5 ms·

Companies too big to fail grow even bigger. This is not sustainable. At some point (sooner rather than later) we need a legislation that will be splitting compa

Companies too big to fail grow even bigger. This is not sustainable. At some point (sooner rather than later) we need a legislation that will be splitting companies going over a certain size. Big companies don't pay the same high taxes as small companies and beside the size, this is another unfair competitive advantage that stifles development, keep wages low and does not pay enough money in taxes, so that people have to pick up the tab. We get a situation that CEOs fly private jets and paying hardly any tax and workers getting peanuts in comparison plus having to pay like 40% of what they make and going to work in a beaten up Toyota.

apples_oranges 6y ago
I understand your point, but I have MSFT shares, I win, if Microsoft wins.. My point is I and many others profit from the status quo. If anything, I would want that 40% tax reduced and the surplus invested in shares, such as MSFT.. Not saying it's an ideal situation..
- varispeed 6y ago
  In my country shareholders don't pay the same income tax as workers - this also plays in favour for the rich. It is insane that people who make money from other people work pay less tax than workers who create all those profits.
dkyc 6y ago
Visiting a parking lot in Redmond might help you reconsider your image of pitiful, suffering Microsoft workers driving beaten-up Toyotas.
signal11 6y ago
Size imposes a penalty on companies anyway. And companies shrink as well as grow. IBM shrank. Microsoft closed up its entire mobile efforts after acquiring Nokia (another company that shrank). Then there’s Polaroid, Blockbuster, Xerox, DEC, ... the list goes on and on. Even Sears was once unassailable. Until it wasn’t. Similarly, Amazon might seem too entrenched now, but really it’s just one storefront among many and could easily go the way of Sears. There are also lots of antitrust tools available to regulators, including breakup. Saying “acquisitions are bad” and imposing an arbitrary limit on size is short-sighted nanny-state thinking. The market should be regulated, but market forces are also an important regulator and that fact needs to be recognised more widely.
- indigochill 6y ago
  > Then there’s Polaroid, Blockbuster, Xerox, DEC... I wonder what the correlation is to long-term business health and acquisition. Facebook I would bet you would have shrunk substantially by now if not for its acquisition of Instagram. If Google's long purchase history of various supplementary services (like the tech behind Google Earth or YouTube) had been blocked, they would have at least taken a lot longer to get to their current position. By contrast, I don't think any of your example of shrunk companies going on anything like the acquisition spree that these tech giants have. At this point they don't have to innovate because they have enough money to keep buying the new hotness forever. In general I agree with your opposition to "short-sighted nanny-state thinking", but this seems like the lightest touch that solves the problem of tech/wealth consolidation that I've seen, but I'm certainly interested in hearing about lighter solutions.
  - signal11 6y ago
    > I don't think any of your example of shrunk companies going on anything like the acquisition spree that these tech giants have. IBM has a long history re acquisitions[1]. Xerox hasn't done it quite as much, but they started as a photographic paper company (Haloid) and actually acquired their photocopying business (the Rectigraph Company). They've made many other acquisitions more recently[2], but of course on a scale that suits their budget. To the bigger point about the multi-billion dollar acquisitions that current tech giants do, those are a function of the massive cash piles the companies are sitting on and the low interest rate regime worldwide (which causes stock prices to go up). It's not like these "lock up" competition or anything. Indeed, by ending Nuance as an independent specialized voice to text company, there'll be more pressure now to fund alternative independent implementations. Google already has one that's nipping at Nuance's heels. You might see others fund a third effort now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_IBM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... [2] https://www.news.xerox.com/investors/acquisitions https://www.news.xerox.com/investors/acquisitions
- varispeed 6y ago
  > Microsoft closed up its entire mobile efforts after acquiring Nokia Sometimes what happens is, that big company sees something useful that small company is doing, they buy them, pick the part that they need and then close the rest. > Amazon might seem too entrenched now, but really it’s just one storefront Then they should pay taxes just as a storefront. > The market should be regulated, but market forces are also an important regulator and that fact needs to be recognised more widely. The regulation is very weak. There is no level playing field as big companies have money to buy politicians and regulation that favours them and penalises competition. The whole concept of legalised corruption - lobbying goes against free market and should be illegal.
cblconfederate 6y ago
I 'm going to go against the groupthink here and suggest that if these companies had done ICOs instead of IPOs , people could vote with their feet against them by walking away from their currency. The way the current financial system is set up, these companies have their market caps because the state a) protects the currency and b) heavily regulates where and how people can invest. As the sibling comment suggests, the system incentivizes the status quo
- varispeed 6y ago
  ICO seems a better idea, indeed, but still you have a situation where the real consumer is a shareholder and the clients are the product. I don't think this is in the spirit of capitalism.

apples_oranges 6y ago

I understand your point, but I have MSFT shares, I win, if Microsoft wins.. My point is I and many others profit from the status quo. If anything, I would want that 40% tax reduced and the surplus invested in shares, such as MSFT.. Not saying it's an ideal situation..

varispeed 6y ago
In my country shareholders don't pay the same income tax as workers - this also plays in favour for the rich. It is insane that people who make money from other people work pay less tax than workers who create all those profits.

dkyc 6y ago

Visiting a parking lot in Redmond might help you reconsider your image of pitiful, suffering Microsoft workers driving beaten-up Toyotas.

signal11 6y ago

Size imposes a penalty on companies anyway. And companies shrink as well as grow. IBM shrank. Microsoft closed up its entire mobile efforts after acquiring Nokia (another company that shrank). Then there’s Polaroid, Blockbuster, Xerox, DEC, ... the list goes on and on. Even Sears was once unassailable. Until it wasn’t. Similarly, Amazon might seem too entrenched now, but really it’s just one storefront among many and could easily go the way of Sears. There are also lots of antitrust tools available to regulators, including breakup. Saying “acquisitions are bad” and imposing an arbitrary limit on size is short-sighted nanny-state thinking. The market should be regulated, but market forces are also an important regulator and that fact needs to be recognised more widely.

indigochill 6y ago
> Then there’s Polaroid, Blockbuster, Xerox, DEC... I wonder what the correlation is to long-term business health and acquisition. Facebook I would bet you would have shrunk substantially by now if not for its acquisition of Instagram. If Google's long purchase history of various supplementary services (like the tech behind Google Earth or YouTube) had been blocked, they would have at least taken a lot longer to get to their current position. By contrast, I don't think any of your example of shrunk companies going on anything like the acquisition spree that these tech giants have. At this point they don't have to innovate because they have enough money to keep buying the new hotness forever. In general I agree with your opposition to "short-sighted nanny-state thinking", but this seems like the lightest touch that solves the problem of tech/wealth consolidation that I've seen, but I'm certainly interested in hearing about lighter solutions.
- signal11 6y ago
  > I don't think any of your example of shrunk companies going on anything like the acquisition spree that these tech giants have. IBM has a long history re acquisitions[1]. Xerox hasn't done it quite as much, but they started as a photographic paper company (Haloid) and actually acquired their photocopying business (the Rectigraph Company). They've made many other acquisitions more recently[2], but of course on a scale that suits their budget. To the bigger point about the multi-billion dollar acquisitions that current tech giants do, those are a function of the massive cash piles the companies are sitting on and the low interest rate regime worldwide (which causes stock prices to go up). It's not like these "lock up" competition or anything. Indeed, by ending Nuance as an independent specialized voice to text company, there'll be more pressure now to fund alternative independent implementations. Google already has one that's nipping at Nuance's heels. You might see others fund a third effort now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_IBM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio... [2] https://www.news.xerox.com/investors/acquisitions https://www.news.xerox.com/investors/acquisitions
varispeed 6y ago
> Microsoft closed up its entire mobile efforts after acquiring Nokia Sometimes what happens is, that big company sees something useful that small company is doing, they buy them, pick the part that they need and then close the rest. > Amazon might seem too entrenched now, but really it’s just one storefront Then they should pay taxes just as a storefront. > The market should be regulated, but market forces are also an important regulator and that fact needs to be recognised more widely. The regulation is very weak. There is no level playing field as big companies have money to buy politicians and regulation that favours them and penalises competition. The whole concept of legalised corruption - lobbying goes against free market and should be illegal.

cblconfederate 6y ago

I 'm going to go against the groupthink here and suggest that if these companies had done ICOs instead of IPOs , people could vote with their feet against them by walking away from their currency. The way the current financial system is set up, these companies have their market caps because the state a) protects the currency and b) heavily regulates where and how people can invest. As the sibling comment suggests, the system incentivizes the status quo

varispeed 6y ago
ICO seems a better idea, indeed, but still you have a situation where the real consumer is a shareholder and the clients are the product. I don't think this is in the spirit of capitalism.