4 ms·

> And I think I'm right that they will increasingly leverage government to stay big now that they are. IMO that's not a convincing argument. Your response to t

> And I think I'm right that they will increasingly leverage government to stay big now that they are. IMO that's not a convincing argument. Your response to two specific counter-examples is "one day you'll see that those examples actually prove my point instead of yours"

_jal 8y ago
That's nice. If you'd like to convince me I'm wrong, you'll have to explain why these companies, which are subject to the same pressures as others and hire from the same pool of execs, will behave differently than the rest of the herd of large public firms. If you want to argue they'll lobby, manipulate and bribe less than average among peer-firms, well, that argument could be made. But if you want to argue that there's something special about them that means they won't play all the same games, perhaps start with explaining how Amazon's begging-for-handouts HQ tour is different than the sports stadium scam.
- rayiner 8y ago
  > If you want to argue they'll lobby, manipulate and bribe less than average among peer-firms, well, that argument could be made. You’re begging the question by assuming that this conduct is what keeps “peer firms” big. That’s the point in dispute. I’d say that there is good reason to believe why that isn’t true. Walmart spent just $7 million on lobbying last year. It’s a company with $500 billion in revenue. Does it make logical sense to infer that the $7 million in lobbying is what keeps the $500 billion spigot flowing? Much smaller competitors could out-lobby Walmart, raising the market price of corruption. Why doesn’t that happen—with hundreds of billions of dollars on the line? People take as a shibboleth that lobbying is corruption and corruption keeps big companies big. But that flies in the face of the actual data.
  - _jal 8y ago
    This is obviously a pretty pointless back-and-forth. You're attempting to treat lobbying as a binary. Does it make logical sense that Walmart would spend $7M if it didn't feel that investment had a return? Of course large companies are buoyed by other factors. But as congress-critters famously pointed out a while back, Silicon Valley had to learn to lobby. And they did, otherwise Bad Things could happen. Also, > People take as a shibboleth I don't know what tribe you're trying to make me a member of, but, uh, no. > But that flies in the face of the actual data If you're talking about the gap between $7m and $.5T, that dataoid demonstrates nothing other than that multinational retailers operate much larger firms than politicians do. My question stands: how is AZON playing a different game than they various sportball leagues?
    - rayiner 8y ago
      > You're attempting to treat lobbying as a binary. Does it make logical sense that Walmart would spend $7M if it didn't feel that investment had a return? Would Walmart spend only $7 million on lobbying if the return was so crazy high as you’re assuming it is? > If you're talking about the gap between $7m and $.5T, that dataoid demonstrates nothing other than that multinational retailers operate much larger firms than politicians do. Price doesn’t relate to size of firm or cost, but rather supply and demand. Under your theory, where lobbying is instrumental in keeping a $500 billion business from being out competed, demand should be high. At the same time, with a very limited number of Congress critters, supply is limited. That should push up the price as other firms bid to secure the supposed benefits Walmart now gets.

_jal 8y ago

That's nice. If you'd like to convince me I'm wrong, you'll have to explain why these companies, which are subject to the same pressures as others and hire from the same pool of execs, will behave differently than the rest of the herd of large public firms. If you want to argue they'll lobby, manipulate and bribe less than average among peer-firms, well, that argument could be made. But if you want to argue that there's something special about them that means they won't play all the same games, perhaps start with explaining how Amazon's begging-for-handouts HQ tour is different than the sports stadium scam.

rayiner 8y ago
> If you want to argue they'll lobby, manipulate and bribe less than average among peer-firms, well, that argument could be made. You’re begging the question by assuming that this conduct is what keeps “peer firms” big. That’s the point in dispute. I’d say that there is good reason to believe why that isn’t true. Walmart spent just $7 million on lobbying last year. It’s a company with $500 billion in revenue. Does it make logical sense to infer that the $7 million in lobbying is what keeps the $500 billion spigot flowing? Much smaller competitors could out-lobby Walmart, raising the market price of corruption. Why doesn’t that happen—with hundreds of billions of dollars on the line? People take as a shibboleth that lobbying is corruption and corruption keeps big companies big. But that flies in the face of the actual data.
- _jal 8y ago
  This is obviously a pretty pointless back-and-forth. You're attempting to treat lobbying as a binary. Does it make logical sense that Walmart would spend $7M if it didn't feel that investment had a return? Of course large companies are buoyed by other factors. But as congress-critters famously pointed out a while back, Silicon Valley had to learn to lobby. And they did, otherwise Bad Things could happen. Also, > People take as a shibboleth I don't know what tribe you're trying to make me a member of, but, uh, no. > But that flies in the face of the actual data If you're talking about the gap between $7m and $.5T, that dataoid demonstrates nothing other than that multinational retailers operate much larger firms than politicians do. My question stands: how is AZON playing a different game than they various sportball leagues?
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > You're attempting to treat lobbying as a binary. Does it make logical sense that Walmart would spend $7M if it didn't feel that investment had a return? Would Walmart spend only $7 million on lobbying if the return was so crazy high as you’re assuming it is? > If you're talking about the gap between $7m and $.5T, that dataoid demonstrates nothing other than that multinational retailers operate much larger firms than politicians do. Price doesn’t relate to size of firm or cost, but rather supply and demand. Under your theory, where lobbying is instrumental in keeping a $500 billion business from being out competed, demand should be high. At the same time, with a very limited number of Congress critters, supply is limited. That should push up the price as other firms bid to secure the supposed benefits Walmart now gets.