4 ms·

You cannot be serious. Where do you think all that money went?

by krono 5y ago

Nasrudith 5y ago
Serious zero sum financial thinking there - assuming profiting from a transaction means the other party must be worse off. And implicitly applying the thieves's syllogism too that is "you have it, I want it, therefore you stole it from me".
- krono 5y ago
  I was alluding to the antitrust accusations. My comment being placed in the broader context them was perhaps too far-fetched of a hint.
danielmarkbruce 5y ago
Self driving cars, free email, free docs, sheets etc. It is a serious point. Protecting advertising companies from each other is a perplexing choice of resource allocation given the alternatives.
- ajvs 5y ago
  "don't go after monopolies which are abusing their dominance to keep everyone else poorer"
- onion2k 5y ago
  Given the choice between free email and Google paying enough tax to improve the entire education system of the US, why do you think people would pick email? Do you believe everyone is stupid?
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    >why do you think people would pick email I don't like taxing so I would never advocate for taxing a person or a company.
  - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
    It's an antritrust suit.
- krono 5y ago
  So big tech gave all this stuff away without asking or taking any sort of compensation (i.e. free), and yet they've managed to accumulate levels of influence and wealth previously only beholden to sovereign states. Coincidentally, around the same time big tech came into being, the nation that birthed, nurtured, and protected them started losing its world dominance to rival sovereignties that took the opposite approach in dealing with these generous givers by monitoring their behaviour, limiting their power and influence over the nation and its citizens, enforcing compliance with national policy (for good or bad), and extracting a fair share of the profits in return for their use of public infrastructure.
  - danielmarkbruce 5y ago
    They took the money they made in search ads and built a lot of products they give away, yes. The wealth is all from search ads. The US had a little moment of time where it was the dominant power. It wasn't the dominant power in 1900 and it won't be in 2050. The idea that the decline is because of Google etc defies a much simpler explanation. As soon as China moved off of straight communism they were bound for dominance due to their population and general work ethic. There is no reason that over the long term China should have lower GDP per person than the US. Hence they'll have about 4x the total GDP and be able to spend 4x as much on military due to their 4x population size v US.

You cannot be serious. Where do you think all that money went?

by krono 5y ago

You cannot be serious. Where do you think all that money went?

Serious zero sum financial thinking there - assuming profiting from a transaction means the other party must be worse off. And implicitly applying the thieves's syllogism too that is "you have it, I want it, therefore you stole it from me".

krono 5y ago
I was alluding to the antitrust accusations. My comment being placed in the broader context them was perhaps too far-fetched of a hint.

danielmarkbruce 5y ago

Self driving cars, free email, free docs, sheets etc. It is a serious point. Protecting advertising companies from each other is a perplexing choice of resource allocation given the alternatives.

ajvs 5y ago
"don't go after monopolies which are abusing their dominance to keep everyone else poorer"
onion2k 5y ago
Given the choice between free email and Google paying enough tax to improve the entire education system of the US, why do you think people would pick email? Do you believe everyone is stupid?
- charcircuit 5y ago
  >why do you think people would pick email I don't like taxing so I would never advocate for taxing a person or a company.
- danielmarkbruce 5y ago
  It's an antritrust suit.
krono 5y ago
So big tech gave all this stuff away without asking or taking any sort of compensation (i.e. free), and yet they've managed to accumulate levels of influence and wealth previously only beholden to sovereign states. Coincidentally, around the same time big tech came into being, the nation that birthed, nurtured, and protected them started losing its world dominance to rival sovereignties that took the opposite approach in dealing with these generous givers by monitoring their behaviour, limiting their power and influence over the nation and its citizens, enforcing compliance with national policy (for good or bad), and extracting a fair share of the profits in return for their use of public infrastructure.
- danielmarkbruce 5y ago
  They took the money they made in search ads and built a lot of products they give away, yes. The wealth is all from search ads. The US had a little moment of time where it was the dominant power. It wasn't the dominant power in 1900 and it won't be in 2050. The idea that the decline is because of Google etc defies a much simpler explanation. As soon as China moved off of straight communism they were bound for dominance due to their population and general work ethic. There is no reason that over the long term China should have lower GDP per person than the US. Hence they'll have about 4x the total GDP and be able to spend 4x as much on military due to their 4x population size v US.