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 out 
… what else you got?
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.
^^^
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?
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.
klobuchar FTW
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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/
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.