4 ms·

You're assuming you can know (or rather, that a bureaucracy can know) what the 'correct' size for any given business is. Google is a medium sized company by ma

You're assuming you can know (or rather, that a bureaucracy can know) what the 'correct' size for any given business is. Google is a medium sized company by many measures. There are companies with far more employees, offices, and physical footprint for example. Who are you to say that this company is a "behemoth" but for example Volkswagen ($221 billion of yearly revenues) is not? Where is the line drawn? I think a lot of entrepreneurs are motivated by the thoughts of huge success. If a government says that success will be punished the moment two-bit competitors complain (as e.g. tiny websites that nobody ever cared about complained about Google Shopping), then why set out on the arduous journey to create a big firm? AMD vs Intel is different. In cases like that, it's obvious how to avoid problems: don't pay companies to not use your competitors. That seems reasonable. But with something like Google Shopping vs companies so small and worthless that the EU's press release doesn't even bother to name them (nor does Wikipedia's page on the case), it's not at all clear what lessons entrepreneurs should draw. Don't add features to your own product? Don't be too successful? I followed all three cases closely and frankly to me the enforcement looks arbitrary and vindictive (and yes I'm an "EU citizen"). The Commission decided - entirely arbitrarily - that Google Shopping must be the dominant way to buy things online, which will come as news to people who use Amazon or Ebay or European equivalents like Zalando.

coldtea 7y ago
>You're assuming you can know (or rather, that a bureaucracy can know) what the 'correct' size for any given business is. No, I assume I know what kind of businesses I prefer to deal with, and that is smaller... >Google is a medium sized company by many measures. There are companies with far more employees, offices, and physical footprint for example. Who are you to say that this company is a "behemoth" but for example Volkswagen ($221 billion of yearly revenues) is not? Where is the line drawn? Wherever the people and their votes/laws want to draw it, with as many exceptions to the rule as they like? >I think a lot of entrepreneurs are motivated by the thoughts of huge success. If a government says that success will be punished the moment two-bit competitors complain (as e.g. tiny websites that nobody ever cared about complained about Google Shopping), then why set out on the arduous journey to create a big firm? Well, then don't. That's fine by me (people not setting out "to create a big firm"), and would be totally OK in my perfect world. Now those are personal preferences. But ,y main point is not communism but democracy: people being asked, and being able to decide and set course for the society they like. As opposed to letting the "laws of historical materialism" (communism), the fuhrer (fascism), or "the invisible hand of the market" (capitalism) decide for them...
- repolfx 7y ago
  In practice the EU's competition mechanisms aren't based on votes and the people have no influence over it. But people can choose who to do business with, as you observe. Apparently all those people's decisions added up led to Google being its current size. The invisible hand is really just a way of saying "people voting with their wallets". It's not perfect, but it's better than Vestager being judge, jury and executioner.

coldtea 7y ago

>You're assuming you can know (or rather, that a bureaucracy can know) what the 'correct' size for any given business is. No, I assume I know what kind of businesses I prefer to deal with, and that is smaller... >Google is a medium sized company by many measures. There are companies with far more employees, offices, and physical footprint for example. Who are you to say that this company is a "behemoth" but for example Volkswagen ($221 billion of yearly revenues) is not? Where is the line drawn? Wherever the people and their votes/laws want to draw it, with as many exceptions to the rule as they like? >I think a lot of entrepreneurs are motivated by the thoughts of huge success. If a government says that success will be punished the moment two-bit competitors complain (as e.g. tiny websites that nobody ever cared about complained about Google Shopping), then why set out on the arduous journey to create a big firm? Well, then don't. That's fine by me (people not setting out "to create a big firm"), and would be totally OK in my perfect world. Now those are personal preferences. But ,y main point is not communism but democracy: people being asked, and being able to decide and set course for the society they like. As opposed to letting the "laws of historical materialism" (communism), the fuhrer (fascism), or "the invisible hand of the market" (capitalism) decide for them...

repolfx 7y ago
In practice the EU's competition mechanisms aren't based on votes and the people have no influence over it. But people can choose who to do business with, as you observe. Apparently all those people's decisions added up led to Google being its current size. The invisible hand is really just a way of saying "people voting with their wallets". It's not perfect, but it's better than Vestager being judge, jury and executioner.