Is Google a monopoly?

[LordSummerisle]

I posted this on warrior forum and found the thread got closed down because I said I couldn?t be bothered to argue, however it seems that they were very keen not to give me the opportunity even if I wanted to, they certainly didn?t seem to want to risk me changing my mind, I was wondering do you think they closed the thread because it is standard practice to do that whenever someone says they don?t want to argue or was it because they didn?t like me criticising Google? Here is what I posted:

There?s only one problem with Google ? Monopoly!!!

I will try and keep this relatively brief and simple as it really doesn?t need to be long and complicated and I am sorry if you have heard it all before and you think I am some sort of socialist or radical George Carlin type nutter, but after reading yet again all the usual stuff you do after yet another Google update whereby most the world of ecommerce and IM is arguing back and forth the argument for this and the argument for that in regards to the latest particular situation, yap, yap, yap, please enough, I feel if I don?t say it to someone I will scream.

There?s only one problem with Google and it?s not it?s panda or penguin updates or the fact it banned your adsense account or delisted your site or whatever, the problem is that it has gone so far past the point of being a complete and total monopoly it isn?t even funny, I mean come on what do any of us expect, of course entire businesses and lively hoods are going to get wiped out over night both those who deserve to be and those who don?t, they have the monopoly, what do we expect? And it?s not something we should be having to even make a case or argument for, it should be known to virtually everyone that monopoly is never good for anyone, not the small business, not the IM and certainly not the users, consumers, or public in general, monopoly never serves the people, it only ever serves its self and it screws everybody eventually, there are no circumstances in which you want an uncompetitive market that is virtually entirely controlled by one company, not even if it?s serving you well at present, even if you are one of the people who are currently benefiting you still don?t want it.

Sure you may be in favour now or approve of what they are currently doing but what are you going to do if and when you are not, what are you going to do then? What are you going to do if and when God starts abusing their power? Nothing because there will be nothing you can do. If you are a defender of Google you are basically arguing for monopoly and that?s an argument that only a fool would defend, if you argue against Google then remember please, forget this update and that update or whatever, you only basically need to say one word and that is MONOPOLY and anyone with any sense will have already seen you have won the argument. A monopoly will never give up until they have the whole market by the short and curly's and totally and utterly dependent on their product and using it in the way they want you to and paying what they want you to pay in every conceivable way and once they have that they will do anything to maintain their position. Do you really want anybody to have this kind of control over us all in the hope they will always be a good master.

I am sorry if you have heard it said many times before but judging by the fact that nothing seems anywhere close to even starting to change and most people don?t even seem to care in the first place then it seems that it obviously needs to start been said a bit more, until enough people have a loud enough voice for something to be done about it, heck aren?t there commissions that are meant to do something about this sort of thing, I mean look at the hassle they were giving Bill Gates a few years back over the antitrust thing or whatever and that was nothing compared to this, he didn?t control virtually the whole of the market place that most modern businesses of any significance has to have a presence in just to survive, what on earths going on? Personally I am not that bothered from my own perspective as the particular business model I am now pursuing isn?t that reliant on it and as many people here point out anyone with any sense these days will try and avoid one that is, but the fact of the matter is there are so many who whether they like it or not are dependent on Google and simply can?t afford to not care, all this talk of how nobody should be bothered about the biggest way in which most websites in the world get their traffic I mean come on please, let?s live in the real world, the situation at present matters and drastically needs to change!

I probably won?t be arguing back with anyone who disagrees with what I have said because I really can?t be bothered, like I say my argument is pretty simple and anyone who can?t see it then there?s probably nothing I can say to make them do so. Anyway that?s it really, it?s been building up inside me for a while now and I just had to say it, listen if you want to and don?t if you don?t, but please at least have a think if it?s a situation you truly want for us all.

All the best,

Every response I got really didn?t like the fact I was criticising Google. As it happens I did take the bait and decided to make another response just to conclude everything I wanted to say, but before I could post it I found they had closed the thread, anyway I can?t post what others responded with as I don?t own the rights to that, but I do own the rights to what I was going to respond with and you can pretty much tell the points they made by what I said in response, I was just a bit miffed that they didn?t let me respond even if I wanted to and was wondering if it was more because I raised an issue they would rather ignore more than anything else, so I was hoping BHW may give me a voice to say what the warrior forum doesn?t seem to want me to say. Here it is:

Ok, I will make a few concluding points and leave it at that and then I feel I have discussed it enough and will leave it to you to form your own conclusions, hopefully then you will feel your have had your pound of argument, any further discussion I will leave to the rest of you, as far as I am aware the is no obligation to argue forever and a day like many people like to on forums, sorry if that?s too open mic for you, but I have better things to do.

So far the kind of arguments against what I have said seem to be things like, your paragraphs contains too many words, so sad, this is not an open mic, all devastating arguments against the actual points I have made and the most ridiculous of all that Google does not have the monopoly of the market, please you stop it, you are making me laugh. Now I appreciate there may be a slight degree of disagreeing over semantics here, but monopoly these days is usually defined as either complete control of the market as well as NEARLY complete control of the market, for example:

?A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service.?

http://www.investorwords.com/3112/monopoly.html

I don?t think I am alone in believing that nearly owning the market constitutes a monopoly and I think it?s safe to say Google nearly owns and controls the complete market. The bottom line is that although on the whole Google are a pretty good company, you do not want to see this sort of situation in any market, what I am saying is nothing personal against Google, it?s a situation that is really bad for both the market and the consumers in the long term, it doesn?t matter how much the particular company involved sits on bean bags and tells you they will do no evil. The point is it doesn?t matter how good the company concerned is, the kind of control Google has got is not the kind of control you want any company to have over any market, especially not one that is so important to so many other businesses and individuals who are trying to earn a living.

So many people depend so much on Google because they are so very very important, it?s hard enough for most ecommerce businesses as it is especially the smaller ones, most simply can?t afford not to worry about Google and be dependent on it at least to a certain extent, perhaps to an extent that means the difference between been able to compete in their own market and that?s not their fault either, let?s not forget how Google?s dominance of their market affects so many other markets that are now reliant on having a strong online presence. Again I am not blaming Google personally for this, you can?t blame a company for becoming successful but when the market becomes so completely and utterly controlled by one particular company and when it?s a market as important as this, then it is time that some sort of commission whose job it is to deal with it steps in and does something to restore some element of healthy competition back to the market, this is where the real blame lies.

I must admit I am incredibly surprised that no one who has responded can see my point, it?s almost as if we are living in different worlds, maybe I am the one who is mad. This issue seems to touch a nerve with some people which is quite intriguing, I know many people in this industry sometimes defend or spin the reality of certain situations because they have their own vested interests and I don?t know what the particular motives are of any particular individual who is defending Google?s position on this particular issue, but I am sure they can vary from person to person and I am not automatically saying that everybody who defends Google on this issue is doing so due to their own vested interest, but I have to say that I personally find it very hard to see how anyone defending this particular situation of monopoly are doing so based on any kind of point of principle and if no one else can see this I am very disappointed in those I share this industry with.

Still I don?t have that much of an interest in the outcome personally anymore, I have moved on to other things and my concern was just for the greater picture and us all in general, but maybe you are right and maybe I shouldn?t care either, sorry for being well, so sad, I will try and hold back the tears. But maybe you are right if you don?t care then why should I? Now please feel free to mock me for speaking out and saying that which for whatever particular reason you don?t want to hear, but if anyone else feels the way I do please feel free to speak up and let me know I am not the only one in the world who is mad. My apologies if my use of English is poor or if I have offended anyone, as I say my issue is one of truth and principle rather than anything personal, with that I will hand the mic back to you to let you rally in defence of your lord.

All the best,

Can I just correct the mistake I made there and say I may wish to comment further on this thread if I feel it is appropriate to do so and whether WF were right or not to close the thread, more important than that I want to ask the question here, am I wrong to accuse Google of being a monopoly in the first place? If people can give me good arguments as to why they are not then I am more than willing to reconsider my view.

All the best BHW,

 

[jazzc]

You are wrong because you misunderstand the essence of a monopoly in economics - but no worries, lots of people do because of the huge spread of misinformation.

If you take it in the linguistic sense, a market with a single seller is called a monopoly. But in the economic sense, when we talk about a monopoly we are interested in the competition aspect of a market irrespective of the number of sellers, so bear with me.

A market is called a free market if the following is true: "No barrier to entry". Assume that in your city there 's only 1 guy selling pink elephants for $10.000 each. If the market is free, another Joe starts a drop-shipping gig for pink elephants in your city and then another and another and another - millions of sellers. After a few months, the price has gone down to $5.000 per p/e. In this market, there was competition that drew the prices down from 10k to 5k. Now suppose 5k is the equilibrium price - i.e. if it gets lowers, there sellers have losses instead of profits. In economic lingo this state is now called "perfect competition".

Are you still with me? Let 's change the example a bit.

We are still in your city and we have that lone guy - let 's call him Matt - selling pink elephants for $10k a pop. Then he learns that B.H. Joe is going to start drop-shipping for $9k. What does he do? Clearly, he does not want him on the market as his profits will go down. What does he do?

He has 2 options. Option one is to use his clout in Washington to pass legislation that will make very hard/costly for B.H. Joe to enter the market. He could also go and threaten the pet stores that if they buy p/e from B.H. Joe he will stop providing them with elephant food and diapers. You get the idea. Matt remains the only seller with a price of $10k. This is a monopoly.

Option two for Matt is to lower the price so that it 's not profitable for B.H. Joe to join the market. So, he sets price to $8.999,99 per p/e. A month later another Joe wants to come in with a price of $7k and Matt decides to lower his price to stop him. And so on. Finally, Matt 's prices goes down to $5k again, since it can not go lower that the cost of production. In this case Matt is the only seller on the market, but this is still a competitive market (since if he raises prices, Joe42342 will enter) and not a monopoly.

As far as I know, there is no law barring entry in the Search Engine market. I also am not aware of any strong arms cloud shit going on. So, no, Google is not a monopoly. It 's a seller that has the biggest market share because it 's besting its competitors.

 

[LordSummerisle]

That was a very informative explanation, thankyou very much. I guess it's like you say there is the public perception of what a monopoly is and then there is the actual techinical definition, i.e. what an econimist would definie it as, now I appreciate that the meaning of the word may should well be exactly what you have so helpfully explaned and only that, but rightly or wrongly I guess the meaning of words does change over time and I guess if far more people are defining it as for example:

"A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service."

http://www.investorwords.com/3112/monopoly.html

Then over time that may well be what the word becomes known as meaning even if it did originally have a slightly different meaning, however I appreciate that isn't what the word actually should mean and therefore I won't argue with you over that, but I appreciate you taking the time to provide such a much more helpful and constructive argument and explanation of that argument than I received at the other place.

I guess the word we use to describe the situation isn't so much the issue, or not the issue I have anyway, my issue is more the situation it's self i.e. the lack of healthy competition and the dominance of the market by this one particular company, this situation of 80 or 90 percent or whatever, of a webmasters search engine traffic coming from just the one engine really can't be very good, no one should be able to be so potentially harmed just because they fall out of favour with one other particular company.

Likewise there shouldn't be only one PPC program that pays anything other than pennies either, there's just not enough of any real alternative for a number of things Google controls, and let's not forget the other pies it has it's fingers in, it's just not a healthy and competitive market place and that's the issue to me, the fact that Google controls nearly all of the market especially in search to me is just unacceptable, maybe there isn't any body or commission at present designed to deal with this new area of industry, but it is my opinion that there should be and that this is something that we need to do something about.

Anyway that's just my view but maybe I am just a bit tapped in the head for thinking it matters so much, I appreciate not everyone may see it this way.

All the best,

 

[bakxos]

You can define a monopoly by using different metrics such as the market share. For me a monopoly is the industry that has increased barriers to entry and market leader controls the prices and have the ability impose its own rules.

The search engines "market" might not be a monopoly but its definitely an oligopoly which is still "not efficient" and should still be regulated.

 

[jazzc]

First of all, let me say that it 's good that you are accepting criticism

Now, to the matter at hand. When we investigate phenomena, it 's the characteristics that are important and not names, as the names are only a a "reminder" of what the phenomena are.

The sun is warm. Warmth is a characteristic of the stellar object we call sun. Suppose "the meaning changes all the time" and we all agree to call the moon as the sun. Naturally, this does not automatically make the moon warn, despite our creative use of definitions Reality does not give a shit about how we name stuff, its workings are completely oblivious to our caprices.

So, when we say a monopoly, it is a bad thing only if it represents the exact phenomenon that it was supposed to represent. If we define monopoly as the way I play basketball, it does not necessarily mean that I suck in basketball

But even if you go to that site you linked, it says "This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition (for example, vast economies of scale, barriers to entry, or governmental regulation)." Remember the option one Matt had to stop competition?

If Google owns the big share in SE, PPC etc. it 's because it 's the best available seller today. There 's no lack of competition. The opposite. Google just happens to be like Messi. Would you have him play football with his feet tied because the rest are worthless in comparison?

Likewise there shouldn't be only one PPC program that pays anything other than pennies

So, instead of accusing the competitors of not going a good enough job to afford paying more than pennies, you are accusing Google because it actually does a great job and is capable of high pay outs? Don't let your personal bias cloud logic

 

[jazzc]

For me a monopoly is the industry that has increased barriers to entry and market leader controls the prices and have the ability impose its own rules.

There can't be any price control by the market participants without barriers to entry anyway

The search engines "market" might not be a monopoly but its definitely an oligopoly which is still "not efficient" and should still be regulated.

I knew shit hit the fun because the government is not regulating enough! I think they should get some know how from North Korea

Seriously though, regarding gov "regulation" (read: intervention) in terms of market efficiency, "less is more"

 

[galaxywars]

Soon enough we'll be like north korea lol

 

[ibmethatswhoib]

Is Mila Kunis sexy as hell....

 

[sirgold]

Google is a so called "de facto" monopoly. Yes. You can picture their role as that of a runner in rigged contest and that's why the government -a central authority- creates anti-trust bodies. This is done essentially because all the magical, unsupported, illogical arguments friedman-ists (and others) tend to associate to the auto-regulating powers of the "free market" ARE royal bs... What the empirical observation confirms, since all the rest is useless opinions or funny theories elaborated in theoretical environments, is that when a company becomes too big, its influence might become so broad that unless regulated by a central autority -the government- you'll find subjects in the economy EXACTLY in the position google is at right now: a de facto monopoly.

 

[jazzc]

What the empirical observation confirms, since all the rest is useless opinions or funny theories elaborated in theoretical environments

So very very true...

Let me give you a few examples of "regulation" love

USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, ...

Now let me give you an example of a market where the government does not regulate...

IM

I believe that sums it up

 

[sirgold]

Now with all due respect, there are so many ways and degrees in between totalitarian regimes obsessed with a centralized management of every aspect of society and a modern day's far-west not to mention the specific sub-categories peculiar and intrinsic to each area that it's not even worth the time commenting on these oversimplified examples, but I must appreciate the sarcasm... The only thing I wanted to stress is that this recurring argument that "the less government is better" is A PURE PERSONAL OPINION not a fact. Not a fact by any figment of anybody's imagination... Some younger ppl a little less mentally robust or with a little less time spent on the subject might even believe these are facts, in fact... As Einstein said, simplifying is good, sadly not always possible... There are cases in which the lack of a central authority can't but yield to disastrous consequences... Adding a little rigorous analysis (hardly what inventive economy theories do...) a market without an anti-trust mechanism (or where the control authority is corrupt, so to speak) might get to a deadlock where businesses become corporations impossible to compete with. Plain and simple.

 

[LordSummerisle]

I agree it's not the terminologies we use but the phenomena or situation it's self that is important, I probably should have choose a better title for this thread, LOL. I suppose it comes down to that age old question of what is the right level of intervention or regulation as we refer to it, I too generally believe in the laissez faire approach as much as possible, I agree that markets usually work better when we don't interfere with them any more than we have to, however I do believe that there are times that we have to and I think over the last few years especially most the world has now learned that, all be it the hard way, it's just a matter of how and to what extent. I don't think we either have to have no regulation at all or be like North Korea, surely this is swinging between one extreme to another, like most things in life good economic policies are all about balance, whatever the right balance may be, people generally only present you with the option of one extreme or the other in the hope you will choose their extreme as it is the lesser of the two evils, but we don't have to accept either capitalism on crack or be like the communists, although many politicians throughout history have tried to make people believe this, but contrary to what they would like you to believe there is also a middle way which is better than either of the two polarized options.

It's a difficult one with this particular situation as it's such a newly emerging market and one that has evolved so quickly, but it does now seem that it is a very unlevel playing field as now Google has the position of power that it does, it will be very hard to compete with in any sort of meaningful way, even if another company did have a better product what would be its chances of seriously competing with Google, unfortunately having the best product is no guarantee of success we see that in many other markets, I think Jazzc points out nicely the kind of corruption and manipulation that takes place in them all, a lot of the problem is perhaps down to the pack like follow the crowd behaviour the consumer has in a market such as this, much more so than any other, after all 90 percent of people don't all use the same super market, which is perhaps why there is so much more need to intervene in this particular market than most others, like I say it's not the kind of market we have really seen before.

I know they say Google is God but we don't have to make it our religion, sometimes I do wonder why some react the way they do to people criticising it, which makes me wonder if it's just because it is serving them well at present, likewise it is wrong to oppose it just because it isn't, I personally think any stance you take has to be one based on principle and not just narrow self serving interests. At least here we are having an intelligent and rationale discussion about it rather than just mocking someone for daring to criticise the status quo, which makes it the kind of discussion I actually want to take part in.

All the best,

 

[jazzc]

there are so many ways and degrees in between totalitarian regimes obsessed with a centralized management of every aspect of society and a modern day's far-west not to mention the specific sub-categories peculiar and intrinsic to each area that it's not even worth the time commenting on these oversimplified examples, but I must appreciate the sarcasm...

Not really. One is either pro-statism or not. You see it 's like pregnancy. Either the government is wise, or not. It can't be wise sometimes, on some issues depending on the weather If it 's wise, it 's madness not to regulate everything. Personally, I do not opt to that possibility

The only thing I wanted to stress is that this recurring argument that "the less government is better" is A PURE PERSONAL OPINION not a fact. Not a fact by any figment of anybody's imagination...

Mind if you base that on a few facts

Here 's one: United States had minimal government until the 16th Amendment - the one that introduced the income tax I 'd say they survived fine with less bureaucracy for more than 100 years.

Adding a little rigorous analysis (hardly what inventive economy theories do...)

I 'm a mathematician - I love rigorousness. Feed me

a market without an anti-trust mechanism (or where the control authority is corrupt, so to speak) might get to a deadlock where businesses become corporations impossible to compete with. Plain and simple.

Which is exactly what free market proponents say - do not put barriers to entry so that no price manipulation can happen, send the bureaucrats away and everything works fine.

 

[asi_av]

soon or latter they will be stopped!

same like Microsoft was not allowed and pay big time for pushing IE with operating system, Google will get stopped! they already making people hate them by non-stop pushing of their dead social network.
Am still wondering why the record companies not attacking G for having links to torrents?

 

[jazzc]

At least here we are having an intelligent and rationale discussion

That 's indeed the point in any sincere conversation.

 

[Nigel Farage]

Meh. Long before any substantive conversation about Google's possible monopolistic status takes place, an honest person must make one fundamental acknowledgement, which is that "we" collectively are marketers. Google isn't FOR "us". So, first & foremost, what marketers think doesn't mean shit, and their opinions are too shallow and self-serving to be of use or to give much credibility to. They'll think and say anything they have to in order to create the reality that they want, because that's what marketers do, and that's what marketers are. Fundamental truth. How many computer users check-in with an organized mob of internet spammers before choosing which search engine to use? Outside marketing forums, "spam" is a bad word, and people wouldn't piss on a spammer if their hair was on fire. Normal people hate spammers. Normal people don't give a fuck about what spammers, i.e. marketers think about Google. If normal people learned that Google is making things difficult for spammers, they would show up to the party with cans of gasoline and give their children matches & lighters.

So, in terms of the big-picture, that's who YOU are; the person most people would like to cover in gasoline, and set on fire. Every time they get an email promising a larger "organ", or click a search result and get redirected to a canadian drug pharmacy, they silently wish they could set you on fire and kill you. They sure as hell don't check-in with you before using a search engine, and chances are if you like it, they hate both it and you. They don't give a fuck about what you think, and because I'm a marketer that wants to understand what they want and then deliver it to them, neither do I. That's a hard reality that a lot of these half-assed juvenile marketers need to figure out, because they sound stupid every time they start whining and pissing all over themselves about how "bad" Google is. Go start spamming for Yahoo or Bing search results, and see how much money you make. And don't let the door hit you on the ass, on your way out.

Google has a relationship with it's Users. People that have a computer, internet service, the ability to connect the two, some idea of what they are looking for and they make a choice about what Search Engine they use. Most computers come with Bing preinstalled as default, and not Google. So, for your average computer user, arriving at Google takes some effort, and they have to reject whatever is on the computer when they start in order to arrive at the position of using Google. And most computer users are DUMB, so for them to change from Bing to Google requires significant effort. Google doesn't kick down their door in the middle of the night, and hold them hostage at gunpoint and force them to install Google as their home page.

That's it. End of monopoly conversation. Google is not the first search engine of choice in China, despite their best efforts. "Just anyone" could come up with a better method of providing relevant search results and the entire human population could be using them tomorrow. All these whiny & complaining spammers could have Google's billions in their bank accounts within a year, if they could do just one simple thing: outperform Google. And they can't. They can't even steal a good idea and get rich like Zuckerberg and Gates.

Here's what I think. I think people should worry about themselves, and stop looking around outside of their "known universe" and attempting to change realities they don't understand, are not theirs, and are not of their business. Too many people worrying about "someone else". That's one of the reasons why things are so screwed up, and the worse things get, the more these kinds of people want to fuck with things. Making rules here & laws there, and public policy this and social values that, and frankly it's none of their damn business, and if they ran their own shit right they wouldn't have the time to worry about things that are not their concern.

So. Learn about Google. Manipulate Google. Use Google like a cheap whore and make every penny you can off of it. Then, pay your bills and enjoy your life. The notion of collectivist action as a means of achieving some kind of public good is bullshit. You can waste the best parts of your life screwing around with non-productive and non-profitable endeavors, and at the end of the day it won't have made a damn bit of difference. Winners worry about and take care of themselves and those around them, and losers are the ones that do anything and everything else.

 

[bakxos]

There can't be any price control by the market participants without barriers to entry anyway




I knew shit hit the fun because the government is not regulating enough! I think they should get some know how from North Korea

Seriously though, regarding gov "regulation" (read: intervention) in terms of market efficiency, "less is more"

Well there can be competition and barriers to entry at the same time. For example, the banking sector. High fixed costs=barriers to entry but pricing is not controlled.

Regulation is a rather confusing area and the example of North Korea is quite extreme. For example SEC imposes rules the same way that the FSA imposes rules in the UK for all financial institutions. If you want to see what "no rules/regulations at all" can do search for the reasons that SEC was created and the reason that the SOX act (accounting) was created. The rules are quite strict but the purpose is to have transparency and accountability. Regulation and Intervention is not the same thing.

 

[BlackhatBigfoot]

What we need on the internet is a re-vamping of our privacy laws. Google could never have gotten so bloated and pervasive if they had not abused our privacy rights regarding every area of online activity. It is a monstrosity and a nuisance. The same goes for Facebook.

These information gluttons must be stopped or we will all have to live under more control and domination than we ever imagined. This may sound strange but I believe Google is like the "beast" being made ready for the hand of a world-wide ruler(anti-christ maybe?). Say what you will but it is happening before your eyes and it's not funny or light-hearted chit-chat.

And the worst part is that it won't be stopped unless we reclaim our privacy rights, which is virtually impossible. Do your part and use as few Google products and services as possible. It'll help your SEO too.

 

[jazzc]

Well there can be competition and barriers to entry at the same time. For example, the banking sector. High fixed costs=barriers to entry but pricing is not controlled.

Fixed costs are not a barrier to entry because everyone pays them and not only the newcomer

Regulation is a rather confusing area and the example of North Korea is quite extreme.

I am confused as to why

For example SEC imposes rules the same way that the FSA imposes rules in the UK for all financial institutions. If you want to see what "no rules/regulations at all" can do search for the reasons that SEC was created and the reason that the SOX act (accounting) was created. The rules are quite strict but the purpose is to have transparency and accountability. Regulation and Intervention is not the same thing.

I have no personal opinion regarding the SEC, as I have little knowledge on the issue. I will refer to a passage from an article related to the crash.

The spectacular crash of 1929 followed five years of reckless credit expansion by the Federal Reserve System under the Coolidge administration. In 1924, after a sharp decline in business, the Reserve banks suddenly created some $500 million in new credit, which led to a bank credit expansion of over $4 billion in less than one year. While the immediate effects of this new powerful expansion of the nation's money and credit were seemingly beneficial, initiating a new economic boom and effacing the 1924 decline, the ultimate outcome was most disastrous. It was the beginning of a monetary policy that led to the stock-market crash in 1929 and the following depression.

Assuming that 's true, is it wise to attribute the crash to lack of regulation?

 

[pxoxrxn]

Google isn't a monopoly because there are other search engines. They simply hold such a huge share of the market. This is called the C1 ratio. If they wanted to buy up other search engines there may be a entity that says no. I'm not sure of the laws in the USA but in Australia we have the ACCC an they stop company's such as coca cola buying out smaller company's all the time.

Google may not be a monopoly but because the government has been slow on internet business they have been able to take a massive proportion of the market share and this has created an unfair market.

Who volunteers to start their own search engine? One that doesn't put shitty websites at the top.