I think most people would probably define it along the lines of a legal entity formed under state law that is separate and distinct from its owners, known as shareholders. It has the ability to own property, enter into contracts, sue or be sued, and conduct business in its own name. Corporations provide limited liability protection, …
But in such instances, the US government has taken steps to encourage competition, such as the formation of United Launch Alliance, or later subsidies to SpaceX. Or considerable regulation such as utilities.
Preach, baby! But I’m not seeing what is gonna meaningfully change that in my lifetime.
This is an extremely common - and I think unfortunate - attitude.
Do most people even think about it with amoral calculation? Unless Amazon (et al.) are literally paying them off, you would think their attitude would be, opposing union efforts? Illegally exploiting users’ data? Straight-up enshittification? Fuck them (including active love from the regulators), and give them an extra boot in the ass for me when they crumble.
I think most people don’t think at all. Their purchases are made in the manner most immediately convenient to them, whether that’s price, location, response time, whatever. Likewise product selection is entirely on the basis of how the product satisfies their consumer desire. Flavor, price, quality, cachet, whatever.
100% of everything else in the economic enterprise upstream of goods in hand is like the underwater part of the iceberg: Out of sight and utterly out of mind. Some combo of “Not my problem” and “I have zero influence, so why bother knowing or caring?” seems to be the overwhelming sentiment(s) about all the consequences and externalities.
In terms of consumerism I have often said that “You don’t get the service you deserve. You get the service you demand.” The same logic an be applied to products, and to politics.
Collectively elevating price and convenience above all else means that’s what we all get: price and convenience and nearly nothing else.
And going from this comment, and back to the OP, let’s talk about Amazon again for a minute.
When I had the choice I bought from local stores. Amazon was just for a few books my local Borders, Barnes and Noble, or local bookstores flat out didn’t carry, due to the focus on bestsellers. I also got my TT-RPGs (and some novels) from my local gaming store. But as Amazon grew into a behemoth, I flat out lost those options. None chain (or specialty) bookstores were pushed out, then the bigger chains to the point where I -think- we still have one B&N in a city of about 700k in the metro area.
For other things, like kitchenware, linens, CDs/DVS etc - I used to go to local stores first, then small chains even if the prices were higher. They went long before Covid. After that, it was chains (often Bed Bath and Beyond) or Best Buy for electronics, and even they are gone or tossing their inventory if it isn’t the highest turnover / highest profit options.
So increasingly, because Amazon and Walmart (for local presence) have gotten so big, the other options were driven out of the market because we wanted easy options, and price does matter. I don’t blame consumers alone for the problem - because the big chains get to use their weight (ever growing) to demand products at prices that anything smaller absolutely cannot do. Which takes us right back to “Should corporations be prevented from getting to big” - if they are allowed to, the rules of capitalism (whole other thread on that though) means that competition is going to be eliminated. You get near or complete monopolies, followed by critical enshitification, exploitation, and really no easy way to go back since there isn’t much left in field to take over the void.
I think many benefits would result if more people thought of their consumption as having a moral component. And no, I am not claiming to be anywhere near perfect in that regard.
Nearly everything about humanity would be better if people thought more thoroughly about the direct and semi-direct consequences of all their actions.
We’re not built that way, and the recent evidence is that it’s simply too hard for a large enough fraction of humanity that the rest of us can’t even exert meaningful pressure towards having nice things.
That’s a broad and very non-specific statement. Even the OP didn’t state a clear reason why he thought corporations should be broken up, just that they were ‘too big’.
Why am I morally bad for shopping at Amazon? Where is the breakover? When people shop for cars, they would go to different lots to get the best price. And even when they did decide on a lot, they further negotiated the price down. It’s competitive shopping - people have always done it. That’s why Whole Foods is call ‘whole paycheck’ and some people refuse to shop there.
Picking on people who shop at Amazon is low hanging fruit. If one drives a vehicle with an internal combustion engine and shops at Amazon, polluting is greater of the two evils, morally speaking.
We know which companies donate massive sums to pervert the democratic process, we know who lobbies, we know how much the CEO makes in comparison with their other employees.
Since the needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few the above are concrete criteria for size and it’s relevant conflict with the common good.