5 ms·

Regulation is certainly a problem, but the unfettered growth and merging of many companies over the last decade has been nothing short of breathtaking. Amazon,

Regulation is certainly a problem, but the unfettered growth and merging of many companies over the last decade has been nothing short of breathtaking. Amazon, Google, Facebook are all essentially monopolies in their space. Banks have combined to form behemoths (and good luck starting a bank these days with Dodd-Frank on the books). Until the government addresses unfair and anticompetitive behavior and concentration, this trend will continue.

chapium 9y ago
I'd be careful to include facebook in that group. Several mobile apps are very strongly keeping them in check.
- moomin 9y ago
  Tell that to the editor of the New York Times.
- wil421 9y ago
  Agreed I keep Facebook for legacy support meaning older family and their friends. Snapchat is my go to for my friends or just plain group text. Snapchat is nice because I can post freely in my groups and not be worried about random people seeing the posts like FB. I doubted Snapchat for years. Trying to do more Instagram next...
  - sharemywin 9y ago
    ooops...moving back to a facebook product.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  How is that? Everybody and their mother (and their grandmother!) has a facebook account. And instagram stories now boasts more users than Snapchat.
- turbobuckeye 9y ago
  Disagree. While there are certainly other social apps, there is no (significant) direct competitor to FaceBook's core product. When you buy a car (e.g.) you generally have plenty of very similar options. That's not the case here. If we use the car analogy, FaceBook could be a sedan, and if you don't want a sedan your options are...well...not much. Of course you can buy a motorcycle (Instagram), moped (Pinterest), or van (Snapchat), but none of these are really the same thing other than the fact that they're motorized transport devices.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Add in things like share buybacks instead of dividends (because tax treatment of capital gains is more favorable than of distributed income), and corporate refusal to repatriate and reinvest overseas profits.
- turbobuckeye 9y ago
  Not sure why you say "corporate refusal." They're trying to minimize their tax liability, which is their fiduciary duty. If you owned a slice of that company, would you want money to go to distributions or taxes? Congress is to blame here. The US tax code is essentially the only one of all countries that doesn't have a regional income policy. The IRS just follows companies and individuals around the world.
  - Symmetry 9y ago
    Shareholders would generally far prefer that tech companies repatriate the money, accept the tax hit, pay it out in dividends.
    - opo 9y ago
      I don't think you speak for all shareholders. Is there some evidence investors (except for the Carl Icahns of the world) want their companies to lose 40% of their foreign cash holdings?
  - _delirium 9y ago
    There's no such fiduciary duty to internationally minimize tax liability. Shareholders might push for it, but it's not a legal fiduciary duty. The board of an American company could perfectly well choose to repatriate all foreign income, pay U.S. taxes on it, and then pay out a dividend using the repatriated income. That would even be the more traditional course of action, rather than sitting on a ton of overseas cash that you never pay out to shareholders.
    - concede_pluto 9y ago
tabtab 9y ago
Dodd-Frank barely affects small banks. It was intended to reduce "too big to fail", that is, big banks. Lobbyists have duped you.
- turbobuckeye 9y ago
  Nope. See http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks-dodd-frank-000197 http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks... and many others.
  - turbobuckeye 9y ago
    Treed!
- bpodgursky 9y ago
  I'm sorry, but that is blatantly false. I don't know what sources you could possibly have used to form that opinion, but nobody who is informed agrees with you (ex, http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks-dodd-frank-000197 http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks...)
  - tabtab 9y ago
    There are several moving parts to this. The regulative requirements on ALL residential loans has increased to make sure the loan requester (consumer) has sufficient ability to pay back the loan. After the Great Recession, the reasons for this should be obvious. This will increase "paperwork" for all banks doing home loans. The banking industry overall had RECORD PROFITS last year. Thus, Dodd Frank (DF) is not a general bank killer. Now, by some accounts smaller banks are more heavily impacted by DF regulations even though there are less rules for small banks. Why? Some analysts say big banks are better able to leverage "economies of scale" in DF compliance. Others say it takes time for software vendors to small banks to implement DF-related features, and that over time the burden will decrease as the software glitches are worked out so machines can do more of the grunt work. Democrat legislators agree DF should be better tuned for some issues related to small banks, but point out we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater: bad loans hurt everybody. Due to political gridlock, some of the suggested small-bank-related changes are stuck in political molasses. You can blame both parties and voters for that.
tobmlt 9y ago
Aren't Google, Amazon, and Facebook examples of the dynamism we want to foster? Facebook and Google hardly "do" anything, in past senses of the term "do". In other words: are Facebook and Google really part of the reason the US no longer has the dynamism it possessed in 1975? Surely they have only added new types of dynamism at little expense to old markets. Quick and messy statements, sorry. But I leave it there and move to Amazon. No doubt the (supply side) business environment for traditional goods and services has been greatly disrupted by Amazon at net increase to the average happiness of the (demand side) consumer. Then focus there and I have this to say: Consumers voted for amazon against traditional methods of purchase and consumption. To break-up amazon in favor of traditional competitors is a tax on consumers and a subsidy to inefficient, less-dynamic providers of those same goods. If amazon got big by doing something illegal then prosecute. If something specific needs to be made illegal then let's do so. But blanket persecution of companies just because they are large misses the consumer side point. Back to supplier side stuff, small businesses thrive on the internet, providing all manner of goods. Much of this is facilitated and protected by the big 3 above. Let's pop some popcorn and see how net-neutrality-esque issues play out over the long haul. I say that to the extent that big players remain free from the shackles of Washington DC, the free internet stands a fighting chance. Net neutrality wouldn't even be an issue if the backbone of the internet was made of more companies like google, and zero companies like Comcast and AT&T. Sorry to mix in more issues but competitive behemoths compete to the benefit of the consumer. Government sponsored behemoths are free to be as terrible as they want. Don't believe me? Call your local provider and have a chat about internet speeds. Banks are machines (one big mega machine anyone?) of wealth re-distribution from the relatively poor masses to the wealthy and connected few via the combination of inflationary disposition and fractional reserve banking. I would say that small banks will never be dynamic as long as they remain of the same ilk.

chapium 9y ago

I'd be careful to include facebook in that group. Several mobile apps are very strongly keeping them in check.

moomin 9y ago
Tell that to the editor of the New York Times.
wil421 9y ago
Agreed I keep Facebook for legacy support meaning older family and their friends. Snapchat is my go to for my friends or just plain group text. Snapchat is nice because I can post freely in my groups and not be worried about random people seeing the posts like FB. I doubted Snapchat for years. Trying to do more Instagram next...
- sharemywin 9y ago
  ooops...moving back to a facebook product.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
How is that? Everybody and their mother (and their grandmother!) has a facebook account. And instagram stories now boasts more users than Snapchat.
turbobuckeye 9y ago
Disagree. While there are certainly other social apps, there is no (significant) direct competitor to FaceBook's core product. When you buy a car (e.g.) you generally have plenty of very similar options. That's not the case here. If we use the car analogy, FaceBook could be a sedan, and if you don't want a sedan your options are...well...not much. Of course you can buy a motorcycle (Instagram), moped (Pinterest), or van (Snapchat), but none of these are really the same thing other than the fact that they're motorized transport devices.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Add in things like share buybacks instead of dividends (because tax treatment of capital gains is more favorable than of distributed income), and corporate refusal to repatriate and reinvest overseas profits.

turbobuckeye 9y ago
Not sure why you say "corporate refusal." They're trying to minimize their tax liability, which is their fiduciary duty. If you owned a slice of that company, would you want money to go to distributions or taxes? Congress is to blame here. The US tax code is essentially the only one of all countries that doesn't have a regional income policy. The IRS just follows companies and individuals around the world.
- Symmetry 9y ago
  Shareholders would generally far prefer that tech companies repatriate the money, accept the tax hit, pay it out in dividends.
  - opo 9y ago
    I don't think you speak for all shareholders. Is there some evidence investors (except for the Carl Icahns of the world) want their companies to lose 40% of their foreign cash holdings?
- _delirium 9y ago
  There's no such fiduciary duty to internationally minimize tax liability. Shareholders might push for it, but it's not a legal fiduciary duty. The board of an American company could perfectly well choose to repatriate all foreign income, pay U.S. taxes on it, and then pay out a dividend using the repatriated income. That would even be the more traditional course of action, rather than sitting on a ton of overseas cash that you never pay out to shareholders.
  - concede_pluto 9y ago

tabtab 9y ago

Dodd-Frank barely affects small banks. It was intended to reduce "too big to fail", that is, big banks. Lobbyists have duped you.

turbobuckeye 9y ago
Nope. See http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks-dodd-frank-000197 http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks... and many others.
- turbobuckeye 9y ago
  Treed!
bpodgursky 9y ago
I'm sorry, but that is blatantly false. I don't know what sources you could possibly have used to form that opinion, but nobody who is informed agrees with you (ex, http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks-dodd-frank-000197 http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/09/community-banks...)
- tabtab 9y ago
  There are several moving parts to this. The regulative requirements on ALL residential loans has increased to make sure the loan requester (consumer) has sufficient ability to pay back the loan. After the Great Recession, the reasons for this should be obvious. This will increase "paperwork" for all banks doing home loans. The banking industry overall had RECORD PROFITS last year. Thus, Dodd Frank (DF) is not a general bank killer. Now, by some accounts smaller banks are more heavily impacted by DF regulations even though there are less rules for small banks. Why? Some analysts say big banks are better able to leverage "economies of scale" in DF compliance. Others say it takes time for software vendors to small banks to implement DF-related features, and that over time the burden will decrease as the software glitches are worked out so machines can do more of the grunt work. Democrat legislators agree DF should be better tuned for some issues related to small banks, but point out we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater: bad loans hurt everybody. Due to political gridlock, some of the suggested small-bank-related changes are stuck in political molasses. You can blame both parties and voters for that.

tobmlt 9y ago

Aren't Google, Amazon, and Facebook examples of the dynamism we want to foster? Facebook and Google hardly "do" anything, in past senses of the term "do". In other words: are Facebook and Google really part of the reason the US no longer has the dynamism it possessed in 1975? Surely they have only added new types of dynamism at little expense to old markets. Quick and messy statements, sorry. But I leave it there and move to Amazon. No doubt the (supply side) business environment for traditional goods and services has been greatly disrupted by Amazon at net increase to the average happiness of the (demand side) consumer. Then focus there and I have this to say: Consumers voted for amazon against traditional methods of purchase and consumption. To break-up amazon in favor of traditional competitors is a tax on consumers and a subsidy to inefficient, less-dynamic providers of those same goods. If amazon got big by doing something illegal then prosecute. If something specific needs to be made illegal then let's do so. But blanket persecution of companies just because they are large misses the consumer side point. Back to supplier side stuff, small businesses thrive on the internet, providing all manner of goods. Much of this is facilitated and protected by the big 3 above. Let's pop some popcorn and see how net-neutrality-esque issues play out over the long haul. I say that to the extent that big players remain free from the shackles of Washington DC, the free internet stands a fighting chance. Net neutrality wouldn't even be an issue if the backbone of the internet was made of more companies like google, and zero companies like Comcast and AT&T. Sorry to mix in more issues but competitive behemoths compete to the benefit of the consumer. Government sponsored behemoths are free to be as terrible as they want. Don't believe me? Call your local provider and have a chat about internet speeds. Banks are machines (one big mega machine anyone?) of wealth re-distribution from the relatively poor masses to the wealthy and connected few via the combination of inflationary disposition and fractional reserve banking. I would say that small banks will never be dynamic as long as they remain of the same ilk.