1 Comment

Even if consolidation/monopolies *might* be beneficial for national security reasons, it would only apply for certain industries/companies, with semiconductors/Intel being a prime example. And it's clear now how their dominance for years has not only *not* resulted in an improved national security position, but in fact quite the opposite, with them falling behind and scrambling to catch back up, and all the security vulnerabilities being found, one after another, in their processors.

And I fail to see how there's any potential advantage to companies like Amazon and Facebook having dominance. How is it helpful to national security to make a few companies, and specifically a handful of people within those companies, massively rich, especially considering they do all they can to pay as little taxes as possible? Sorry, but the idea of consolidation strengthening national security by providing giant corporations with the power to stand against those in other countries, even if it has its merits (which, again, it rarely, if ever, does) has been disproven by those very same corporations that argue the point. Maybe if they wanted their argument to be taken seriously, they shouldn't have spent the last few decades doing just about everything they can to show the opposite out of greed.

Expand full comment