(video of monkey getting a grape and the other monkey getting a cucumber)
Yes to all three, so it would be caught by this law as it is stated here.
No they aren't. They are examples of the government's power growing and being manipulated. There's no power to manipulate if the government stays small.
So many of our problems today are the result of a government that is so large and powerful that it is more profitable to direct resources to lobbying instead of directing resources to providing better goods and services. When government is small, there is less incentive to corrupt it.
I think the idea of "Big Government" is amorphous, in that is calls into question the purpose of a governing body.
Who, or what, should be the governments number one priority? It seems universal that keeping its citizens safe (military, police) and supplying fundamental services (roads, fire departments) are accepted by all but the most jetpacky libertarians. Do we believe that we have the capacity to extend other foundations of wellbeing to be rights as well? This is the crossroads we're at with healthcare, protecting the environment (by investing in clean technologies and slowing down the harm we're inflicting through other practices), and living wages?
That's what I see as the crux of this conversation. Who does the government work for? And who SHOULD it be working for?
We, the people, we are not angels. So we need government to protect us from each other.
But those people in government? They aren't angels, either. So the trick is to have the government keep us from harming and oppressing each other, without the government harming and oppressing us. That was the point of the "limited government" idea, and the Constitution - government couldn't do everything; it could only do a few specific things. That is, they optimized for minimizing the harm government could do, rather than for maximizing the good.
And it's worked reasonably well, though not perfectly, even while government grew enormously compared to the original idea. Still, the fact remains that government is not run by angels. Those programs that you think are a good idea? Imagine that they're being run by selfish, foolish, corrupt people. Are they still a good idea? (Some may be. Surely not all, though...)
Reminding people of who the government works for may help, somewhat, for some time. But it won't really fix the problem.
The people that employ them: taxpayers.
There is no reason that we should be passing any legislation today without attached measurable criteria for success and criteria of measurable side effects that might be impacted. If the legislation does actually measurably improve something or causes unwanted side effects, it should be removed automatically. In 2019, we absolutely have the technology to run the government the exact same way as tech companies.
So many of the services the government provides could easily be metered and we charge citizens directly based on what they individually consume instead of indiscriminately taxing people to pay for those services.
Not entirely true . For one thing there were close and similar models at that time. For example yellow pages were given out for free and advertising was sold. Second there were (and still are) many local newspapers that make money solely off of advertising. And along those lines I would argue that even paid newspapers are close. Why? They give a great deal of value for the small amount that is paid in exchange for viewing advertising. Ditto for tv broadcasts the content is free (as long as you have a tv set) and they make money off advertising.
 And I wouldn't call something that in no way could have anticipated the future in the way it rolled out 'a flaw' anyway.
The mainstream position in the antitrust world, even among liberals (at least until recently), is that Bork's theory is generally right. (For example, Barack Obama's antitrust appointees would generally have agreed with it.)
What Bork did was bring economic models (i.e. math) to bear in antitrust analysis. Before Bork, antitrust law was basically run on judges' intuition about whether business practices were good or bad. After Bork, there is more structure to the analysis--if we are trying to figure out whether things are good or bad for consumer prices, there's an economic framework we can use so that we're not just making random guesses.
You can quibble with the math, but it seems crazy to go back to a world where we just say "big mergers are bad." Some mergers are bad, sure. But some are not. For example, I have yet to hear anyone explain why Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods is bad for anyone other than other grocery stores (who have to try to compete as Amazon figures out grocery delivery).
1. Hardware manufacturers be separated from software manufactures
2. All hardware sold must have available appropriate documentation to write software for it.
3. Hardware and software be purchasable piecemeal, even when also available as a pre-configured bundle.
For example, for Google to sell a Google Home device they would:
1. Have to have a company, Google Home:Hardware, that produces the physical device and it's documentation
2. Have a company, Google Home:Software, that implements the software for that device, and perhaps bundles it.
3. These companies can collaborate, e.g., through support contracts, but any documentation made available to Google Home:Software must also be made available to purchasers of the physical device, separate from Google Home:Software.
Advantages of this approach:
1. This supports the "Right To Repair" movement.
2. Production of hardware has a very high cost-of-entry relative to software, making it prohibitively expensive for new entrants to compete. This allows smaller entrepreneurs to build software on existing hardware designs, bringing new features to consumers.
3. New competition will help to naturally break the anti-consumer monopolies and oligopolies currently existing, because they will have to compete with features that they currently refuse to implement, fix issues they currently refuse to acknowledge.
4. As a re-iteration of 3, would provide more consumer choice. Where as right now an individual may like the hardware features of one television set, they may dislike the software features if it (privacy invasion and phoning home?). Consumers could mix and match.
Although I've focused on tech with Google, this is applicable to many industries: smart phones, TVs, smart home devices, farming equipment, vehicles, robotic vacuums...
The only downside is that there's a lot of overhead (imagine if a software project you worked on needed this amount of formality every time you talked to a UI designer or database engineer).
In essence something companies already do since they're split up into separate sections/departments/groups.
Maybe they even split services such as HR into a consulting services organization that they all rely on.
This is not the way to foster innovation. It’s a way to produce a bunch of meaningless middlemen.
Bork was the first Supreme Court nominee to earn his own eponymous verb. Bork was put through a ringer similar to the one Judge Kavanaugh went through recently.
Per Google, the verb 'bork' means "obstruct (someone, especially a candidate for public office) through systematic defamation or vilification."
So whenever I hear about some kneejerk proposal to break up tech I expect to hear someone propose that Facebook should be broken up into two companies: one for surnames A-M and another for N-Z.
I think the only tech company where you could make any case for being anticompetitive right now is Amazon. Fedex and UPS exist largely at the whim of Amazon. Any online retailer is now at a severe disadvantage to Amazon itself as well as Amazon marketplace sellers.
Second place are the two app stores.
We're living in an era where China's tech giants are tools of statecraft and not subject to the same level of scrutiny as US companies. The Chinese market is artificially restricted from competition. By any measure of government intervention China cheats here. It doesn't really seem like the right time for the US to kill the golden geese.
Regional monopolies are far less of a threat to politicians operating at the national scale. So much of what we are observing comes down to people and institutions vying for power and trying to neuter those people and institutions in competition for that power.
This is Silicon Valley (big tech) versus Washington D.C. (big government) versus NYC (big finance).
Today, the notion of Microsoft as a threat to the world seems quaint and laughable, though at the time it was deadly serious business.
In my opinion, the FAANG monopolies will pass, just as the MS-IBM hegemony passed. Something new will emerge - a 5G-based tech, maybe, or a Chinese AI or quantum machine - that will render the current tech giants irrelevant. Warren's plan is pointless and probably would be counter-productive.
Interesting considering they are the most valuable company in the world by market cap.
Addendum: Currently, MSFT's market cap is higher than Facebook, Google, Apple, and AMZN.
The point is that few are talking about Microsoft as a monopolistic threat anymore; alternative technologies (Linux, MacOS, iOS, Android) have come along and knocked them off their once-dominant position.
Why not break up other industries, like some of the giant food and household companies and the shit they're practically poisoning us with. It feels like pandering to go after "big tech" constantly.
These industries are just hard to break into. Who is going to compete with Google at search at this point? We watched Microsoft throw money at and fail miserably. Social media comes and goes, Facebook the website is dieing, Facebook the company is will be around by running other social media, opinions of Facebook specifically aside why is that a bad thing?
We need politicians that are younger and in touch with the world. But still, anything but Trump at this point unfortunately.
Are you actually asking this question, or is it like when Trump says that he won't pass gun restrictions because the real problem is mental health, but also won't raise the budget for mental health?
I think it's easier to make the (internet) tech case because they tend towards pure rent-seeking models rather than production or innovation. Warren isn't proposing breaking up hardware companies, car companies, or companies that make consumer appliances; "tech" is a shorthand for internet rent-seekers.
I don't know how anyone can make the case that there isn't innovation and production isn't the end all be all of a functioning market. You can't buy goods and services that you aren't aware of and even if you are aware of them, you need a way to buy them.
25 years ago I couldn't type something into a box, discover a product that satisfies a need/want related to that query, buy it and have it delivered to my home in 24-48 hours all from the comfort of my home while I sit in my underwear.
Once upon a time you had to pick up a big yellow book, hunt around by category, find some businesses that may or not be related to what you're looking for if you find any business at all, make some phone calls, eventually get in your car, drive there, taking out cash from the bank along the way. The alternative was catalog companies if you knew that a company existed and had a copy of their catalog (or you had to wait for a catalog to be delivered).
And even long before that the only option was to go down to the local market and buy whatever was produced locally. If it wasn't produced locally, then you had to produce it yourself or you were SOL.
I don't get why we're focusing on tech here. Idk how you can say it's pure rent seeking with no innovation? The examples given were the usual social media sites and Google, Apple and Amazon.
> In the 1990s, Microsoft — the tech giant of its time — was trying to parlay its dominance in computer operating systems into dominance in the new area of web browsing. The federal government sued Microsoft for violating anti-monopoly laws and eventually reached a settlement. The government’s antitrust case against Microsoft helped clear a path for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to emerge.
And then goes on to confuse the Web browser with search:
> .. Aren’t we all glad that now we have the option of using Google instead of being stuck with Bing?
There are three reasons I'd avoid this comparison as a selling point:
1. Little of substance came from the Microsoft case:
> On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. The proposed settlement required Microsoft to share its application programming interfaces with third-party companies and appoint a panel of three people who would have full access to Microsoft's systems, records, and source code for five years in order to ensure compliance. However, the DOJ did not require Microsoft to change any of its code nor prevent Microsoft from tying other software with Windows in the future.
2. The market handed Microsoft its richly-deserved smack upside the head with the introduction of the iPhone in 2007. There's no reason to believe that Google, Amazon, or Facebook will be immune to this process of marketplace disruption.
3. The AT&T Anititrust case seems more applicable in that it deals with a network. After the successful breakup, long distance rate fell.
> The breakup led to a surge of competition in the long distance telecommunications market by companies such as Sprint and MCI. ...
From Warren's blog again:
> First, by passing legislation that requires large tech platforms to be designated as “Platform Utilities” and broken apart from any participant on that platform.
This raises the question: what's actually new here? What about the named companies is so different from previous monopolies that new laws are required?
The discussion in the New Yorker doesn't seem to address this issue. There are antitrust laws on the books. They have been used in the past. What specifically prevents them from being applied today, other than political will?
But when you do read her policies, you can see she hasn't thought about these problems at all. She's basically just doing what the loudest, most ignorant complainers and pundits are saying to do.
She doesn't seem to understand that Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon present incredibly different problems. Beating them all up with the same stick is pointless and won't fix any of the problems.
The fact that they are big isn't really the worst of the problems they cause. In incredibly simplistic terms, Facebook is bad because of what they do with your data. Google is bad because of what it does with all the rest of the data on the internet. Apple is bad because of what they won't let people do. And Amazon is bad because of what they will let anyone do.
Chopping them up into smaller entities won't solve any of those problems. None of it addresses any of the problems at all. But in a time where doing anything is far more important to people than doing something useful, it gets traction. She also clearly does not understand section 230 of the CDA, and would like to get rid of that, which will do nothing but ensure that only the big companies--even broken up--will ever be able to compete.
The same kind of thing applies to the wealth tax idea. It's just a base appeal to class animosity. There's no nuance, and even if it did happen, it wouldn't make that much difference in our overall tax revenues. Certainly not enough to fund the kinds of programs she wants to fund. If you want to fix taxes, you have to shut down loopholes for wealthy people and corporations. The latter will make much more of an impact than the former.
I'm certainly on board with higher taxes to a certain extent. But this is just pandering to angry people who don't think the world is fair, and that's not healthy for society.
All of this really makes me question her bona fides on topics I really don't know anything about. Is it more of the same shallow pandering? I haven't really heard any good policy ideas from her so far, and as much as I want to like her as my kind of candidate, I just don't have any reason to believe she'll do anything worthwhile if she does get elected aside from not being Trump. Which is valuable to me, I admit. But . . . is a huge swath of awful social, tax, economic, and tech policy actually better than having to deal with the buffoonery we have right now? I hope we don't have to find out. I suspect that many people will not like that choice and keep things as they are.
Also, it’s policy proposals like these that are going to push Trump to win in 2020. All the Democrats are suggesting more and more socialist policies, while popular with their base.. is pretty detached from the middle and right side ideologically. People want cheaper products, more money and stability. Focus on that.
The only voters that are going to move from voting Democrat to voting Trump over the breakup of big tech are people who work in big tech.
By ripped off, I dont mean, I over-spent, but rather I was forced into buying something due to having only a single choice, while not even knowing the ultimate price I will pay.
Where I live in the US -- there is ONE and only ONE broadband provider. If you ask for the price, they give you the three month promotion price. If you press them really hard, you get the ultimate non-promotional price. Then you get the bill and there is a "wire fee", "regulatory recovery fee", "line charge" and all manner of all surprise charges that you didn't agree to except in some blank-check-fine-print fashion.
Say what you might about privacy etc, but my immediate, acute pains are with real monopolies like my broadband provider -- not with which free photo sharing app I need to use
Warren's entire shtick is having a plan for pretty much everything.
You must be living under a very heavy rock if you don't think she's going after pharma and telco companies. She spent half of the last debate ripping on pharma companies.
1. Applying her [awesome] CFPB approach to telco where you cant just spring mystery charges post-hoc and hang customers on a contract they didn't agree to.
2. Allowing multiple broadband providers to compete
2. A number of items that would help with that are included in the article. Changes to utility pole ownership, encouraging municipal broadband alternatives, etc.