5 ms·

As a foreigner, I'm amazed by how little weight Americans seem to put on international competitiveness. I mean, I guess I should be gleeful that you have presid

As a foreigner, I'm amazed by how little weight Americans seem to put on international competitiveness. I mean, I guess I should be gleeful that you have presidential candidates that want to blow up the only companies that give you a competitive edge. But really, isn't Warren at all concerned that the ones to pick up the pieces after her plan is implemented are very unlikely to be American?

mtgx 7y ago
Your comment sounds a lot like the propaganda Google and Facebook have been pushing lately to avoid a breakup. And the "but China!" excuse is as patethic as the one about not jailing bankers 'because the economy will crash'. Excuse while I refuse to take these self-serving excuses at face value.
jellicle 7y ago
If you go by net income on a tax return, or by taxes paid, none of the companies you're talking about are American at all. 0%. You're also misunderstanding the effects and purpose of breaking up larger companies, which are: to restore and increase competitiveness.
pgcj_poster 7y ago
It seems like this sort of thinking would lead to a "race to the bottom" where every country gives maximum leniency to its biggest companies. I'm not sure that's good for anyone.
- Radle 7y ago
  Exactly what we German did with the big automobile companies. It's incredible unhealthy. Once you start listening to their every whim, big corps start to rely on politics to solve their problems. Obviously it's then that they stop to perform, like a spoiled child.
- Grue3 7y ago
  Why do you think Korean companies are so powerful? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol
analog31 7y ago
I wonder how "American" a multinational company really is, or what it even means for a company to be "located" in a particular country. A company probably puts its headquarters in the location where its executives want to live, where they think that they might be able to hire people readily, or something along those lines. Those things wouldn't be dramatically changed by breaking up the big tech companies. Where they pay taxes, if any, is already independent of where they are "located."
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago
  > I wonder how "American" a multinational company really is, or what it even means for a company to be "located" in a particular country. The cynic in me thinks the acid test is whether the NSA can lean on them.
TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
I don't see any obvious foreign competitors that would be likely to take over in the US and Europe. As a very crude and not entirely accurate rule of thumb, large US corporations operate with a monopolistic mindset which is inherently developed-Western-going-on-global. Competitive countries operate with a more explicitly nationalistic mindset which makes it harder for them to operate in the same market spaces in the same way. (Not impossible - just harder.) And the language barrier will always be a problem. So no - I don't expect non-US corporations to take over.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >So no - I don't expect non-US corporations to take over. I do. Why not? It took a little over 2 decades to move the entire high-tech electronic supply chain to Asia, and now Apple couldn't manufacture iPhones in United States even if they wanted to. The problem is that at that scale, once inertia takes over, even if you see it coming there will be nothing you can do about it.
wwarner 7y ago
This exactly what I was going to say. Except not quite exactly as the words were chosen and arranged in a superior fashion.
Proven 7y ago
There is no such thing as international competitiveness. From the article: > Let’s jump in front of Pet Pillows and do “Amazon pet pillows” and move Pet Pillows from the front page back to page 16. Why would Pet Pillows and future sellers use only Amazon if that's the case? Are these companies managed by morons? Warren's ideas are the usual destructiveness seem from socialist politicians. She has no idea how to run a business or manage anything - how could she possibly have a clue? It's sad that she gets the attention.
macspoofing 7y ago
>I'm amazed by how little weight Americans seem to put on international competitiveness Embarrassment of riches. There's an attitude in America that being in the lead is just the default state because America has been a leader in tech for decades now. Meanwhile most international multinationals are jealously guarded and protected by their respective national governments and are seen by the respective populations as their national pride (e.g. VW in Germany) A good example is the vilification of the Silicon Valley tech scene by local governments (looking at you San Francisco) while every other nation is desperately trying to recreate it within their own borders - because who doesn't want thousands of high-paying / high-tech jobs in their region? Or how Amazon had their new HQ driven out of New York by local activists and local 'progressive' politicians. Embarrassment of riches indeed.
patientplatypus 7y ago
I mean...how is having one or two massive oligopolists (sp?) good for the US' international competitiveness? That seems to be something you just assumed would be true as given, which is odd. Yes, there will be less economies of scale, but on the other hand there will be more competition and innovation. The least innovative companies out there are major market makers who don't have to improve to grab that sweet sweet dollar. Like, is the US more internationally competitive because your internet provider is massive and charges you ever increasing prices for ever decreasing service? Clearly there are trade offs.
thefounder 7y ago
>> But really, isn't Warren at all concerned that the ones to pick up the pieces after her plan is implemented are very unlikely to be American? Well Trump or whoever is the president then can instate a national security emergency and kick out that foreign company. I know this sounds like a broken record but it looks like this is how trade works now.
- bluecalm 7y ago
  Yeah they might defend the domestic market by protectionism measures but they won't be able to do anything about international one.
  - thefounder 7y ago
    It looks like they can. Look no further than Huawei and ZTE.
qieja 7y ago
It's a simple left-wing and right-wing issue. It's in the interest of the left wing to have a weaker nation.
notus 7y ago
If being competitive internationally comes at the cost of exploiting workers then I don't want it and neither should any other modern country.
Faark 7y ago
This feels like an masterfully written propaganda statement to me, made to sneak in a lot of hidden / unjustified assumptions and stir up feelings. - As a foreigner, I'm amazed by how little weight Americans seem to put on international competitiveness will certainly rile up a lot of readers. Those who don't like the plan and thus disagree with it being equated as "American" just like that who don't think it will ruin everything. - The second sentence overtly states "US competitiveness == Big companies (and nothing else)" while painting the politicians as intensionally harmful - The last one again presupposes the plan to fail, and now also for it to necessarily crush the "post-breakup pieces". - There also seems to be a general sentiment that non-american must be bad for America. And this are just the ones I spotted. The post doesn't justify any of those. In a verbal conversation, this would certainly harmful to the exchange of ideas and likely be used by people wanting to further their agenda by driving the other side into defending positions (if lucky with those facts included). I hope the effects in text are not as bad.
archagon 7y ago
We're just a few steps away from a dystopian future ruled by mega-corporations. Regardless of how competitive it might be, I don't want to end up there under any circumstance.

mtgx 7y ago

Your comment sounds a lot like the propaganda Google and Facebook have been pushing lately to avoid a breakup. And the "but China!" excuse is as patethic as the one about not jailing bankers 'because the economy will crash'. Excuse while I refuse to take these self-serving excuses at face value.

jellicle 7y ago

If you go by net income on a tax return, or by taxes paid, none of the companies you're talking about are American at all. 0%. You're also misunderstanding the effects and purpose of breaking up larger companies, which are: to restore and increase competitiveness.

pgcj_poster 7y ago

It seems like this sort of thinking would lead to a "race to the bottom" where every country gives maximum leniency to its biggest companies. I'm not sure that's good for anyone.

Radle 7y ago
Exactly what we German did with the big automobile companies. It's incredible unhealthy. Once you start listening to their every whim, big corps start to rely on politics to solve their problems. Obviously it's then that they stop to perform, like a spoiled child.
Grue3 7y ago
Why do you think Korean companies are so powerful? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaebol

analog31 7y ago

I wonder how "American" a multinational company really is, or what it even means for a company to be "located" in a particular country. A company probably puts its headquarters in the location where its executives want to live, where they think that they might be able to hire people readily, or something along those lines. Those things wouldn't be dramatically changed by breaking up the big tech companies. Where they pay taxes, if any, is already independent of where they are "located."

MaxBarraclough 7y ago
> I wonder how "American" a multinational company really is, or what it even means for a company to be "located" in a particular country. The cynic in me thinks the acid test is whether the NSA can lean on them.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago

I don't see any obvious foreign competitors that would be likely to take over in the US and Europe. As a very crude and not entirely accurate rule of thumb, large US corporations operate with a monopolistic mindset which is inherently developed-Western-going-on-global. Competitive countries operate with a more explicitly nationalistic mindset which makes it harder for them to operate in the same market spaces in the same way. (Not impossible - just harder.) And the language barrier will always be a problem. So no - I don't expect non-US corporations to take over.

macspoofing 7y ago
>So no - I don't expect non-US corporations to take over. I do. Why not? It took a little over 2 decades to move the entire high-tech electronic supply chain to Asia, and now Apple couldn't manufacture iPhones in United States even if they wanted to. The problem is that at that scale, once inertia takes over, even if you see it coming there will be nothing you can do about it.

wwarner 7y ago

This exactly what I was going to say. Except not quite exactly as the words were chosen and arranged in a superior fashion.

Proven 7y ago

There is no such thing as international competitiveness. From the article: > Let’s jump in front of Pet Pillows and do “Amazon pet pillows” and move Pet Pillows from the front page back to page 16. Why would Pet Pillows and future sellers use only Amazon if that's the case? Are these companies managed by morons? Warren's ideas are the usual destructiveness seem from socialist politicians. She has no idea how to run a business or manage anything - how could she possibly have a clue? It's sad that she gets the attention.

macspoofing 7y ago

>I'm amazed by how little weight Americans seem to put on international competitiveness Embarrassment of riches. There's an attitude in America that being in the lead is just the default state because America has been a leader in tech for decades now. Meanwhile most international multinationals are jealously guarded and protected by their respective national governments and are seen by the respective populations as their national pride (e.g. VW in Germany) A good example is the vilification of the Silicon Valley tech scene by local governments (looking at you San Francisco) while every other nation is desperately trying to recreate it within their own borders - because who doesn't want thousands of high-paying / high-tech jobs in their region? Or how Amazon had their new HQ driven out of New York by local activists and local 'progressive' politicians. Embarrassment of riches indeed.

patientplatypus 7y ago

I mean...how is having one or two massive oligopolists (sp?) good for the US' international competitiveness? That seems to be something you just assumed would be true as given, which is odd. Yes, there will be less economies of scale, but on the other hand there will be more competition and innovation. The least innovative companies out there are major market makers who don't have to improve to grab that sweet sweet dollar. Like, is the US more internationally competitive because your internet provider is massive and charges you ever increasing prices for ever decreasing service? Clearly there are trade offs.

thefounder 7y ago

>> But really, isn't Warren at all concerned that the ones to pick up the pieces after her plan is implemented are very unlikely to be American? Well Trump or whoever is the president then can instate a national security emergency and kick out that foreign company. I know this sounds like a broken record but it looks like this is how trade works now.

bluecalm 7y ago
Yeah they might defend the domestic market by protectionism measures but they won't be able to do anything about international one.
- thefounder 7y ago
  It looks like they can. Look no further than Huawei and ZTE.

qieja 7y ago

It's a simple left-wing and right-wing issue. It's in the interest of the left wing to have a weaker nation.

notus 7y ago

If being competitive internationally comes at the cost of exploiting workers then I don't want it and neither should any other modern country.

Faark 7y ago

This feels like an masterfully written propaganda statement to me, made to sneak in a lot of hidden / unjustified assumptions and stir up feelings. - As a foreigner, I'm amazed by how little weight Americans seem to put on international competitiveness will certainly rile up a lot of readers. Those who don't like the plan and thus disagree with it being equated as "American" just like that who don't think it will ruin everything. - The second sentence overtly states "US competitiveness == Big companies (and nothing else)" while painting the politicians as intensionally harmful - The last one again presupposes the plan to fail, and now also for it to necessarily crush the "post-breakup pieces". - There also seems to be a general sentiment that non-american must be bad for America. And this are just the ones I spotted. The post doesn't justify any of those. In a verbal conversation, this would certainly harmful to the exchange of ideas and likely be used by people wanting to further their agenda by driving the other side into defending positions (if lucky with those facts included). I hope the effects in text are not as bad.

archagon 7y ago

We're just a few steps away from a dystopian future ruled by mega-corporations. Regardless of how competitive it might be, I don't want to end up there under any circumstance.