Warren keeps proving she's the smartest, bravest candidate in decades

Pocahontas

 

lol. Love the thread title

 

You just keep thinking that

 

She is actually right, and ahead of her time, but one thing that does not take into account is the global perspective - if you break up the US companies while the equivalent Chinese giant companies heavily get protected and shielded and supported by the Chinese government, it creates a very uneven playing field.

Meanwhile, Europe...is asleep.

 

My Son is going to help out when he hits the soccer scene over there

 

Don't trees like CO2?

 

IKR...….On the other hand, she did drink a beer the other day with some blue collar folk. So clearly she's qualified.

 

why Warren's plan to break up Big Tech may be a bad idea

http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/13...plan-to-break-up-big-tech-is-bad-for-america/

 

1) Partnerships to share research happens all the time. Angel investing and VCs like softbank are still around. Breaking up the giants does set up the stage for them to be swallowed up by foreign giants though...if the government allows it.
2) Teddy Roosevelt went on his trust busting binge for almost the same reasons.
3) Cronyism already happens. This point could be argued either way, though with more companies and a smaller wallet, it seems more manageable.
4) Labeling that point as corruption is subjective. There is a common dilemma of how to determine when companies are too big and right sized. Just because everyone collectively gave up that determination when it comes to banks and financial institutions doesn't mean it's not a prudent course.
5) This is his weakest point because Warren's strongest point is that breaking down these companies allow startups to breathe and innovate without the constant pressure and threat of being acquired, dump trucked (snapchat), or sniped away by a hundred-thousand billion dollar company.

Overall, a huge consideration is whether these companies would be viable enough to compete overseas.

The winner-takes-all strategy also underpins the growth and investment of many new startups. If that's taken out of the equation, it could collapse the profit motive for VCs and early startup sellout models.

 

"Smartest candidate" is like being elected most beautiful student at the school for the blind.

If the nation was interested in electing the smartest candidate, recent history would have been very different.

Americans want a comforting moron that reflects their own cocksure proud ignorance best.

Warren is way too competent to be electable. She would remind average Americans of their inadequacies constantly.

If you're that smart, you need to talk down to the children if you want to be President.

She's a great example of someone who should be an éminence grise behind the sock puppet with the crown. That's how these things have worked recently.

The problem with The Donald is he is the perfect sock puppet who grandiosely believes he is a puppet master.

 

A plurality of voters selected the smarter of the two main candidates in every election this century, except 2004.

 

another argument that says Warren-style trust busting is not worth the downside. Excerpt:

Moreover, there is no reason to assume that antitrust authorities will always be pursuing the common good. Antitrust enforcement, and antitrust law itself, will develop through political mechanisms, and the authorities will be sorely tempted to punish the enemies of their political allies and reward their friends. Demagogic politicians will order their governments to go after large companies for political gain, not for sound economic reasons. Much of American antitrust law for many years was based on no economic theory whatsoever, but on general mistrust of "bigness," a desire to protect mom and pop businesses from more efficient competition, and demagoguery starting with the American king of the genre, Teddy Roosevelt. And so on.

The losses from antitrust law can be huge: the costs of rent-seeking and countering rent-seeking alone can dwarf any gains from good antitrust enforcement, and antitrust enforcement won't necessarily be good. The question, to this extent, is whether you would rather have market outcomes be governed by Wall Street or K Street. Meanwhile, the losses from monopoly are not likely to be huge. The monopolist sells at a monopoly price, and gains monopoly prents, but the product is still, after all, on the market. And the available monopoly rents should incentivize competitors try to break the monopoly.

So, in my view at least, the libertarian case for not having antitrust law is not that the market is perfectly efficient, but that regulation is worse. I'd be content to leave antitrust law to price-fixing, as the Reagan Justice Department did, but that leaves the regulatory superstructure in place, to create further mischief in the future. So abolish the Antitrust Division, reduce the FTC's functions to interstate fraud, and give it jurisdiction over price-fixing, too. And then be content with the results with an imperfect market.​

https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/13/against-most-antitrust-law

 

To be clear, I agree with this argument.

 

Wish he had data to back up his claims. I don't like it cuz it could be worse and I enjoy my slow boil.

Its more like a sauna.

Government bad.

 

Not being disrespectful, but do you have data contradicting this? I guess my view is tempered by my age. I use google (it is not the only choice, it is my preference). I don't use Twitter. I don't use Facebook. So, they don't really seem like classic monopolies to me.

I will say that the idea of spouting random @#@# to get publicity, never gives me much confidence in the candidate.

Someone else said this earlier, but, ignore it or not, we are in global competition. The idea that we would cripple our tech companies and allow the Chinese and others to take over is crazy to me.

And this idea that there are these unfortunate start ups who don't get a fair break because they are bought out by the majors is a fiction. The GOAL of many start-ups is to come up with a complimentary or supplementary product for the singular purpose of being bought out by the majors. That is the WIN.

Your logic at the end of the day may be right, but I am not crediting Warren for anything other than pandering to prove she is more "progressive" than others. these are career politicians who are not deserving of the benefit of the doubt....

 

I would also like to apologize for posting here because the stats make it abundantly clear that people tend not to read threads started by the Senator. No offense, but when you begin your time here advocating for population control in certain continents, it is what it is.

 

No doubt Warren is calculating, but she generally grandstands when the cold numbers are in her favor. I agree with her hunch that public trust for Silly Valley is similar to the reverence for Wall Street firms up until the financial collapse. It's success and power is fueling both fear and worship. Wall Street provided financial "instruments and innovations". These folks are beginning to do that...and more.

I don't know if we need 700-1000 billion dollar companies to keep up with the world. Tencent, Baidu, Alibaba have made deep investments and acquisitions across tech. They are big threats.

I like Google, though I don't think their all singular purpose of transforming the world into data is worthy for one company. Some of their products need design facelifts but end up being peddled without fear of losing massive amounts of money. The strength of the internet has been to innovate upon others. Will it die if we break down big companies? I think it might be the opposite.

The whole idea of Alphabet is to funnel Google's profits into startups and research. Sounds like a good idea in principle. Work the money into better and newer products beyond search, some of which could improve the world. But is that their true goal as an organization? That sounds more like a horizontally integrated quasi-government.

I don't like Facebook at all, and there is a strong point that the rules these companies make on their social media or search platforms are more or less decisions governments used to make when concerning speech rights. Is that magnitude of scale and influence enough to convince voters and politicians of market wide monopoly powers? We'll see.

At least we're (somewhat) discussing it while they package and commoditize our privacy and purchasing behaviors.

As for the WIN condition for startups, that's just one of many. But if the company starts in an oppressive market like Facebook, more likely the smart decision is to sell out, but if they do, they'll never see Snapchat IPO money. Without the Snapchats, you wouldn't have those "better products" and the consumer loses with less choice.