A panel of economic experts and market observers cautioned bipartisan lawmakers seeking to potentially break up Amazon and other Big Tech firms that while they may have the best intentions, the consequences could be dire for all financial classes of Americans

On "Your World," host Neil Cavuto pointed to a rare bipartisan agreement among lawmakers that Big Tech has become too big.

The working group is led by progressive Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., conservative Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, and also includes Reps. David N. Cicilline, D-R.I., Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and Ken Buck, R-Colo.

Gooden told Fox News in part that the legislation the team is working on will "break up Big Tech's monopoly power to control what Americans see and say online and foster an online market that encourages innovation."

Cavuto compared the plans to the 1980s break up AT&T into the "Baby Bells", some of which later became Bell Atlantic – the precursor to Verizon.

In reaction, the panel – Scott Martin of Kingsview Asset Management, Erin Gibbs of Gibbs Wealth Management and Larry Glazer of Mayflower Advisors – also pointed to the forced breakup of the Rockefellers' Standard Oil Corporation in 1911, while pieces of it today can be found today in BP, ExxonMobil and Texaco/Chevron.

Martin suggested that Big Tech's prominence is not necessarily a nefarious thing, given that they reached success because of their own efforts:

"A long time ago, Jeff Bezos was selling books out of his garage and has grown this company into a behemoth because they're good at what they do. So if Amazon and Apple and Google are to blame for this, we're all to blame," he said.

"Because we use these companies as much as we do. Because they're so successful at what they do."

Martin later added that Big Tech is collectively a major political donor, especially to Democrats, and that it is headquartered in "Kamala Harris' backyard."

"Not only are they mismanaging a lot of the constituents' money, they're going to screw up possible big donations for the future. That's why … this is political theater, this is more grandstanding," he claimed. 

"Don't forget, antitrust laws were created to help the consumer with better products and lower prices. How does going what the government is trying to do to these four companies do that?"

Glazer added that America has a "love-hate relationship" with Big Tech, and that any tough regulations will be a benefit for U.S. rivals like China where such sectors are already heavily regulated.

He also noted that the presence of such firms in the S&P 500 and other indices have been a boon for local governments that invest in the market to fund infrastructure.


"We love the fact that our 401(k)s go up and municipal tensions go up to help pay for roads and schools. We love the fact that hospitals have more money in their pensions because of these technology firms and they've brought our costs down," Glzaer said.

"On the other hand, we hate them because we're jealous. They make so much money, they're so successful and so innovative happened they don't pay enough in taxes and need more regulations. But at the end of the day, it's the law of unintended consequences. You don't want to kill the S&P 500 because of political theater and grandstanding, and wipe out the little guy's 401(k)."