actually is not the furthest departure visually.

Recently a judge declared Google a monopoly. The case may eventually end up in the supreme court, but for now we can opine on the potential effects. Immediately, it may mean that Google will need to divest from some of its assets like Android or Chrome, or that it be forced to share its technology with competitors. More long-term, one must remember that in 1984, when AT&T was split up, the reverberations on the telecommunications sector were vast, essentially paving the way for new companies, like Google.

Digital Robber Barons

Its difficult to imagine the internet in terms of a marketplace, and big tech companies as barons, but here we are. And through a lens of capitalism, a free market is said to only work with help from the government when said companies get too large. Much has changed since the days of the robber barons. Breaking up monopolies nowadays, or since the 70s, typically focuses more on low consumer prices and “efficiency”, rather than upending structural powers-that-be, arguably at the expense of consumer-end quality.

But all of this awakens in the common individual some funny questions: would this government body that is tasked with slicing up Google not have a lot more work to do with respect to the rest of the behemoths, when you think about it?

Take as examples the lack of purchasing ability on 4-letter domains by small companies that is in the 6-figure range, or the dominance of Instagram over the publishing landscape, or Amazon’s stranglehold on e-commerce, or Spotify’s control of music profits.

The monopoly man may be a motif of a monopoly-busting past in his physical form but the problems which existed then have only moved to the internet. If the masses are to reclaim their power to choose quality, the government may need to step in a lot more than this, like they did in the 20s.

The Republican-Democrat Debate

The argument against government action to stifle large businesses of course points to America’s innovative hand on the global stage. To stifle companies like Meta and Alphabet, the saying goes, would be to tie Uncle Sam’s hand that he uses to shake down global billionaires. To that I say, just look at Italy’s diverse wine industry. If the U.S. is a hero of innovation, it can be just as innovative in the form of a myriad of distributors and labels. We do not need “one big one” to dominate “smaller ones” in any sector. We must see the end of an age of massive corporations crushing everyday citizens quality of life.

Others may say there is credence to a history of accomplishing seemingly great things with power being focused in a few hands. Often the rebuttal of those who champion the ability to become a billionaire, not having large-scale movers and shakers would undercut <insert name of nation here>’s ability to accomplish great things. An example of this might be the golden era of Hollywood, when a handful of powerful studios were able to make big budget marvels. To this, I also disagree. The structures can be so today to accomplish great things, but it must be done right so that the power remains in the hands of the diligent and not the fattened calves.

I would add the example of Equatorial Guinea. The country, rich in oil resources, has one of the highest GDPs per capita in Africa, yet much of its population lives in poverty. President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, like Jeff Bezos, built the Sipopo Complex, located just outside the capital city of Malabo.

This is a reminder that it is the people, not the fattened calves, who are the rightful owners of the Sipopo Complexes of the world. And no matter how beautiful anything is, if it is not built to their credit, and to their ultimate benefit, it is a monstrosity.

This is an opinion piece, protected by the First Amendment.