4 ms·
The counter argument is that the US needs to keep FAANG companies large as a weapon/counter measure against large rival Chinese companies.
by mrharrison 6y ago
The counter argument is that the US needs to keep FAANG companies large as a weapon/counter measure against large rival Chinese companies.
- ambicapter 6y agoDepends on if you want one very large but somewhat lazy defender or a swarm of small, fast and aggressive defenders.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Barrin92 6y agoPeople used to make this exact argument in the 80s when it came to Japan, and even when it came to the Soviet Union[1]. There were countless of people who had already written off competitive markets in favour of supporting domestic industry. In the car industry people actually listened and enacted domestic protection, what did that get the US? Two lost decades of shoddy cars. Have Japanese conglomerates overtaken the world? Nope. I think it's an absolute smokescreen and such a blatant attempt by Facebook to use nationalism to protect their status. In the long run we're better served by trusting in innovation than trying to protect domestic business. It was always the right bet. And if China continues to prop up giants they'll just stagnate. The reason they caught up in the first place is because, for at least a short time, they allowed free-wheeling fierce competition. [1]https://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/12/why_were_americ.html https://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/12/why_were_americ.htm...
- w7 6y agoI think there is a profound difference between car companies, which produce a "dumb" item that's consumed, and "big tech" companies which have shown they can have a major cultural and political impact both domestically and abroad because their business is information itself. It doesn't make sense to discount an argument because of a similar one which applied to something almost completely different.
- JumpCrisscross 6y agoCar companies haven't had a major impact on American culture and politics? Have you been to an American city or suburb?
- throwaway3563 6y ago> because their business is information itself No they haven’t, not in that way.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago> In the car industry people actually listened and enacted domestic protection, what did that get the US? Two lost decades of shoddy cars. Have Japanese conglomerates overtaken the world? Nope. Toyota, Honda, Nissan - they pretty much dominate global car sales, but that’s because they had a better product.
- iratewizard 6y agoWhy is Facebook included in that? If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, dopamine addicts would switch to a different drug and your 3rd cousin would have to put more effort into bothering you.
- nojito 6y agoDisagree. Google is far worse than Facebook. The amount of hackers ok with what google does is just sad.
- oars 6y agoCould you elaborate how Google is worse than Facebook? I thought the general (hacker) consensus was that Facebook has much more negative impacts on society.
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoThat's (IMO, obviously) mostly driven by cognitive dissonance. Google provides such a useful product for nerds, that it must be an OK company, right? Whereas FB is for social connections, which are often less important to many hackers than access to information.
- Aunche 6y agoFor better or worse, social media is here to stay. Do you prefer Facebook or TikTok?