This is a valuable initial contribution to what I hope is an informative and exciting debate. Big "like" here. It's never easy to be the first one into the pool.

That said, I think that the article commits the "besetting sin" of the Left in general: treating the propositions that it needs to PROVE as if they were assumptions upon which any right-minded person would want to act, no proof required, and with at least the implication that anyone who disagrees is just wrong-headed or objecting in bad faith.

More anti-trust enforcement is something that I perennially support, and I applauded many of the actions of the Biden Administration. It's an ongoing frustration that these, like so many accomplishments of the Administration, have gone practically unreported. But anti-trust enforcement should continue to be based on negative impact on the consumer, not on size alone. The Leftist mantra that Big is Bad is debatable on its face, and should have to be proven on a case-by-case basis.

Another example: the proposition quoted approvingly that "One or another of Google’s platforms today stands between you and your parents, between you and your children, and between you and your friends " etc. I'm open to evidence of that, but from where I sit, Google stands between me and nothing and nobody. It has -- through its own investment and ideas -- created NEW platforms through which I can make all those connections, and I do use them a lot because they're so much more convenient than the old ways, but the old ways are still available. Some people even insist on using those old ways and do; most of us consider those people to be cranks, more or less. If any firm is guilty of the charges made here it's more Apple in my view, with their closed systems and insistence on customer compliance, but they're a darling of the Left, and always seem to be exempted from this kind of "analysis".

I'm all for tax reform, and a simple, strongly progressive tax code with few loopholes. Personally, I think that we should go back to the tax rates of the Eisenhower Administration wholesale (adjusted for inflation) and revise from there as needed. But I'll need to see proof for the frequent and (as presented) evidence-free refrain that "Amazon pays no taxes". When I see that evidence, I'll still need to see whether, if true, Amazon is practicing criminal tax evasion, or perfectly legal tax avoidance, i.e., taking full advantage of the incentives that the government itself has provided. The former should result in arrests and indictments; the latter is a rational response to the way the system is designed, and the attacks are directed at the wrong entity, even if made in good faith.

And any criticism of the "excesses" of Amazon in particular should take into account the benefits that accrue to society from the fact that Amazon exists. Personally, I'm not at all disturbed that small retailers who used to be able to exploit market limitations to make money on high prices and lousy service have had to clean up their acts or go out of business when faced with good prices and reliable service. We're going to memory-hole the covid pandemic the way our grandparents did the 1919 influenza pandemic; that seems unfortunately to be human nature. Before we do, though, let me remind everyone one more time what a lifesaver having Amazon was during that time for thousands, and maybe millions, of people. And while we may feel that we're now finished with pandemics, I doubt that pandemics are finished with us.

I'd get into "stakeholder capitalism", but I think that I've gone on long enough for now. This is a serious subject, and I'm confident that there will be other opportunities to consider it together.