3 ms·

This article has a lot of economical misconceptions. To name just one of the most blatant: the author complains about wages not growing enough, but also that t

by lnino 9y ago

This article has a lot of economical misconceptions. To name just one of the most blatant: the author complains about wages not growing enough, but also that tech giants are "less efficient" in job creation, having more market value per employee, and requiring less employees to generate the same revenue and profit. How the heck is a company supposed to pay more it's employees without being able to make more money per employee? And if it's making more money per employee, then obviously they will have more market value per employee. This is not a company being inefficient at "creating jobs" but actually being efficient at creating high quality jobs with wages that keep growing over time. That's just basic math and economics, but seems to be beyond the understanding of the author. All the part about the economic impact of the big four is quite nonsensical, and reads like the proverbial rant of light bulb makers that they can't compete with a free source of light like the sun. As with most of the current zeitgeist the idea of the article seems to be that success is the problem. The problem with the big four is not that they exist, but why there aren't more of them? Why not the big 100 or 1000? What's hindering other companies from being as successful in generating profits and high-paying jobs? Maybe the big four are doing a lot of evil things to prevent others from joining the club. Maybe the government is also to blame. Maybe both big government and big companies are together in this (anyone knows the meaning of the word "lobbyist"?). If you keep asking the wrong questions and ignoring basic economic reality you'll never get to know the answer.

pedro_hab 9y ago
On the math part, I see a lot of complaints on the rich, in these case the big four are indeed huge, but compared to what? Last time I check none of these had reach $ 1T value, compared to the US government that expends $ 3T a year. No one of those same people seem to be concerned with the harms of the a government expending so much money.
- lnino 9y ago
  People think the government is their fairy godmother.
Nomentatus 9y ago
Not so. The author praises economic efficiency, but understands its downsides and thinks some of the transition costs could be paid by four companies that are actually evading taxes other companies pay. There aren't more of them for the reasons given in the article - they've been allowed to extend their monopolies so freely that now investors won't touch possible competitors 'cause they know they're already crushed. Extending a monopoly (actually, it's market power, not monopoly that matters) is illegal. But the U.S. decided these were their thugs, so they wouldn't touch them - just let them extinguish a competitive marketplace in area after area as they metastasized. That's how the U.S. has violated the principles of free trade and abused its economic partners, for decades. Now, the domestic cost to the U.S. itself is becoming clearer.
- lnino 9y ago
  The author may praise efficiency, but seems not to understand it, for the reasons pointed above.

by lnino 9y ago

pedro_hab 9y ago

On the math part, I see a lot of complaints on the rich, in these case the big four are indeed huge, but compared to what? Last time I check none of these had reach $ 1T value, compared to the US government that expends $ 3T a year. No one of those same people seem to be concerned with the harms of the a government expending so much money.

lnino 9y ago
People think the government is their fairy godmother.

Nomentatus 9y ago

Not so. The author praises economic efficiency, but understands its downsides and thinks some of the transition costs could be paid by four companies that are actually evading taxes other companies pay. There aren't more of them for the reasons given in the article - they've been allowed to extend their monopolies so freely that now investors won't touch possible competitors 'cause they know they're already crushed. Extending a monopoly (actually, it's market power, not monopoly that matters) is illegal. But the U.S. decided these were their thugs, so they wouldn't touch them - just let them extinguish a competitive marketplace in area after area as they metastasized. That's how the U.S. has violated the principles of free trade and abused its economic partners, for decades. Now, the domestic cost to the U.S. itself is becoming clearer.

lnino 9y ago
The author may praise efficiency, but seems not to understand it, for the reasons pointed above.