5 ms·

I don't agree that they are geniuses. I simply believe that they were able to afford the appropriate legal representation in order to get mergers that technica

I don't agree that they are geniuses. I simply believe that they were able to afford the appropriate legal representation in order to get mergers that technically should have been stopped by the government rammed through the courts anyways.

ethbr1 3y ago
The article doesn't argue that they're geniuses: it's just really poorly written. So much so that I'd consider it might be AI-generated, from a blog-post-length prompt that's fleshed out with 10 pages of context... When it finally gets around to its core thesis, it says this: >> Not only do those explanations [like exceptionalism and genius] stretch the imagination, but they also ignore a simpler, far more tangible explanation for the incredible die-off of businesses in every industry. Forty years ago, countries all over the world altered the basis on which they enforced their competition laws—often called “antitrust” laws— to be more tolerant of monopolies. Forty years later, we have a lot of monopolies. >> These facts are related.
randomdata 3y ago
The Oxford Languages dictionary defines genius as: a person regarded as exerting a powerful influence over another for good or evil. The article even speaks to the divide between those who believe their genius is good and evil. But, be it good or evil, is not fair to say that they are a powerful influence?
- akira2501 3y ago
  I'm being asked to judge them solely on their _apparent_ business acumen, which is to be demonstrated by the size of the thing they've assembled. They _may_ very well be geniuses by your measure, but I have no way of accurately assessing that from here, and I'm uncomfortable with using sheer scale as a proxy.
  - randomdata 3y ago
    The article states that their genius is a given. You are not being asked to judge on that basis at all. What is in question in this thread is whether or not the assertion that they are geniuses is true. With that, what reason is there to think that they are not a powerful influence?
- codingdave 3y ago
  No, it doesn't. That is listed as an idiom, not a definition.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
fallingknife 3y ago
Which mergers technically should have been stopped by the government? Two of the most successful acquisitions that come to mind are Google purchasing Android for $50 million in 2005, and FB purchasing Instagram for $1 billion in 2012. The government didn't even try to stop them, and shouldn't have, because they can't predict the future. As for the Android purchase, the feds aren't going to look at $50 million deals because $50 million deals are so tiny they just don't have monopoly concerns. And this was pre Iphone by a couple of years. Smartphones were barely a market at the time. FB acquiring Instagram was the same. Social media was a new market and this was a smallish acquisition with no monopoly concerns. All the growth came after FB acquired them. Also, FB isn't a monopoly even today. The emergence of Tiktok proves that.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Double Click, Android, Instagram, Oculus All reduced competition and juiced markets with predatory pricing

ethbr1 3y ago

The article doesn't argue that they're geniuses: it's just really poorly written. So much so that I'd consider it might be AI-generated, from a blog-post-length prompt that's fleshed out with 10 pages of context... When it finally gets around to its core thesis, it says this: >> Not only do those explanations [like exceptionalism and genius] stretch the imagination, but they also ignore a simpler, far more tangible explanation for the incredible die-off of businesses in every industry. Forty years ago, countries all over the world altered the basis on which they enforced their competition laws—often called “antitrust” laws— to be more tolerant of monopolies. Forty years later, we have a lot of monopolies. >> These facts are related.

randomdata 3y ago

The Oxford Languages dictionary defines genius as: a person regarded as exerting a powerful influence over another for good or evil. The article even speaks to the divide between those who believe their genius is good and evil. But, be it good or evil, is not fair to say that they are a powerful influence?

akira2501 3y ago
I'm being asked to judge them solely on their _apparent_ business acumen, which is to be demonstrated by the size of the thing they've assembled. They _may_ very well be geniuses by your measure, but I have no way of accurately assessing that from here, and I'm uncomfortable with using sheer scale as a proxy.
- randomdata 3y ago
  The article states that their genius is a given. You are not being asked to judge on that basis at all. What is in question in this thread is whether or not the assertion that they are geniuses is true. With that, what reason is there to think that they are not a powerful influence?
codingdave 3y ago
No, it doesn't. That is listed as an idiom, not a definition.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

fallingknife 3y ago

Which mergers technically should have been stopped by the government? Two of the most successful acquisitions that come to mind are Google purchasing Android for $50 million in 2005, and FB purchasing Instagram for $1 billion in 2012. The government didn't even try to stop them, and shouldn't have, because they can't predict the future. As for the Android purchase, the feds aren't going to look at $50 million deals because $50 million deals are so tiny they just don't have monopoly concerns. And this was pre Iphone by a couple of years. Smartphones were barely a market at the time. FB acquiring Instagram was the same. Social media was a new market and this was a smallish acquisition with no monopoly concerns. All the growth came after FB acquired them. Also, FB isn't a monopoly even today. The emergence of Tiktok proves that.

paulryanrogers 3y ago
Double Click, Android, Instagram, Oculus All reduced competition and juiced markets with predatory pricing