Sign up  |  Log in

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

Nerdyblop wrote:

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!

You provide a interesting perspective when it come to the issue of costs to the consumer.  Although the book I read suggest that when tech gets very large innovation actually starts dropping, you remind me to perhaps collect more information on that point.  However what was the deciding factor for me when it comes to oligopolies and monopolies was the issue of power they assume.  Not only do they have the influence to lobby in Washington so regulations stay in their favor, the gain the power to potentially exploit the consumer (and workers for that matter).  This the opposite of what I want capitalism to do for me.    When I was reading “The Myth of Capitalism”  I was remaining skeptical and thinking of all the externalities that would go along with breaking up oligopolies and monopolies.  I was thinking:  Is what would be gained by doing this be worth the cost?  Are some operations better off large while others should be kept small?   When I made up my mind, it was the power situation that solidified the issue for me.

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

KMeriwetherD wrote:

Nerdyblop wrote:

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!

You provide a interesting perspective when it come to the issue of costs to the consumer.  Although the book I read suggest that when tech gets very large innovation actually starts dropping, you remind me to perhaps collect more information on that point.  However what was the deciding factor for me when it comes to oligopolies and monopolies was the issue of power they assume.  Not only do they have the influence to lobby in Washington so regulations stay in their favor, the gain the power to potentially exploit the consumer (and workers for that matter).  This the opposite of what I want capitalism to do for me.    When I was reading “The Myth of Capitalism”  I was remaining skeptical and thinking of all the externalities that would go along with breaking up oligopolies and monopolies.  I was thinking:  Is what would be gained by doing this be worth the cost?  Are some operations better off large while others should be kept small?   When I made up my mind, it was the power situation that solidified the issue for me.

+1

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

you say that until we have self driving cars. and your waymo rides are about 50% wayless than your uber ride. that is a product of a monopoly!

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

omg I got a +1 from BS!laugh

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

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!  Kmd - sit back and #TrustThePlan. They all will collapse under the weight of their treason.  

I wish i had more time to debate, but i have to write code

Nerdyblop wrote:

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)

i disagree with this. it doesn’t matter who the monopoly is rent seeking from so long as it is rent seeking. everything comes back to people so if the monopoly is rent seeking from retail/service corps, and those retail/service corps are not passing on that additional cost in the price of their products, then those retail/service corps are either: 1) distributing less cash to its investors therefore resulting in less consumer spending, etc., 2) cutting jobs, or 3) experiencing less job growth going forward, and all of these results in tangible economic loss for us humans due to the monopoly’s rent seeking.

simple solution. no M&A allowed for dominant tech firms. that way they would have to actually innovate into new industries rather than eating up smaller rivals. this way their current monopolistic data and user base advantages can be used to stimulate innovation rather than JUST rent seeking.

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

Nerdyblop wrote:

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)

i disagree with this. it doesn’t matter who the monopoly is rent seeking from so long as it is rent seeking. everything comes back to people so if the monopoly is rent seeking from retail/service corps, and those retail/service corps are not passing on that additional cost in the price of their products, then those retail/service corps are either: 1) distributing less cash to its investors therefore resulting in less consumer spending, etc., 2) cutting jobs, or 3) experiencing less job growth going forward, and all of these results in tangible economic loss for us humans due to the monopoly’s rent seeking.

simple solution. no M&A allowed for dominant tech firms. that way they would have to actually innovate into new industries rather than eating up smaller rivals. this way their current monopolistic data and user base advantages can be used to stimulate innovation rather than JUST rent seeking.

Yeah, not sure why they’re acquiring firms anyways, all they have to do is write code and scale the computational power, virtually zero barriers to entry.  Gigabytes of storage!  1 smart person can literally do everything, these tech companies with thousands of employees are just employing people for charity!  Just coincidence things are so consolidated!

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Black Swan wrote:

Matt Likes Analysis wrote:

Nerdyblop wrote:

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)

i disagree with this. it doesn’t matter who the monopoly is rent seeking from so long as it is rent seeking. everything comes back to people so if the monopoly is rent seeking from retail/service corps, and those retail/service corps are not passing on that additional cost in the price of their products, then those retail/service corps are either: 1) distributing less cash to its investors therefore resulting in less consumer spending, etc., 2) cutting jobs, or 3) experiencing less job growth going forward, and all of these results in tangible economic loss for us humans due to the monopoly’s rent seeking.

simple solution. no M&A allowed for dominant tech firms. that way they would have to actually innovate into new industries rather than eating up smaller rivals. this way their current monopolistic data and user base advantages can be used to stimulate innovation rather than JUST rent seeking.

Yeah, not sure why they’re acquiring firms anyways, all they have to do is write code and scale the computational power, virtually zero barriers to entry.  Gigabytes of storage!  1 smart person can literally do everything, these tech companies with thousands of employees are just employing people for charity!  Just coincidence things are so consolidated!

They are acquiring because 1 smart person did everything. Not all people want to go ipo route, most want to cache out (including VC). They spectacular prices tech is willing to pay is specifically because IP is so very important. If they wouldn’t be afraid of competition, why would they buy those companies? (Synergies aside). It pains me to see how you are trying to project manufacturing / retail concepts on tech industry. Sad!

comp_sci_kid wrote:

They are acquiring because 1 smart person did everything. Not all people want to go ipo route, most want to cache out (including VC). They spectacular prices tech is willing to pay is specifically because IP is so very important. If they wouldn’t be afraid of competition, why would they buy those companies? (Synergies aside). It pains me to see how you are trying to project manufacturing / retail concepts on tech industry. Sad!

Why would you pay billions for something you could replicate in house with one person?

So you’re saying they bought these firms to prevent competition.  But they’re not creating a monopoly.  Ok.  Seems legit.  

So now IP is a competitive driver, interesting because IP is also a major driver in determining monopolies…

Also loving the characterization that all of these firms were built on one smart person doing everything.  Clearly you’ve never looked at staffing for even a basic startup.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Clearly, you never worked at a tech start-up. Yes, they ate buying them up so they wouldn’t compete, BUT are they creating a monopoly? You are missing the point, that real monopoly is monopoly over user data, but hey, what would you do, ask companies for it to be publically available? Everything that google does is driven by user data they gathered. If you break it apart, will two companies share that data? 

Also, re: one smart person doing everything. Why do you think top single contributors in big tech paid millions a year? They are like traders, they make or break the firm revenue. 

Welp, that was fun.  I declare victory over CSK.  Sorry your career in tech (only requires 1 smart person) didn’t work out the way you hoped.

comp_sci_kid wrote:

If they wouldn’t be afraid of competition, why would they buy those companies? (Synergies aside). 

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-law...

Many mergers benefit competition and consumers by allowing firms to operate more efficiently. But some mergers change market dynamics in ways that can lead to higher prices, fewer or lower-quality goods or services, or less innovation.

Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions when the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” The key question the agency asks is whether the proposed merger is likely to create or enhance market power or facilitate its exercise. The greatest antitrust concern arises with proposed mergers between direct competitors (horizontal mergers). The FTC and the DOJ have developed Horizontal Merger Guidelines that set out the agencies’ analytical framework for answering that key question, and have provided a Commentary on the Horizontal Merger Guidelines that provides many specific examples of how those principles have been applied in actual mergers reviewed by the agencies.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Is she in favor of banning Senators and Congress from trading stocks while in office? That practice is so ridiculous to me. Not only do they have inside information, they can literally influence the outcome. I get they are covered by MNPI, but come on. If there is an anti-corruption candidate that is probably my pick. 

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

- AF hivemind

comp_sci_kid wrote:

Clearly, you never worked at a tech start-up. Yes, they ate buying them up so they wouldn’t compete, BUT are they creating a monopoly? You are missing the point, that real monopoly is monopoly over user data, but hey, what would you do, ask companies for it to be publically available? Everything that google does is driven by user data they gathered. If you break it apart, will two companies share that data? 

Also, re: one smart person doing everything. Why do you think top single contributors in big tech paid millions a year? They are like traders, they make or break the firm revenue. 

A) There’s a thing called licensing data. If you knew anything about coding you wouldn’t as such a silly question.

B) The fact that a few people are better paid or more important does not mean 1 smart person literally can do everything.  It’s so dumb it barely is worth addressing but there’s a reason you don’t see single employee trading shops just like you don’t see single employee startups of any worth.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

Problem is most people code on a 2d screen. The greats program on 3d and even 4k screens some times, racing around their oddly shaped screens and creating value with every step.

Lol @ licensing data. You have no idea how much and what kind of data tech companies collect, and certainly i am not going to share this information

^ oh come on; you can’t make a statement like that and not provide some sort of explanation. 

Mike79 wrote:

^ oh come on; you can’t make a statement like that and not provide some sort of explanation. 

He’s saying these tech companies are arms of the alphabet agencies and their sole purpose is to impose a surveillance state on the citizens.  This is not hyperbole.  Facebook’s predecessor is a DARPA program called LIFELOG.  It’s all there folks.  They track and warehouse everything.  Everything you type, everything within earshot of a microphone, everything in viewing range of any device’s camera.  Everything. 

^ You know CW, you might just be crazy like a fox. A little while ago, me and my wife were talking about signing up our son for karate, and mentioned a certain studio in town. Just after that, my wife sees this ad on her phone while on FB, or something, can’t remember, advertising that studio. She never googled the studio, never called them. So ya, someone’s listening. 

You dont need to google studio. You can just post question on FB about Karate, or purchase coupon to some other martial arts, or buy form on amazon or many other things that can narrow down your interest. 

Not going to speculate on whether mic is always on, as i dont know, but maybe BS can educate us on wiretapping laws

All i can say is that algorithms are very intelligent and lawmakers have no idea how they work, as can clearly cab be seen from Mark Zuckerberg testimony

comp_sci_kid wrote:

“laws”

funny.

comp_sci_kid wrote:

You dont need to google studio. You can just post question on FB about Karate, or purchase coupon to some other martial arts, or buy form on amazon or many other things that can narrow down your interest. 

Not going to speculate on whether mic is always on, as i dont know, but maybe BS can educate us on wiretapping laws

No the wife didn’t use google, didn’t post anything on FB about karate, nothing. 

I don’t have FB.

I know for a fact that your iphone is constantly recording and everything is linked across devices.  There are a myriad of examples where for instance a coworker walks over to me, talks about going out for happy hour with his phone in his pocket, walks back to his work terminal and starts getting ads for the restaurant we talked about with nobody having entered anything or somebody else is on a smart phone talking to a friend about an object and you’re surfing and start getting ads.  Part of the reason I dropped smart phones.  Interestingly I was talking to friend on my dumb phone, he on his iphone about his attending “NYU” and mentioned that I’d been doing some coursework at a “local engineering school”, I’m in the Boston area.  Five minutes after hanging up, I get an email from NYU’s school of engineering.  His phone scraped the conversation, referenced my number, linked it to my gmail, there we are.  The bigger issue is the poor policing of apps data usage.  People just randomly download a lot of apps not realizing all of the data they are scraping.

https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/wjbzzy/your-phone-is-listening-and-it...

Turns out you don’t need to look at wiretapping laws, but we already established that CSK wandered into a topic he didn’t have any clue about, threw out some vague platitudes in an attempt to save face and is now bitter about it.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

lol instead of measuring dick size why cant we all just get along.

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

You are right, i have been thoroughly

defeated by Black Swan, the oracle

of AF, the ultimate visionary

Nerdyblop wrote:

lol instead of measuring dick size why cant we all just get along.

Or just go straight to it and get the pissing contest over with.

Nerdyblop wrote:

lol instead of measuring dick size why cant we all just get along.

Classic Asian.

#FreeCVM #FreeTurd #2007-2017

when i think of small town girls living in a lonely world. i think of you.

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

^ why? is he a city boy, born and raised in south detroit?