4 ms·

They did not do anything illegal. How is this connected to "break up Google" argument? If this was illegal, I'm sure the SEC would be on it not just for Googl

They did not do anything illegal. How is this connected to "break up Google" argument? If this was illegal, I'm sure the SEC would be on it not just for Google but for the million other companies doing the same.

kevingadd 6y ago
Laws are what the government decides they are, and the details of that are very complicated. Depending on who you ask antitrust is about the impact on consumers (competition, fair pricing, etc), not about whether some particular footnote to a law was violated due to someone misplacing a decimal point. FTR the US government has historically in fact made multiple efforts to prosecute companies like Google for violations of the law, so...
- balanced009 6y ago
  Not really. We, the people, choose the lawmakers (congress) via election. I still don't see your argument. How is voting power tied to Tim's post?
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    I never mentioned voting power. You vote to elect lawmakers, and lawmakers draft laws with the assistance of lobbyists + vote to appoint unelected officials responsible for enforcement. Election has no direct relevance here. "If this was illegal, I'm sure the SEC would be on it" is based on the assumption that laws are infallible text with obvious interpretation, when the history of law enforcement - especially in finance and antitrust - is very fuzzy and about interpretation, with interpretation often down to unelected officials.
sudhirj 6y ago
The expression ‘break up a company’ carries some moral judgement in it, as if it’s a punishment for doing bad things. Not sure exactly what it is, but it’s more a societal move that smells a bit of socialism. Google is a capitalist company in a capitalist system, but the breaking up companies / anti trust is a non-capitalist power above it that is willing to sacrifice money to create societal wealth.
- peteretep 6y ago
  Breaking up monopolies gives us more free markets, and is a move towards capitalism, not away from it.
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    It's fair to say it's a non-capitalist power, I think. It's the government interfering in the operation of companies instead of allowing it to be entirely controlled by the market players - for good reason, of course. A capitalist alternative would probably look more like levying fees or capping prices to try and balance the market... which is something that also happens from time to time.
    - sudhirj 6y ago
      Even fees and price caps would not be considered capitalist or free-market - they both interfere with the market dynamics. In all cases, we need to interfere with the free market to improve goodness for society as a whole. But we don't need to attach moral connotations to this – the companies have done nothing illegal, and the executives are doing their jobs. The issue is when technology is applied to natural free markets, a monopoly logically results, which kills the market if left unchecked.

kevingadd 6y ago

Laws are what the government decides they are, and the details of that are very complicated. Depending on who you ask antitrust is about the impact on consumers (competition, fair pricing, etc), not about whether some particular footnote to a law was violated due to someone misplacing a decimal point. FTR the US government has historically in fact made multiple efforts to prosecute companies like Google for violations of the law, so...

balanced009 6y ago
Not really. We, the people, choose the lawmakers (congress) via election. I still don't see your argument. How is voting power tied to Tim's post?
- kevingadd 6y ago
  I never mentioned voting power. You vote to elect lawmakers, and lawmakers draft laws with the assistance of lobbyists + vote to appoint unelected officials responsible for enforcement. Election has no direct relevance here. "If this was illegal, I'm sure the SEC would be on it" is based on the assumption that laws are infallible text with obvious interpretation, when the history of law enforcement - especially in finance and antitrust - is very fuzzy and about interpretation, with interpretation often down to unelected officials.

sudhirj 6y ago

The expression ‘break up a company’ carries some moral judgement in it, as if it’s a punishment for doing bad things. Not sure exactly what it is, but it’s more a societal move that smells a bit of socialism. Google is a capitalist company in a capitalist system, but the breaking up companies / anti trust is a non-capitalist power above it that is willing to sacrifice money to create societal wealth.

peteretep 6y ago
Breaking up monopolies gives us more free markets, and is a move towards capitalism, not away from it.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  It's fair to say it's a non-capitalist power, I think. It's the government interfering in the operation of companies instead of allowing it to be entirely controlled by the market players - for good reason, of course. A capitalist alternative would probably look more like levying fees or capping prices to try and balance the market... which is something that also happens from time to time.
  - sudhirj 6y ago
    Even fees and price caps would not be considered capitalist or free-market - they both interfere with the market dynamics. In all cases, we need to interfere with the free market to improve goodness for society as a whole. But we don't need to attach moral connotations to this – the companies have done nothing illegal, and the executives are doing their jobs. The issue is when technology is applied to natural free markets, a monopoly logically results, which kills the market if left unchecked.