Sign up  |  Log in

Might be warming up to Elizabeth Warren..... change my mind : -)

She wants to break up big tech and the way she wants to go about it sound pragmatic and fair.  I like this platform because, unlike many of the other wacky platforms out there, this one is something that is not some wild fantasy and would make a real difference.

On a side note, I may just decide to ignore all “wacky” platforms that will never have legs, at least in the near term.  Green new deal and ubi come to mind.  Tuning outfrown….. what else you got?

"But I don't think of you"..... Howard Roark

I agree that a breakup of Big Tech may be in order.  I’ve pointed out a myriad of times in the past that this period of history rhymes very strongly with the 1920’s (uber wealth dispersion, monopolies, tier politics, union busting,extended cycle) that gave way to the 1930/40’s (race issues, fears of Russian propaganda, immigrants, break up of monopolies, employee empowerment, high marginal tax rates).  But in this era the Rockerfellers are the Bezos’s.  Tech breakup could be useful but may be more of a case of treating symptoms and further action is likely required.

Problem with E Warren is that a few sound bites aside the rest of her platform is largely socialist derived garbage and her heavy play into identity politics and the subsequent Pocahontas debacle have probably DQ’d her from being a good candidate.  I really fear what a full platform of EW policies would look like.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

^^^

Glad you chimed in. *respect* to your breadth of knowledge.

Do you think a republican would put tech break up in their platform or do we have to get it from the Democrats?

"But I don't think of you"..... Howard Roark

Warren is no joke, she reminds me a bit of Bill Clinton because she’s smart and a bit of wind bag on policy issues.  Clinton could speak in front of the Heart Association and declare he will end all cigarette smoking, and the next day appear in front of North Carolina tobacco farmers declare his undying love of tobacco and promise subsidies.  Warren’s Pocahontas debacle suggests to me the same ruthless ambition as Clinton, she will do or say anything to get what she wants.  To me this means that  after winning the nomination, she will tack to the center to win the presidency.

I have a really tough time believing she has DQ’d herself with Pocahontas nonsense.  People don’t care that much except the pundit class, trump and republican operatives. If she wins primary, she will running against a guy who lied about bone spurs to get out of vietnam, lies to magazines to inflate his wealth, lies to tax authority to pay less tax, is at any given time being sued by 10 people, shags porn stars bare back but is also anti abortion or whatever… It’s a different world today, I just don’t think one act of lousy/manipulative judgement will sink Warren.  

I think the whole “Pocahontas” thing feels like a misunderstanding of Warren’s intentions or at worst just a tacky mistake which all candiates are sure to slip up and make from time to time.  The fact that one poorly thought out statement is still being treated like a scandal that means anything tangible is just lame.  

"But I don't think of you"..... Howard Roark

KMeriwetherD wrote:
Do you think a republican would put tech break up in their platform?

Bannon ran Trump/Breitbart on mentions of such. But conservatives are conditioned to think breaking up oligopic structures is “socialism.” Besides, if the player is deemed effective they are destroyed by said structures. Warren not suffering media/tech defamation is how we know she is not legit, or deemed no threat.

Black Swan wrote:

Tech breakup could be useful but may be more of a case of treating symptoms and further action is likely required.

Problem with E Warren is that a few sound bites aside the rest of her platform is largely socialist derived garbage and her heavy play into identity politics and the subsequent Pocahontas debacle have probably DQ’d her from being a good candidate.  I really fear what a full platform of EW policies would look like.

This. You should look at her “Accountable Capitalism Act” which is simultaneously promising, and terrifying. It addresses deeper problems than a simple break up would, yet also seems to be a power grab for “her people.”

klobuchar FTW

"You want a quote? Haven’t I written enough already???"

RIP

Lol, another socialists that want to break up companies with virtually 0 barriers to entry. Hey, want to write better search engine? Go ahead. Want open online market place? Go ahead. 

There is a very strong fight from both far right and far left against intellectualism and automation. Warren just jumped on this band wagon. It is not a far fetch to say, that their underlying principle is that not only capital, but intelligence should be rationed. 

Tulsi Gabbard showed her resilience last night despite CNN’s blatant questions trying to smear her image.

Question from the audience: why were you skeptical Assad used chemical weapons?

Gabbard: I served a war in Iraq, a war that was based on lies and launched without evidence. It is my duty to exercise skepticism before starting a new war.

Dana Bash (follow up question to Gabbard’s response as to why she was skeptical Assad used chemical weapons): “The defense department, the UN agrees, the Assad regime use chemical weapons against its people. As president would you trust the conclusion of your own government.

Gabbard: Like i just said, we have in our recent past, a situation where our own govt told lies to the American people and the UN for that matter. So as president it is our responsibility to exercise due diligence, get the evidence, etc.

Here’s the big problem though - it looks as if everyone has their favorites as opposition against trump. They may likely tear each other apart trying to win the Democratic candidacy and go into battle already bruised. I can say this with the utmost certainty, if the DNC nominates EW, trump will easily win the 2020 election.

Trump easily wins anyway, bar Biden running. Sanders will give him a run for his money, but will still lose

She lost the day she released her DNA records or whatever. Imagine how Trump would get under her skin when they actually go to campaign. 

Plus her being white,elite looking and democrat are somehow gonna resonate with the whole Hillary Image which didn’t go well last time in the elections.

Who knows if Republicans would support a breakup or not, my instincts say probably not.  I just don’t know if EW is the right person for the job.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

comp_sci_kid wrote:

Lol, another socialists that want to break up companies with virtually 0 barriers to entry. Hey, want to write better search engine? Go ahead. Want open online market place? Go ahead. 

There is a very strong fight from both far right and far left against intellectualism and automation. Warren just jumped on this band wagon. It is not a far fetch to say, that their underlying principle is that not only capital, but intelligence should be rationed. 

Saying barriers to entry are all that matters is pretty ignorant of the basic premises of antitrust and monopolies.  Monopolies don’t require regulatory barriers to entry.  Monopolies are often formed through acquisitions (FB/INSTA?) which is why we have antitrust review in the first place.  But even if you take that stance there are major barriers to entry when you’re facing a dominant incumbent with outsized market control and proprietary data advantages.  Like saying Standard Oil / American Tobacco didn’t have a monopoly because you could just go out and start a better oil / tobacco company.

To your own point it seems obvious that if there were no barriers to entry and no monopolistic behavior you should see significant numbers of new entrants into the field but when was the last time one of the tech majors had to contend with a new entrant into their core domain.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

And Then I Was Right wrote:

KMeriwetherD wrote:
Do you think a republican would put tech break up in their platform?

Bannon ran Trump/Breitbart on mentions of such. But conservatives are conditioned to think breaking up oligopic structures is “socialism.” Besides, if the player is deemed effective they are destroyed by said structures. Warren not suffering media/tech defamation is how we know she is not legit, or deemed no threat.

Actually a really good point.  Could you imagine the media hell that would descend on Warren if she posed a legitimate threat to big tech / media?

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Black Swan wrote:

comp_sci_kid wrote:

Lol, another socialists that want to break up companies with virtually 0 barriers to entry. Hey, want to write better search engine? Go ahead. Want open online market place? Go ahead. 

There is a very strong fight from both far right and far left against intellectualism and automation. Warren just jumped on this band wagon. It is not a far fetch to say, that their underlying principle is that not only capital, but intelligence should be rationed. 

Saying barriers to entry are all that matters is pretty ignorant of the basic premises of antitrust and monopolies.  Monopolies don’t require regulatory barriers to entry.  Monopolies are often formed through acquisitions (FB/INSTA?) which is why we have antitrust review in the first place.  But even if you take that stance there are major barriers to entry when you’re facing a dominant incumbent with outsized market control and proprietary data advantages.  Like saying Standard Oil / American Tobacco didn’t have a monopoly because you could just go out and start a better oil / tobacco company.

To your own point it seems obvious that if there were no barriers to entry and no monopolistic behavior you should see significant numbers of new entrants into the field but when was the last time one of the tech majors had to contend with a new entrant into their core domain.

you are mistaken competitive advantage to barrier to entry. Do you need a reminder how google or amazon came about? Also there are no major competitors, because google just buys them up. 

Tobaco and Oil has massive regulations vs i can start new search engine tomorrow. I dont think you understand how to develop software or we wouldnt be having this discussion

Yeah, liberal political machine is already showing its true colors like last cycle when they pushed out Bernie.  

A reasonable Trump alternative Schultz runs but not as part of their machine, they smear him.

Gabbard questions the grounds for adding to a conflict, getting trashed.

Omar asks if we should examine the Israel relationship, it’s deemed racist by the lobbyists because she’s Muslim.

Looks like the Dem’s are setting up to back another entrenched party vet.  The Democratic primaries are going to be a first rate sh*t show and I’m convinced whoever survives will be the person best optimized to survive that internal conflict rather than optimized to take on Trump.  Only thing I’m sure of is that this cycle looks like it’s going to be an interesting one.

——-

The EW Pocahontas debacle isn’t just bad because of what happened in the past, it’s bad because it opens up this whole white privilege attack angle from SJW’s within the party within identity politics which has traditionally been Warren’s base.  They’ve never struck me as a reasonable / forgiving lot.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

So, just want to give you an example. I can write web crawler, out it on aws lambda, have immediate access to 1000 compute engines, then cache results in  dynamo DB, accessing gigabytes of storage. 

Please stop repeating propaganda that you hear on news and stop comparing any other industry to tech industry. In tech 1 smart person can literally do everything (please see minecraft)

comp_sci_kid wrote:

Black Swan wrote:

comp_sci_kid wrote:

Lol, another socialists that want to break up companies with virtually 0 barriers to entry. Hey, want to write better search engine? Go ahead. Want open online market place? Go ahead. 

There is a very strong fight from both far right and far left against intellectualism and automation. Warren just jumped on this band wagon. It is not a far fetch to say, that their underlying principle is that not only capital, but intelligence should be rationed. 

Saying barriers to entry are all that matters is pretty ignorant of the basic premises of antitrust and monopolies.  Monopolies don’t require regulatory barriers to entry.  Monopolies are often formed through acquisitions (FB/INSTA?) which is why we have antitrust review in the first place.  But even if you take that stance there are major barriers to entry when you’re facing a dominant incumbent with outsized market control and proprietary data advantages.  Like saying Standard Oil / American Tobacco didn’t have a monopoly because you could just go out and start a better oil / tobacco company.

To your own point it seems obvious that if there were no barriers to entry and no monopolistic behavior you should see significant numbers of new entrants into the field but when was the last time one of the tech majors had to contend with a new entrant into their core domain.

you are mistaken competitive advantage to barrier to entry. Do you need a reminder how google or amazon came about? Also there are no major competitors, because google just buys them up. 

Tobaco and Oil has massive regulations vs i can start new search engine tomorrow. I dont think you understand how to develop software or we wouldnt be having this discussion

A competitive advantage is actually a clearly defined barrier to entry, particularly when it comes from scale.  In fact a competitive advantage based on scale and incumbency is the primary legal grounds for antitrust action.  And yes, buying up major competitors is actually the 101 of how monopolies are formed and maintained, hence the whole existence of DOJ antitrust review and the argument for DOJ driven breakup.  You literally just described the grounds for a monopoly and are showing your total lack of understanding monopoly law and economics.  We get it, you write code, but it’s obvious you have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to the DOJ’s antitrust law and history around it.  Monopolies have been broken up on grounds ranging from intellectual property advantages (“you are mistaken competitive advantage to barrier to entry”) to dominance from M&A (“Also there are no major competitors, because google just buys them up.”) and you seem to be confusing barriers to entry as some sole metric with consumer protection and open competition which are really the true end aim of anti-trust and are holistically based.  To be clear, we’re talking about an established legal framework here that I think you should probably do some research on.

I don’t think you understand anything about monopolies or else we wouldn’t be having this discussion (“I dont think you understand how to develop software or we wouldnt be having this discussion”).  As pointed out above, your complete ignorance on the topic of anti-trust is showing.  The fact that you didn’t even get the Standard Oil or American Tobacco references is hysterical as they were the first cases that anti-trust law was built on (don’t exist today - which you seemed to have missed) and weren’t regulated then (nullifying your attempt at a counterpoint). 

Lol, what a ridiculous conversation.  People should at least attempt to educate themselves on a topic before getting snarky.  Stay in your lane bro.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

I just told you, i can scalecompute power immiediatly. You have no idea what you are talking about. Please understand the difference brtween scaling compute power and oil production.

comp_sci_kid wrote:

I just told you, i can scalecompute power immiediatly. You have no idea what you are talking about. Please understand the difference brtween scaling compute power and oil production.

Again, you’re clinging to repeating your simplistic point and completely ignoring anti-trust which you obviously have zero knowledge of.  Nobody’s arguing that somebody can write code and scale it easily, it’s literally a non-point.  But that’s not what’s relevant from an anti-trust perspective.  Laughably you made the case for me in your rush to create an argument owing to your own ignorance.  You gleefully cited the competitive advantages formed from incumbency and IP as well as the fact that they are buying up all of their competitors not realizing you just described a monopoly under current US law (points which you still haven’t addressed with a response) then made some idiotic point about Standard Oil like it was a current company, not even getting the precedent.  LMAO.  Here’s an article to help you out:

https://www.wired.com/story/tim-wu-says-us-must-enforce-antitrust-laws/

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

CSK’s argument seems to be that GOOG is the largest search company because it is the smartest, since computing power is democratized? Same for AMZN? And, we shouldn’t break them up because the would be rationing the intelligence of the smartest people who founded these companies? That is a little ridiculous. The challenge in breaking up GOOG or AMZN would be to limit their influence while maintaining their social utility as much as possible. 

I am not convinced it is time to break them up yet, though.

you basically need to come from a target school pedigree/work at prestigious firm in the US/have a really good connection.

- AF hivemind

brain_wash_your_face wrote:

CSK’s argument seems to be that GOOG is the largest search company because it is the smartest, since computing power is democratized? Same for AMZN? And, we shouldn’t break them up because the would be rationing the intelligence of the smartest people who founded these companies? That is a little ridiculous. The challenge in breaking up GOOG or AMZN would be to limit their influence while maintaining their social utility as much as possible. 

I am not convinced it is time to break them up yet, though.

And that’s fair, I’m not saying breakup is a foregone conclusion or necessity (although personally I lean that way) but it at least needs to be an intelligent discussion that actually takes anti-trust law and history into account and not just screaming “Scalability” like knowing how to build software gives you an ironical monopoly on understanding anti-trust law and economics despite having zero comprehension of anti-trust history.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Black Swan wrote:

comp_sci_kid wrote:

I just told you, i can scalecompute power immiediatly. You have no idea what you are talking about. Please understand the difference brtween scaling compute power and oil production.

Again, you’re clinging to repeating your simplistic point and completely ignoring anti-trust which you obviously have zero knowledge of.  Nobody’s arguing that somebody can write code and scale it easily, it’s literally a non-point.  But that’s not what’s relevant from an anti-trust perspective.  Laughably you made the case for me in your rush to create an argument owing to your own ignorance.  You gleefully cited the competitive advantages formed from incumbency and IP as well as the fact that they are buying up all of their competitors not realizing you just described a monopoly under current US law (points which you still haven’t addressed with a response) then made some idiotic point about Standard Oil like it was a current company, not even getting the precedent.  LMAO.  Here’s an article to help you out:

https://www.wired.com/story/tim-wu-says-us-must-enforce-antitrust-laws/

So, let me get that straight, you are arguing that law should be applied not because it does or doesn’t make sense, but because from legal point of view, it is applicable? Gotcha, then i agree, a lot of tech can technically fall under definition of monopoly, which is archaic, but again, it takes years for goverment to catch-up to ideas, like for example that Tobacco is harmful ;)

Dont try to throw fastball at 65mph and say law says it is 100mph. Eventually physics will catch on

Nice try, but you’re still not getting it, not debating my points and clearly don’t understand the how’s and why’s of anti-trust and poorly trying to rationalize it based on your overly simplistic point.  Nobody is claiming those laws are archaic or don’t make sense, I’m saying you just have no idea what you’re talking about when it comes to anti-trust.  Back to the code cave!

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

It sounds like some of the people here have over-inflated egos.

Being able to compete with Google is laughable. The breadth of their information makes them impossible to beat, and the idea that they are a search engine is so out of date it’s hard to take your arguments seriously.

Google/Amazon are able to influence industries just by mentioning that they might get involved with them. They have access to information that their competitors don’t, because Kroger isn’t involved with the navigation/maps game, because CVS doesn’t have the worlds biggest supply chain.
 

And this isn’t really a socialist policy either, unless you consider The Economist as a uber-left socialist magazine.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/01/18/how-to-tame-the-tech-titans

Schopenhauer wrote:

Being able to compete with Google is laughable. The breadth of their information makes them impossible to beat, and the idea that they are a search engine is so out of date it’s hard to take your arguments seriously.

Google/Amazon are able to influence industries just by mentioning that they might get involved with them. They have access to information that their competitors don’t, because Kroger isn’t involved with the navigation/maps game, because CVS doesn’t have the worlds biggest supply chain.

That’s all well and good, but, as described above, all you need it to be really smart and use that intelligence to create software and use virtual infrastructure to displace GOOG and AMZN. It could happen at any moment, as soon as some intelligent person decides it is time to stop playing DOTA.

you basically need to come from a target school pedigree/work at prestigious firm in the US/have a really good connection.

- AF hivemind

Thanks for all the discussion peeps! I love AF.

On the topic on if big tech breakup is relegated to the Dems, I remember  the book I read that convinced me to consider this as a valid cause was written by Johnathan Tepper (The Myth of Capitalism).  He is probably more apolitical than anything, but if I had to place him, definitely right leaning kind of guy….. or at least accepted by conservatives.

"But I don't think of you"..... Howard Roark

brain_wash_your_face wrote:

Schopenhauer wrote:

Being able to compete with Google is laughable. The breadth of their information makes them impossible to beat, and the idea that they are a search engine is so out of date it’s hard to take your arguments seriously.

Google/Amazon are able to influence industries just by mentioning that they might get involved with them. They have access to information that their competitors don’t, because Kroger isn’t involved with the navigation/maps game, because CVS doesn’t have the worlds biggest supply chain.

That’s all well and good, but, as described above, all you need it to be really smart and use that intelligence to create software and use virtual infrastructure to displace GOOG and AMZN. It could happen at any moment, as soon as some intelligent person decides it is time to stop playing DOTA.

pfff it is all about Apex Legends now

Schopenhauer wrote:

It sounds like some of the people here have over-inflated egos.

Image result for i thought we were bros

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

people villify monopolies because in theory they decrease competition, restrict supply, and increase price to maximize profit. but it would be tough to make that case for tech as everything is already free to consumers. they may be overcharging companies that advertise on their platform because of their monopoly and ultimately those companies will either see their profits decline (which they have), or increase what they charge to their consumers (which they arent)

the reason why they cant pass their costs to the consumers is because the tech giants are actually increasing competition between their customers. large cos with their large ad budgets used to destroy the lil cos because there were large fixed costs. but with google, its pay per click/view so in effect, your ad budget, no matter how big or small, had the same effect per dollar. this increased the brand value of the small cos relative to the big cos.

also tech cos, imo, are using those profits on research which would have a higher roi than the dino cos. money should fall to those who can maximize its value. tech is what i would like to call good monopolies that are pushing humanity forward. old cos are bad monopolies that just want a fatter check to send back to their investors, who will very likely leave it behind to their trust fund baby!

I love my cheese. I got to have my cheddar.