It's called taxes, but it's blasphemy to even consider it. I mean, the high-priests at Wall Street still aren't making enough!

This idea somewhat pre-empts the possibility of achieving certain economies of scale. If a large company can achieve great economies of scale and pass that on to a consumer, who benefits from the onerous regulation that costs the tax payer money to enforce as well as money to pay for the increased cost of the good?

Anti-trust in the U.S. has not been super strongly enforced in recent decades (perhaps since the Ma Bell breakup and Glass Steagall before it was repealed?). But if the consumer is not being harmed, why get in the way of a company that has truly earned market dominance?

The corrupting factor of a company being too large and effectively a vertical monopoly has to be weighed against economies of scale. At a certain point new competitors stop existing, and the company can begin milking consumers or users and spending to lock in their position. Microsoft was hit by this, though the tactics have changed (the Network Effect being a natural phenomena but still containing the same properties). I could see them for instance being forced to open their APIs to allow for interoperable products to be developed, or their data troves being broken up.

Regardless of whether or not tech companies should be regulated, I think the nature of tech might make it way, way easier said than done and far more difficult than breaking up Ma Bell or Standard Oil. You mentioned opening API's or breaking up data. I think 1) that is also easier said than done and 2) regulating bodies/congress/public not knowing what an API is speaks to a problem of tech companies potentially being a touch too far removed (in terms of understanding of how they work) for effective regulation

Microsoft had to have a panel assigned with full access to microsoft source code and systems for a few years, and also was required to share their APIs with third parties. There are elements of the justice system with the expertise to handle it. You'd think the companies would actually want people who know what an API is if they're going through litigation, because a lawyer without context can still win a lot of arguments about harm the company is doing, technical implementation details be damned.

> But if the consumer is not being harmed, why get in the way of a company that has truly earned market dominance?

Presumably the anti-trust regulation exists to determine the consumer harm.

The consumer is harmed by all the services and goods that never appear; because it's clear newcomers who looked like competition would be crushed if they tried, or were acquired instead, early. All the dogs that never barked.

I believe it does, but the commenter said size should be the determining factor. I disagreed with that area, but harm to consumer should absolutely be regulated by anti-trust

It's hard to determine consumer harm. For example Walmart is often considered as beneficial to the consumer because of price but you could also argue that harm is done by limiting choice and innovation.

You're conflating the size of the company with how much stuff they produce. Relatively small companies can still produce at massive scales.

I think I like the spirit of your idea but I'm not so sure about the execution. What is the certain size? Who determines that? Will it be updated frequently enough to handle changing times / technology trends?

When a founder/CEO can save [1]$45 billion USD into a tax haven LLC, I think thats big enough. Step down and let another innovator get rich.

[1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/business/dealbook/how-...

So you want to determine whether or not we break up a company based on whether or not the founder or CEO is making too much money? That seems like a great way to remove economic incentives from starting businesses.

No idea :-). A progressive tax system for companies would possibly do the trick.