9 ms·

At the expense of the citizens. Why not let companies compete?

guelo 11y ago
There is no competition, it's just monopolies. It's been shown over and over that the first-mover advantage on the web is almost insurmountable because of the network effects.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  Which is why Google was the first search engine ever, and before that people just banged rocks together in the general vicinity of phone lines, because any prior search engine would have had an insurmountable first-mover advantage that Google could not possibly have overcome?
  - abritinthebay 11y ago
    While I agree with the general point you are making - the Internet as a whole had not reached a general populace tipping point until after Google was a major player in search. I think we, as technologically included people, tend to overestimate how old the internet is to most people outside of maybe early email usage. Also the implosion of companies (like Yahoo) is a factor here. If Yahoo hadn't been really stupid they would still be dominant - and it would have been hard to stop them. Of course people can overtake when the leader throws the lead... but it's luck and also hard.
    - eru 11y ago
      > [...] the Internet as a whole had not reached a general populace tipping point until after Google was a major player in search. MySpace vs Facebook happened after Google rose to dominance. Also, Google Video vs YouTube.
      - abritinthebay 11y ago
        MySpace was at it's largest in 2005 - at that point Google was nearly 40% of online search traffic. It had been a major player for a while - hell it had already had a huge IPO by that point. I think you forget just how FAST Google blew up. In 1999 they were basically nothing - by 2004 they were the largest search company on the internet. Facebook wasn't even a thing until 2004 - after the Google IPO. So no, Myspace vs Facebook didn't happen after that. Also Google Video was just plain crap. It's like comparing Google+ to Facebook, it was never going to last.
    - marrs 11y ago
      I think you forget just how much better at search Google was. Google's replacement will probably be much better at privacy.
      - abritinthebay 11y ago
        No, I don't. It really was amazing and a no-brainer to switch. That said Yahoo could have still stayed ahead - they nearly bought Google after all. Remember though that accurate results is a clear market winning feature - we've seen that the average user quite simply doesn't care about privacy that much.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Yeap. We're all still using Altavista, MySpace, Hotmail and Livejournal.
  - NeutronBoy 11y ago
    While I agree with the sentiment, I would argue that the network effects now are significantly stronger than they were 10-15 years ago. Back then, the internet was still a novelty for many (those who had the internet, anyway). This was before broadband was commonplace, before smartphones, before Facebook and the iPhone were a thing.
    - oblio 11y ago
      The network effect becomes even stronger now, as the Internet crosses the chasm. Grandma won't switch from Facebook soon, unlike her teen techie granddaughter.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
Some countries have no problem banning the best technology so that the best local technology can win, even if it's worse, and even if the best technology did nothing wrong. It's easy enough to make up excuses for that after the fact. It would be nice if at least one such country could just blatantly state their motives up front to be judged on their merits: "We're choosing to prohibit a non-local company to encourage local replacements."
- levosmetalo 11y ago
  And what exactly is wrong with that? As long as the price / performance is not totally off, I'd always rather pay a bit more for a slightly worse service if I know VAT money will stay in my city, tax will be paid in my state, salaries would be paid in the same job market where I am, and the profit would be invested in my neighborhood. There are local monopolies everywhere, even in the USA. And they are protected by the local (city, county, state, federal) legislation that favors local business. Just try coming out of nowhere and starting new water supply business somewhere in Texas (constructed example, but point stays).
  - icebraining 11y ago
    As long as the price / performance is not totally off, I'd always rather pay a bit more for a slightly worse service if I know VAT money will stay in my city, tax will be paid in my state, salaries would be paid in the same job market where I am, and the profit would be invested in my neighborhood. Nobody prevents you from buying local right now, so that's a red herring. If you want to force others to do the same, you should pay their increase as well. Are you prepared to do that?
    - chappi42 11y ago
      This leads to nowhere. I could reply: And you pay for the locally laid off people and support the community which now fails necessary means?
      - deleted 11y ago
biokoda 11y ago
Short term expense of the citizens. Nurturing local business is a long term benefit strategy. Protectionism is how every nation on the planet developed. Why are Americans driving South Korean/Japanese cars and not the other way around? Because the south koreans and the japanese imposed large tariffs on car imports and the US did not. Their car companies had free range on their own turf. Which gave them time and money to develop. Silicon valley is not giving the outside world any chance of competing.
- rtpg 11y ago
  The US practices a huge amount of protectionism as well. The reason that the Americans are driving Japanese cars is that they were built in the US (which happens because of the protectionism). Ford doesn't build cars in Japan. The end result is good for most people (consumers get more choice, jobs are still in the country).
  - biokoda 11y ago
    Yes and those japanese companies developed in their home turf and became strong enough to compete in the world market. The japanese government nurtured their industry. When it comes to internet based businesses this is not done. The end result is silicon valley dominating everyone else because that's where it all started and where the most money right now is.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    You're forgetting the bailouts for the American auto industry and the ghost town known as Detroit. Protectionism stagnates technological development because of the artificially stymied competition. Once the major players from hyper-competitive markets inevitably enter the protected market, then they outperform the resident industry there. Protectionism props up non-competitive markets, which is disruptive for citizens when they fall down.
    - rtpg 11y ago
      That's a good point. The auto industry might not be the best place for where you want to apply protectionism. But one pretty good usage is when the local industry is in its infancy. It's pretty well accepted that the IMF forcing so many African countries to drop agriculture-related tariffs has been among the biggest failures of modern economics.
bootload 11y ago
"Why not let companies compete?" foreign company tax avoidance? "Technology giant Google last year paid $11.7 million in corporate tax to Australian government coffers, on revenue of $438.7m and profits of $58m." ~ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/google-admits-to-paying-a-20pc-tax-rate-in-australia/story-fna03wxu-1227329188267 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/google-admits...
- weddpros 11y ago
  "All" the research and development was done abroad, not in Australia. The products were created abroad, so you can't expect the full added value to reside in Australia...
  - kuschku 11y ago
    The thing with taxes like VAT is that they are supposed to apply fully to the end product, no matter where it was made. This is made to prevent tax evasion schemes.
- ojbyrne 11y ago
  20% corporate tax rate. What's the problem?
lumberjack 11y ago
It think you'll find the "customers over workers" mentality doesn't fly so well in most European countries as it does in the US.
cousin_it 11y ago
You got your priorities backwards. Good jobs are more scarce than iphones, and more important for the well-being of people.

guelo 11y ago

There is no competition, it's just monopolies. It's been shown over and over that the first-mover advantage on the web is almost insurmountable because of the network effects.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
Which is why Google was the first search engine ever, and before that people just banged rocks together in the general vicinity of phone lines, because any prior search engine would have had an insurmountable first-mover advantage that Google could not possibly have overcome?
- abritinthebay 11y ago
  While I agree with the general point you are making - the Internet as a whole had not reached a general populace tipping point until after Google was a major player in search. I think we, as technologically included people, tend to overestimate how old the internet is to most people outside of maybe early email usage. Also the implosion of companies (like Yahoo) is a factor here. If Yahoo hadn't been really stupid they would still be dominant - and it would have been hard to stop them. Of course people can overtake when the leader throws the lead... but it's luck and also hard.
  - eru 11y ago
    > [...] the Internet as a whole had not reached a general populace tipping point until after Google was a major player in search. MySpace vs Facebook happened after Google rose to dominance. Also, Google Video vs YouTube.
    - abritinthebay 11y ago
      MySpace was at it's largest in 2005 - at that point Google was nearly 40% of online search traffic. It had been a major player for a while - hell it had already had a huge IPO by that point. I think you forget just how FAST Google blew up. In 1999 they were basically nothing - by 2004 they were the largest search company on the internet. Facebook wasn't even a thing until 2004 - after the Google IPO. So no, Myspace vs Facebook didn't happen after that. Also Google Video was just plain crap. It's like comparing Google+ to Facebook, it was never going to last.
  - marrs 11y ago
    I think you forget just how much better at search Google was. Google's replacement will probably be much better at privacy.
    - abritinthebay 11y ago
      No, I don't. It really was amazing and a no-brainer to switch. That said Yahoo could have still stayed ahead - they nearly bought Google after all. Remember though that accurate results is a clear market winning feature - we've seen that the average user quite simply doesn't care about privacy that much.
icebraining 11y ago
Yeap. We're all still using Altavista, MySpace, Hotmail and Livejournal.
- NeutronBoy 11y ago
  While I agree with the sentiment, I would argue that the network effects now are significantly stronger than they were 10-15 years ago. Back then, the internet was still a novelty for many (those who had the internet, anyway). This was before broadband was commonplace, before smartphones, before Facebook and the iPhone were a thing.
  - oblio 11y ago
    The network effect becomes even stronger now, as the Internet crosses the chasm. Grandma won't switch from Facebook soon, unlike her teen techie granddaughter.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

Some countries have no problem banning the best technology so that the best local technology can win, even if it's worse, and even if the best technology did nothing wrong. It's easy enough to make up excuses for that after the fact. It would be nice if at least one such country could just blatantly state their motives up front to be judged on their merits: "We're choosing to prohibit a non-local company to encourage local replacements."

levosmetalo 11y ago
And what exactly is wrong with that? As long as the price / performance is not totally off, I'd always rather pay a bit more for a slightly worse service if I know VAT money will stay in my city, tax will be paid in my state, salaries would be paid in the same job market where I am, and the profit would be invested in my neighborhood. There are local monopolies everywhere, even in the USA. And they are protected by the local (city, county, state, federal) legislation that favors local business. Just try coming out of nowhere and starting new water supply business somewhere in Texas (constructed example, but point stays).
- icebraining 11y ago
  As long as the price / performance is not totally off, I'd always rather pay a bit more for a slightly worse service if I know VAT money will stay in my city, tax will be paid in my state, salaries would be paid in the same job market where I am, and the profit would be invested in my neighborhood. Nobody prevents you from buying local right now, so that's a red herring. If you want to force others to do the same, you should pay their increase as well. Are you prepared to do that?
  - chappi42 11y ago
    This leads to nowhere. I could reply: And you pay for the locally laid off people and support the community which now fails necessary means?
    - deleted 11y ago

biokoda 11y ago

Short term expense of the citizens. Nurturing local business is a long term benefit strategy. Protectionism is how every nation on the planet developed. Why are Americans driving South Korean/Japanese cars and not the other way around? Because the south koreans and the japanese imposed large tariffs on car imports and the US did not. Their car companies had free range on their own turf. Which gave them time and money to develop. Silicon valley is not giving the outside world any chance of competing.

rtpg 11y ago
The US practices a huge amount of protectionism as well. The reason that the Americans are driving Japanese cars is that they were built in the US (which happens because of the protectionism). Ford doesn't build cars in Japan. The end result is good for most people (consumers get more choice, jobs are still in the country).
- biokoda 11y ago
  Yes and those japanese companies developed in their home turf and became strong enough to compete in the world market. The japanese government nurtured their industry. When it comes to internet based businesses this is not done. The end result is silicon valley dominating everyone else because that's where it all started and where the most money right now is.
- bduerst 11y ago
  You're forgetting the bailouts for the American auto industry and the ghost town known as Detroit. Protectionism stagnates technological development because of the artificially stymied competition. Once the major players from hyper-competitive markets inevitably enter the protected market, then they outperform the resident industry there. Protectionism props up non-competitive markets, which is disruptive for citizens when they fall down.
  - rtpg 11y ago
    That's a good point. The auto industry might not be the best place for where you want to apply protectionism. But one pretty good usage is when the local industry is in its infancy. It's pretty well accepted that the IMF forcing so many African countries to drop agriculture-related tariffs has been among the biggest failures of modern economics.

bootload 11y ago

"Why not let companies compete?" foreign company tax avoidance? "Technology giant Google last year paid $11.7 million in corporate tax to Australian government coffers, on revenue of $438.7m and profits of $58m." ~ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/google-admits-to-paying-a-20pc-tax-rate-in-australia/story-fna03wxu-1227329188267 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/google-admits...

weddpros 11y ago
"All" the research and development was done abroad, not in Australia. The products were created abroad, so you can't expect the full added value to reside in Australia...
- kuschku 11y ago
  The thing with taxes like VAT is that they are supposed to apply fully to the end product, no matter where it was made. This is made to prevent tax evasion schemes.
ojbyrne 11y ago
20% corporate tax rate. What's the problem?

lumberjack 11y ago

It think you'll find the "customers over workers" mentality doesn't fly so well in most European countries as it does in the US.

cousin_it 11y ago

You got your priorities backwards. Good jobs are more scarce than iphones, and more important for the well-being of people.