Power to control Internet business super giants

  Paul A. Samuelson has nothing new to say about the concept of monopolistic competition in imperfect competition. He still retains the original intent of the former economist EH Chamberlin: Many producers, but some of them have produced differentiated products, thus making themselves a monopolistically competitive enterprise.
  Later, N. Gregory Mankiw, a tenured professor at Harvard University, who has authored classic textbooks such as “Principles of Economics” and “Macroeconomics” that have an impact on the world, told students that monopoly is because a certain company produces less than mass production. The cost of the producer to produce the product, as well as to obtain the key resources required for production.
  From the perspective of the “economic man hypothesis”, if we can produce products at a cost lower than that of a large number of producers and obtain the key resources needed for production, it means that we can pursue the maximization of our own interests and utility.
  This “economic man hypothesis” with “material benefits” has been interpreted in fact in Internet monopolistic competition enterprises.
  Martin Moore, Director of the Center for Media, Communication and Power Studies at King’s College London, and Damian Tambini, Associate Professor at the London School of Economics, in their co-authored “Giant: Out of Control Internet Companies” It puts forward: “Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple have accumulated unimaginable powers in the digital world, and the existing regulators are powerless or not even aware of this. The power of this new digital monopoly is unprecedented. ,
  Has had an important impact on the economy, society, politics and personal life, and may intensify in the future.” These Internet business super giants have “unimaginable powers” including: digital hegemony, data abuse, challenges to antitrust laws, Threats to independent journalism, manipulation of ideas and dissemination, false news centers, possession of the economic power of attention, etc.
  Thinking carefully, the “power” possessed by the Internet business super giants completely exceeds the normal business scope of a commercial enterprise and has become a kind of quasi-national power.
  How to manage the borderless power growth of these super giants is not only a global problem, but also a new problem that we are also facing.
  From the perspective of growth and evolution, Internet business super giants first started with technological innovation or business model, and then in the process of becoming bigger and stronger, their strategy was completely shifted to “obtain key resources needed for production”-first, through equity investment and Mergers and acquisitions methods obtain direct key social and commercial resource elements; second, obtain indirect social and commercial key resources by absorbing a large number of key scientific and technological resources and human resources.
  In management, access to key production resources is called “moat behavior”. However, the implementation of the moat is essentially to create unbalanced competition with opponents, that is, unfair competition.
  After being familiar with unfair competition for a long time and getting more and more maximization of utility, the Internet super business giants have formed platform power, which in turn has formed platform power. Regrettably, Internet super business giants with this kind of power no longer focus on innovation on the one hand, and on the other hand use monopolistic means to squeeze the living space of newcomers.
  When an Internet business super giant not only has long-term and unchallable platform power, but also has countless elite employees in the company to provide it with power and wisdom, such an Internet business super giant will inevitably have a broad impact on society, and if It is conducive to the commercial order and the development of the entire social economy, and it is naturally happy to see it, but this is unlikely because it is inherently difficult to break away from the “economic man hypothesis.”