Sorry, but in any other market for goods, being the main supplier, the biggest supply-side brokerage, the biggest exchange, and the biggest demand-side brokerage would be considered a blatant antitrust violation. Somehow, Google thinks they can get away with it in ads.

Not true. Look at the market for meat. There are lots of farmers, a small number (really three or four) processors (who appear to carve up the national market into non overlapping regions) and then a large number of retail customers.

To me that looks like an actual antitrust violation but the DoJ and FTC aren’t investigating bc they are obsessing about “big tech” uselessly and bringing bad cases they are going to lose!

If you want your regulators to actually do something about a lack of competition in the US economy (which they really should be doing!) there are a ton of markets worth investigating before they waste their time on this loser of a case.

FTC/DOJ not investigating doesn't mean this isn't a flagrant monopoly that would be prosecuted by a non-corrupt FTC/DOJ

I think you should really delve deeper into Stoller’s work because he covers all these different industries on a regular basis. I remember the meat story for some reason as well.

But, hey, maybe you’re right. Maybe it’s a bad case being done for show. Slap on the wrist, back to business as usual sort of deal.

So the meat market is generally pretty healthy with an oligopoly at one stage of the supply chain? That actually sounds a lot better than I thought the meat market was. "Carving up" like that is also not a big problem unless they collude to do it, and it's a natural thing for an oligopoly market to do: each of the companies focuses on the niche they are best-equipped to serve, keeping in mind that their competition can come in if they get too greedy.

It's also a lot better than the ads market is, with literally one dominant player that monopolizes all stages of the supply chain. This is literally what Standard Oil did, controlling the wells, the refineries, and the distribution railroads to shut out competitors.

If you look at financial exchanges, there's a very good reason for the brokers and exchange to all be different companies.

I was mostly venting into the void (sorry). I admittedly don't know the first thing about antitrust.

But to your earlier point: > On the other hand, the case that Google is going to make (and which I think is going to be really hard for the government to overcome) is this: we (google) give our product away for free and so do our competitors. What’s more, the cost of switching search engines is literally zero: just type Bing instead of Google.

Don't you think the counter argument to this, is, "No it's not that easy to just go to bing when you buy out the default search on rivals' browsers and operating systems and have the browser and mobile os with the world's largest market shares"? I get that the attack here is directly on search but it would be surprising to me if this wasn't part of the case. It seems insane to bring this case if there isn't a component focused on the browser and OS conflict of interest in search.

>> Don't you think the counter argument to this, is, "No it's not that easy to just go to bing when you buy out the default search on rivals' browsers and operating systems and have the browser and mobile os with the world's largest market shares"?

I’m looking for an analogy for you. The claim is that Google has monopolized the search market. It’s difficult to find actual monopolies in real life bc generally antitrust regulation works well (pace Lina Khan).

Think about a small city with two independent hospitals which then merge. That’s closer to a monopoly. There is a potential harm to consumers here bc traveling to go out of your local market for hospital services brings real costs: travel time, inconvenience, etc. That gives the newly merged hospitals power in the market. (Maybe not to the level of a monopoly, but likely substantial market power nonetheless.)

Applying something like this analogy to your counter argument: literally all the consumer has to do to avoid Google’s so-called monopolization of the search market is type the letters “b-i-n-g-.-c-o-m”. That’s entirely different from the hospital case.

It’s going to be very very very hard for the government to establish that google has anything like monopoly power here. Remember: making a better product and as a result having a large market share is not a crime. Google is going to say that since consumers can costlessly switch to a competitor who is also free, the reason they have 95% market share is bc their product is better.

I find it very hard to imagine that they will lose this case. It’s possible! But it seems really unlikely to me.

Yeah we really need to expand what counts as monopolization, and, you know, actually trust-bust like we did at the turn of the last century. It's getting ridiculous.