Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 352 posts

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#111

Post by lisper »

devuo wrote: post #80
lisper wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, but it's not clear which way the causality runs. If wealth were more evenly distributed, ordinary people could pool their resources to make the same investments. They can't do that now because they have no disposable income to invest.

But people do in fact make their own small investments when they opt for one provider of a service or the other. For a multi billion dollar infrastructure project, your capacity to contribute with either 50K or 50$ would still amount to less than a drop in a bucket. For a massive multi billion infrastructure project to succeed it would still rely on either a state actor or a very large number of investors, or, as is…

That's true, but it misses the point. Capitalism and democracy work best when there is competition. Monopolies -- both economic and political -- generally lead to bad outcomes. When ultimate decision-making power becomes too unevenly distributed, it becomes very difficult to prevent monopolies from forming.

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#112

Post by Eridrus »

BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #92

I'm not usually very pro corporate taxes. I think (with some caveats) that it is generally better to tax the owners of businesses than the businesses themselves. However, in order to counter the unfair advantages of overly large companies and promote competition (in tech, in finance or elsewhere) wouldn't it make sense to make corporate taxes slightly progressive where the larger a business is (by revenues), the high…

It's not really obvious that we should prefer small companies to large companies.

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#113

Post by slice_of_life »

pikzen wrote: post #78
slice_of_life wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't take it anymore! I have to speak out. >The top 1% would own maybe 99% of the wealth of the country and everyone else would earn a minuscule fraction of the total value that they produced. What is up with all this egalitarian nonsense? There is an obsession with equality that I just don't get. Where is all the envy coming from(because that's what it is)? This is an affront on capitalism which has served to lif…

>What is up with all this egalitarian nonsense? Just the wish to have a society that is able to evolve, to have all of us go forward as a species instead of concentrating the power in the hands of few. >There is an obsession with equality that I just don't get. That's called being a bit of a sociopath, but it gets better. >This is an affront on capitalism which has served to lift so many out of poverty. Good! Capital…

Well at least we can get that out of the way; it is an affront then.

These 4 companies (and more) have done more good than all the goodness of your heart will ever do. We have to be pragmatic and not just be bleeding hearts because it is endearing and it will make us popular.

>to have all of us go forward as a species instead of concentrating the power in the hands of few.

This is the problem you and others that think like you have; your assumption is that it is perpetually a zero-sum game. That for some to win others must lose. No. This is just flawed. These companies should be left to be as big as they can get.

You can also start your own conglomerate! Free markets aren't stopping you but because you have a closed mindset, the only way you can see a good future for humanity is by attacking people who wake up earlier than you, push harder than you and take more personal responsibility than you.

This is wrong. Plain wrong and I'm unashamed to say it. Why do we want to repeat failed experiments with egalitarianism. Every where it has been tried, it has failed miserably. Empirically, anti-capitalism has been a disaster.

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#114

Post by weirdstuff »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #104
jondubois wrote: post #14

I agree they should be regulated. The world is a better place with lots of smaller companies. These big companies turn regular people into corporate livestock to serve the wealthy. If you were to analyze Facebook as if it were a country, the wealth gap among employees would be atrocious - The top 1% would own maybe 99% of the wealth of the country and everyone else would earn a minuscule fraction of the total value t…

Disclaimer: I work at Google > The world is a better place with lots of smaller companies. [citation needed] A lot of things Google does -- a lot of the things people actually like about Google -- are possible only because it's a huge monolith. Divorce the ad-making money machine, and say goodbye to all the services consumers like that are nowhere near as profitable: gmail, maps, photos, chrome, android, translate, y…

> Divorce the ad-making money machine, and say goodbye to all the services consumers like that are nowhere near as profitable: gmail, maps, photos, chrome, android, translate, youtube, drive, waze, where do you think the money for this stuff all comes from?

This needs a citation, as well.

This is assuming Google hasn't starved out potential competitors who would have provided the same service, or better service, had the playing field been more level.

My unsubstantiated opinion is that many talented folks are/have been dissuaded from trying their hand at anything that may go up against Google, et. al., unless their looking for an aquihire. (And we know how Google treats those after a few years.)

And there's another argument to be made: that Google's habit of purchasing competition stifles the innovation since it's nipping it in the bud.

(I majored in Econ in uni.)

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#115

Post by TulliusCicero »

camillomiller wrote: post #99
devuo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, only very large companies are able to make a certain class of investments in infrastructure and services — that push technology and society forward as a whole — that small to mid companies due to lack of capacity never could, and governments due to lack of vision and political will never would.

They push society forward along THEIR agenda. That agenda can be the most open, inclusive and diverse agenda ever, but it's gonna be the agenda of a corporation nonetheless. In my ideal world, you know who should be in charge of such a push? American friends, please, breathe deeply: The State should.

I'm largely a social democrat, but LOL if you think the government would be even a quarter as competent as Google at pushing technology forward.

Just read any description from people who've worked at both normal government IT shops (really anywhere that's not 18F or the USDS) and private industry how they feel about governmental technology culture and processes.

Like okay, investing in infrastructure, like putting fiber everywhere? Sure, I'm down with that. Everything else, I think the private sector has shown itself to be plenty more capable. Let's let the government stick to its strengths, shall we?

Disclaimer: I work at Google

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#116

Post by devuo »

lisper wrote: post #111
devuo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But people do in fact make their own small investments when they opt for one provider of a service or the other. For a multi billion dollar infrastructure project, your capacity to contribute with either 50K or 50$ would still amount to less than a drop in a bucket. For a massive multi billion infrastructure project to succeed it would still rely on either a state actor or a very large number of investors, or, as is…

That's true, but it misses the point. Capitalism and democracy work best when there is competition. Monopolies -- both economic and political -- generally lead to bad outcomes. When ultimate decision-making power becomes too unevenly distributed, it becomes very difficult to prevent monopolies from forming.

I agree, but then that's why we have governments and why monopolies are all but outlawed in most democratic countries.

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#117

Post by jimmywanger »

pikzen wrote: post #79
jimmywanger wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it's called the stock market. You buy a share and you get a vote.

Every country that has a functioning democracy has realised that money is not speech. Every sensible person also realizes that this is not a solution. Have more money than someone else? Well, tough shit, your vote shouldn't be worth more. Stocks work the opposite way.

> Every country that has a functioning democracy that money is not speech.

You missed a verb. And in case you missed it, every democracy has elections, and in that case, money is equivalent to speech. Good luck in getting airtime/a platform without paying money.

> Have more money than someone else? Well, tough shit, your vote shouldn't be worth more.

In a company, that's absolutely not the case. Taken to the logical extreme, should I have the same say in the operations of Exxon, even though I have no financial interest in them, rather than a shareholder with 3% of the stock?

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#118

Post by closeparen »

lisper wrote: post #38
devuo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, only very large companies are able to make a certain class of investments in infrastructure and services — that push technology and society forward as a whole — that small to mid companies due to lack of capacity never could, and governments due to lack of vision and political will never would.

That's true, but it's not clear which way the causality runs. If wealth were more evenly distributed, ordinary people could pool their resources to make the same investments. They can't do that now because they have no disposable income to invest.

VCs are agents of ordinary people who have pooled their resources to make investments, just separated by many fee-taking layers of Wall Street bureaucracy.

Wall Street ultimately gets its money from American workers' retirement investments (whether personal 401k and IRA accounts, or institutional pension funds).

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#119

Post by TheRealmccoy »

yet again, one of those posts. all those people who have the ability to do something, discuss and post detailed comments and then wait for next such article, and then rinse and repeat.

what is the point of discussion, if we nothing concrete, other than rhetoric can be done?

Re: Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

#120

Post by pikzen »

yellow_postit wrote: post #100
pikzen wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is up with all this egalitarian nonsense? Just the wish to have a society that is able to evolve, to have all of us go forward as a species instead of concentrating the power in the hands of few. >There is an obsession with equality that I just don't get. That's called being a bit of a sociopath, but it gets better. >This is an affront on capitalism which has served to lift so many out of poverty. Good! Capital…

What do you recommend to replace capitalism. I've seen a lot of the other attempts and they have not been pretty.

A complete model? I don't have any. I have bits and pieces of things. And so do you. So does your neighbor, so does the CEO of Microsoft, so does the government worker in his office, so does the guy sleeping in the street. Get people together. Have them talk and debate.

Making a new model is the work of a society. Not one person. I do not believe communism is the solution, I do not believe capitalism or neoliberalism are the solution.

Post reply on HN