Have to respectfully disagree on the underlying assumptions of the article. The effort here to protect incumbent tech firms from any regulation or antitrust enforcement is amazing. The entire post is about how innovation is one of the goals that must be sought by antitrust and how competitive markets should be more innovative. Agree on that. However, when you touch on the Google subject, there is an intellectual exercise to distinguish "can be displaced" from "being displaced". You could extend this argument forever and argue that any monopolist can be potentially displaced - even though it never actually happens.
Great article. In my Macro 101 course students always associate free market with a monopolistic seller. I explain that free refers to free entry to supply someone's want. I know it is not as expensive as the breakdown of innovation here, but it is a start for students who have been told for decades that monopolies love free markets because they are free to charge a high price.
Have to respectfully disagree on the underlying assumptions of the article. The effort here to protect incumbent tech firms from any regulation or antitrust enforcement is amazing. The entire post is about how innovation is one of the goals that must be sought by antitrust and how competitive markets should be more innovative. Agree on that. However, when you touch on the Google subject, there is an intellectual exercise to distinguish "can be displaced" from "being displaced". You could extend this argument forever and argue that any monopolist can be potentially displaced - even though it never actually happens.
Great article. In my Macro 101 course students always associate free market with a monopolistic seller. I explain that free refers to free entry to supply someone's want. I know it is not as expensive as the breakdown of innovation here, but it is a start for students who have been told for decades that monopolies love free markets because they are free to charge a high price.