It’s Time For The Government To Break-Up Google
“I am certain you know that I am in favor of competition. So any type of monopoly, I would not be in favor of…” — Milton Friedman
When one company dominates the free market to such an extent that it creates a monopoly, consumers will benefit if that company is broken up by the government. That’s how you keep companies from becoming “too big to fail” and it also insures that there’s enough competition so that one company can’t dominate the market and become as unresponsive to consumers as the government often turns out to be.
That brings us to Google.
A handful of the biggest US states has started antitrust investigations into Google, adding to the mounting regulatory pressure on the search company as federal authorities move closer to a full-blown inquiry of their own.
Attorneys-general in California, New York and Ohio have all recently begun reviews of the potential threat to online competition from Google’s search dominance, according to people familiar with the investigations. The moves come in the wake of an investigation launched last year by the Texas attorney-general’s office, which became the first regulator in the US to weigh in.
Google accounts for “72.17 percent of all U.S. searches.” Their next biggest competitor gets 14.43% of searches and Google is actually growing faster than its competition.
In other words, is Google a monopoly? Yes. Would consumers be better off if Google were broken into multiple companies that have to compete with each other? You bet.
Google is a monopoly and hopefully Congress will ignore all the money and influence Google has, do its job, and break Google up into multiple companies.
1) Our own government chides those of us who pay taxes for being greedy because we don’t want to give the politicians even more of our money to do things...Read More
Bill Clinton wants the government to “correct” what you say on the Internet, folks. Should the government listen to the
Oh, Net Neutrality sure sounds like a great idea. Why, Net Neutrality supporters only want what’s best for “the people,”