10 ms·

Hilariously shortsighted. Big Tech companies have been a GDP-doubling runaway success for the US economy. It would be like if we here in Denmark started breaki

by dtquad 2y ago

Hilariously shortsighted. Big Tech companies have been a GDP-doubling runaway success for the US economy. It would be like if we here in Denmark started breaking up Novo Nordisk. Our economists would probably do a public lynching of any government official who suggested doing that. However as a European I can't help but welcoming the US shooting themselves in the foot like this. Something tells me we will see more of this as more reddit-brained American millennials get political influence.

MathiasPius 2y ago
It is precisely the large impact on GDP that poses a threat to the host nation. When companies like Novo Nordisk are such a huge part of the economy, they can exert disproportionate influence on society itself. Our economy is absolutely benefiting from Novo Nordisk's size right now, but if/when their demand weakens or they're out-competed, we're going to end up with a lot of unemployed biotechnicians and massive roads to Kalundborg which will need to be maintained.
kibwen 2y ago
Hilariously shortsighted. Breaking up Standard Oil created wildly competitive industries and launched Rockefeller's wealth into the stratosphere. Big Tech is a rent-seeking middleman that chokes the life out of innovation.
- mandibles 2y ago
  Standard Oil had already lost a huge portion of its market share when the forced breakup finally happened.
openrisk 2y ago
Hilariously confused. Tech is different from Big Tech, which is yet further different from Big Ad Tech. For the avoidance of doubt, Wintel was Big Tech. The status quo now is Big Ad Tech. The main economically positive thing for the US (and something Europeans absolutely screwed up in relative terms versus the US and increasingly China) is the early investment and adoption of Tech. Digitization as such is a great enabler. But you don't need Big Tech oligopolies for a vibrant digital economy. But even more importantly, you don't need bizarre Big Ad Tech commingled business models that build the economy's entire tech infrastructure - many parts of it having a critical utility like role - on the back of... ads. But there is little scope for European schadenfreude. Arguably the US antitrust gears are moving precisely because people slowly wake up to the limits on economic opportunity placed by the Big Ad Tech status quo. In Europe we are good at words and criticizing mistakes but deeds are scarce.
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  > Hilariously confused. Tech is different from Big Tech, which is yet further different from Big Ad Tech. Big Ad Tech has been a money spigot for R&D in both hard and soft tech. This comes via M&A but also spawning a generation of VCs willing to fritter away adtech money on fun hard tech startups. There is not a big source of VC funding for hardware startups that doesn't come directly or indirectly from Big Tech / Big Ad Tech revenue and valuations.
throwaway48476 2y ago
Denmark has separate gdp numbers that don't include novo nordisk because they care about the real economy, not just number go up.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Developing and selling medicine to solve the number one health problem in the world (in addition to medicines for other health problems) is not real economy?
  - timeon 2y ago
    It is more about putting all eggs into one basket.
idle_zealot 2y ago
There is no point in chasing a high GDP when it results in a materially worse world. The point of a society isn't to make the numbers go up. If a monopoly is super efficient at generating some nebulous concept of value by creating and operating the world's largest surveillance system and actively using it to sell influence over people's attention and habits then the only sensible thing to do is to dismantle it.
- richwater 2y ago
  > results in a materially worse world. Please explain how Google has created a materially worse world
  - idle_zealot 2y ago
    Uh, I did. That's what the whole "surveillance system" part of the post was. Also I think advertisements in general are harmful.
    - dvngnt_ 2y ago
      how do people learn of products?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - ssklash 2y ago
        If ads are the only way people are able to learn about products, then there is clearly a massive failure of imagination, as well as innovation. People know what they need, and have always known. The concept of exploiting human psychology in order to sell more of a product to people who likely don't need it is a relatively recent development in human history. Plus you can just search for stuff you need in a search engine...
        bluGill 2y ago
CuriouslyC 2y ago
What you say would have been true 10+ years ago, but not anymore. Big tech is really into rent seeking and competition stifling now, we'd see more innovation by opening up the space so new players can get a foothold.
zer8k 2y ago
The point is to not allow a company to be able to buy out the entire country. Maybe Novo Nordisk is a good steward but historically companies like Google and Amazon act only their own best interests. Breaking up these massive companies ends up doing the better thing anyway - a surge of competition emerges and offers better and often cheaper services. Look at the break up of Bell. The short term was marginally negative (higher long distance costs) but the market was better for it. Google has a substantial amount of control over the flow of information in the United States. To the point it can literally redefine truth. This is a problem - and one that is easily solved by breaking up a de-facto monopoly. Moreover, the acquire-and-kill strategy stifles innovation. Imagine what we would have if Google didnt have the capital to buy and kill so many small companies.
exabrial 2y ago
[flagged]
consteval 2y ago
I disagree fundamentally. The fallacy here is that breaking up a company results in it making less money. Usually it's the opposite, because corporate inefficiency stops being as much of a problem. In my opinion, breaking up Google would only serve to make it even more profitable. Once companies grow to behemoths, they stop doing stuff. They slow down innovation to a crawl, and they essentially exist on life support and inertia until they're overthrown by a much, much smaller company. We see this pattern of life for a company again and again. We see it RCA, with GE, with GM. The only reason AT&T (Ma Bell) is still around and didn't decay like others before it is BECAUSE it was broken up. It was given new life as a set of new, smaller companies.

by dtquad 2y ago

MathiasPius 2y ago

It is precisely the large impact on GDP that poses a threat to the host nation. When companies like Novo Nordisk are such a huge part of the economy, they can exert disproportionate influence on society itself. Our economy is absolutely benefiting from Novo Nordisk's size right now, but if/when their demand weakens or they're out-competed, we're going to end up with a lot of unemployed biotechnicians and massive roads to Kalundborg which will need to be maintained.

kibwen 2y ago

Hilariously shortsighted. Breaking up Standard Oil created wildly competitive industries and launched Rockefeller's wealth into the stratosphere. Big Tech is a rent-seeking middleman that chokes the life out of innovation.

mandibles 2y ago
Standard Oil had already lost a huge portion of its market share when the forced breakup finally happened.

openrisk 2y ago

Hilariously confused. Tech is different from Big Tech, which is yet further different from Big Ad Tech. For the avoidance of doubt, Wintel was Big Tech. The status quo now is Big Ad Tech. The main economically positive thing for the US (and something Europeans absolutely screwed up in relative terms versus the US and increasingly China) is the early investment and adoption of Tech. Digitization as such is a great enabler. But you don't need Big Tech oligopolies for a vibrant digital economy. But even more importantly, you don't need bizarre Big Ad Tech commingled business models that build the economy's entire tech infrastructure - many parts of it having a critical utility like role - on the back of... ads. But there is little scope for European schadenfreude. Arguably the US antitrust gears are moving precisely because people slowly wake up to the limits on economic opportunity placed by the Big Ad Tech status quo. In Europe we are good at words and criticizing mistakes but deeds are scarce.

bpodgursky 2y ago
> Hilariously confused. Tech is different from Big Tech, which is yet further different from Big Ad Tech. Big Ad Tech has been a money spigot for R&D in both hard and soft tech. This comes via M&A but also spawning a generation of VCs willing to fritter away adtech money on fun hard tech startups. There is not a big source of VC funding for hardware startups that doesn't come directly or indirectly from Big Tech / Big Ad Tech revenue and valuations.

throwaway48476 2y ago

Denmark has separate gdp numbers that don't include novo nordisk because they care about the real economy, not just number go up.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
Developing and selling medicine to solve the number one health problem in the world (in addition to medicines for other health problems) is not real economy?
- timeon 2y ago
  It is more about putting all eggs into one basket.

idle_zealot 2y ago

There is no point in chasing a high GDP when it results in a materially worse world. The point of a society isn't to make the numbers go up. If a monopoly is super efficient at generating some nebulous concept of value by creating and operating the world's largest surveillance system and actively using it to sell influence over people's attention and habits then the only sensible thing to do is to dismantle it.

richwater 2y ago
> results in a materially worse world. Please explain how Google has created a materially worse world
- idle_zealot 2y ago
  Uh, I did. That's what the whole "surveillance system" part of the post was. Also I think advertisements in general are harmful.
  - dvngnt_ 2y ago
    how do people learn of products?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ssklash 2y ago
      If ads are the only way people are able to learn about products, then there is clearly a massive failure of imagination, as well as innovation. People know what they need, and have always known. The concept of exploiting human psychology in order to sell more of a product to people who likely don't need it is a relatively recent development in human history. Plus you can just search for stuff you need in a search engine...
      - bluGill 2y ago

CuriouslyC 2y ago

What you say would have been true 10+ years ago, but not anymore. Big tech is really into rent seeking and competition stifling now, we'd see more innovation by opening up the space so new players can get a foothold.

zer8k 2y ago

The point is to not allow a company to be able to buy out the entire country. Maybe Novo Nordisk is a good steward but historically companies like Google and Amazon act only their own best interests. Breaking up these massive companies ends up doing the better thing anyway - a surge of competition emerges and offers better and often cheaper services. Look at the break up of Bell. The short term was marginally negative (higher long distance costs) but the market was better for it. Google has a substantial amount of control over the flow of information in the United States. To the point it can literally redefine truth. This is a problem - and one that is easily solved by breaking up a de-facto monopoly. Moreover, the acquire-and-kill strategy stifles innovation. Imagine what we would have if Google didnt have the capital to buy and kill so many small companies.

exabrial 2y ago

[flagged]

consteval 2y ago

I disagree fundamentally. The fallacy here is that breaking up a company results in it making less money. Usually it's the opposite, because corporate inefficiency stops being as much of a problem. In my opinion, breaking up Google would only serve to make it even more profitable. Once companies grow to behemoths, they stop doing stuff. They slow down innovation to a crawl, and they essentially exist on life support and inertia until they're overthrown by a much, much smaller company. We see this pattern of life for a company again and again. We see it RCA, with GE, with GM. The only reason AT&T (Ma Bell) is still around and didn't decay like others before it is BECAUSE it was broken up. It was given new life as a set of new, smaller companies.