honestly, that's how I read this article. Not sure why so many people seem to be agreeing with him... I guess it speaks to the general understanding about how to use python type hints
The USA is not particularly susceptible, you just are exposed to more stories about it happening in the US. It's happening all the time all over the world.
Not sure if this question is a troll but in the off chance it isn't here is a sample budget for the Australian government https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Depart.... It looks like the average revenue for a given year hovers a little under half a trillion dollars. So yeah they can afford it. The idea that "their coffers are empty and their balance sheet is negative" also indicates serious ignorance about how governments finance operations. I'd suggest you start with the country you currently live in and understand how your own government finances its operations. That will likely help you understand how Australia does it.
>The court set the fine at €150,000, or in the alternative 15 days of imprisonment for members of Netflix’s board of directors, for each of the 47 days that Netflix had infringed in violation of the cease-and-desist order.
Implying that imprisonment for board is a real option.
> At some point the only lever left to pull is outright banning of foreigners.
That does not follow at all. If you look at the actual densities Barcelona is 1/3 as dense as the densest city in the world. There is plenty of room to accommodate more housing, they just need to build higher.
Because monopoly means "wields monopoly power and engages in anticompetitive behavior that harms consumers." Having competition or not, having large market share or not doesn't matter one bit.
One of ways of wielding monopoly power is no longer being a price taker and being able to set prices at in practice to whatever you want.
Your definition of monopoly contains a reference to "monopoly", so I am still not sure what your definition of monopoly is. It sounds like it is something like "big company that charges a price you think is high". Why do you think you know what the "right" price is. Isn't it a good thing the company delivering the most value is capturing the most profits? They will likely continue to deliver breakthroughs with the profits they are generating. Why would you want to kneecap a company generating so much value?
Other principles that he famously stood for against the machine was opposing the Vietnam war when he was a cryptographer for the US government machine.
> Since 1990, Renaissance Technologies has contributed $59,081,152 to federal campaigns and since 2001, and has spent $3,730,000 on lobbying as of 2016.
Let's not kid ourselves, people at this level of wealth and power can very much make their voice heard by the people who make policy. He's definitely not the only one in this position, but to frame him as a "better casino player" who is "not really dictating anything" is naive at best.
That's just rich people being rich. Rentech had people donating to both sides based on their personal ideology. The "financial industrial complex" generally refers to large financial institutions systematically driving regulation and/or PE controlling a large chunk of economic activity.
Rentech is a bunch of gamblers gambling and spending their money no different to any other rich people.
I hope ideas like "regulators break them up" never come true. I'll never understand why people crave the destruction of productive organizations. Android has been a stunning success. Valuable for consumers who enjoy the platform, profitable for the investors who bet on the platform and lucrative for the employees who work on the platform. The only people that seem to have a problem with Android are misguided ideologues who think that "big company == bad".
I don't think your understanding of this is complete. A break up doesn't destroy anything; on the contrary, it creates value. Where once there was a single monopolist, there are now two (or three or twelve) organizations that can proceed independently of each other, and be much more focused on their core product.
For example, maybe Google can keep the play store, but not Android. Android would become an independent entity, and can develop in ways that benefit all Android stakeholders instead of just Google. Maybe then Android will finally be able to focus on competing with iOS in ways that Google would never dare to (since Google's relationship with Apple is a bit sus)
A breakup can also be good for investors, because illegal monopolies are inefficient. Android could potentially be much more profitable on its own than under Google's umbrella, and the play store could be more profitable if they're actually forced to compete. This can lead to innovations which increase revenue, and which never would've happened under Google.
