Google misses earning expectations! Rejoice!

[BlueTurtle]

You are absolutely amazing BlueTurtle! I know little about UK law and your demonstration here shows you know little about US antitrust laws. Let's set the whole issue of you quoting homework websites for your antitrust facts and Google as being a monopoly aside for a moment.

Antitrust laws have nothing to do with a monopoly. You've hit me with another straw-man. I replied to your response where you quoted some information from a legal precedent concerning monopolies.

A homework web site? eh?

Ok how about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Quote:
"A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry).[1] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods"

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/monopoly.html

Quote:
"Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service"

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp

Quote:
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products."

Are you in your right mind when you defend a company that is profiling people around the world in such fine detail and on such a large scale?

Once again, you keep coming back to this profiling thing. Stick to the topic at hand which is discussing whether or not Google is a monopoly.

This whole profiling thing is an entirely separate can of worms. Facebook are in a better position to profile anyway, not that it matters. Who actually cares if Google have anonymous data on what I search for. I don't. If you're that concerned then go and get yourself a nuclear bunker and lock yourself it. Maybe make a tin foil hat too.

In some ways google are not unlike nation states. In order to keep the spending deficit (the nations debt) under control (the difference between what they get in taxation and what they spend in benefits, public spending ect) they have to rely on constant growth, this is why we always hear our politicians banging on about it and why they consider it is so important. Unless google can turn around its fortunes it will be very much under the scrutiny of its investors and what they say rings true the bigger they are the bigger they fall.

Yes, indeed. Debt is a part of our financial system. What's important is the debt to GDP ratio rather than the debt its self.

Google steal peoples products, give it away for free, and make money indirectly by selling add space on the products page.

If they stole products they would be sued. They acquire businesses that have products or they create their own. It's not illegal to copy something if you build your own from scratch, providing you're not impeding on a patent.

At this time the media in France are fighting back, asking that google and the other search engines, pay them for their news stories. They pay reporters to gather the information editors and distributors, Yet Google steals their product, and makes money from it. and stil claim they are the good guys.

That news article is silly and whoever is behind this in France is confused.

Google doesn't steal their product. Google gets them a boat-load of traffic.

So what you want is

A) Google pay you
B) Google send you traffic

Would you like fries with that too?

The French media sites are completely free to block Google from indexing their sites and including them in the news pages if they consider a problem.

It's just an utterly ridiculous 180. One minute people are pissed off because they're not on Google, now you want Google to pay you so you can be on page 1.. It's beyond words really.

150 years ago, It was legal to own slaves, in America, They where the owners property, he could do what he liked with them, Rape beat murder, There claim that the slaves where their property, gave them the right to do what they wanted with them.
The biggest joke of all, was they claimed they where doing the slaves a favour, by feeding clothing and housing them

What a wonderful example of an extreme straw-man. Thank-you.

Saying that google owns google and gives then the right to steal and walk roughshod over other peoples rights. is like saying the slave owners where right.

So you're comparing Google owning Google to people owning slaves? Right, I see.. Interesting.

So me owning my own company and then changing my company web site is the same as me owning a slave and beating that slave?

Congratulations on the most extreme straw-man argument I have ever come across in my entire life.

In the end governments will be forced to bring in more and more regulations, to stop companies like google from getting control, and that will be the end of The free internet as was proposed by its founder.

Eh, what? The Internet started out as a military network called ARPANET.

 

[Leith]

Took me a good hour to go through the whole debate!

Cmon guys- just stick to your own opinion/view and move on

You've both raised legit points, but life's too short for all this. Move on Im out, bye

 

[BlueTurtle]

Took me a good hour to go through the whole debate!

Cmon guys- just stick to your own opinion/view and move on

You've both raised legit points, but life's too short for all this. Move on Im out, bye

lol, I know. This is hilarious. What a massive pointless debate.

It's like.. A nasty scab that you can't stop picking at and the more you pick at it the more it itches.

 

[geezer466]

@Blueturtle

Without quoting your large post about the reasons behind the banking crisis you seem to have missed an exceptionally important point.

Do you understand the concept of fractional reserve banking?

Your points about leverage are very well made and certainly this is a major part of the problem but expanding on that and certainly in the UK there was and remains to this day no difference between retail arms of the banks and their investment arms. Essentially banks gambled and leant depositors and created money from fractional reserve on ever risky projects. This brought down RBS and Lloyds and others who had to be bailed out with UK taxpayer funds.

Not to have done so which for any other industry is what should have happened (they should have been allowed to go to the wall) was unthinkable as it would have wiped out thousands of peoples savings (subject to FSA guarantees which impo are not worth the paper they are written on). Anyway they were creating the moral hazard we now have today.

The banks now know they will be backstopped by the taxpayer and no UK government from then till now has done anything to change this. So for the banks it is pretty much business as usual reward over risk irrespective of the danger of that risk.

 

[veheme]

Wow, did anyone notice that Google is picking up a lot of fights with a lot of companies/government bodies? And a lot more companies (especially competitors) are being aware of the biased results month by month?

 

[BlueTurtle]

@Blueturtle

Without quoting your large post about the reasons behind the banking crisis you seem to have missed an exceptionally important point.

Do you understand the concept of fractional reserve banking?

I do, yep.

@Blueturtle

Essentially banks gambled and leant depositors and created money from fractional reserve on ever risky projects. This brought down RBS and Lloyds and others who had to be bailed out with UK taxpayer funds.

You're not actually 'creating money' with fractional reserve. The purpose of fractional reserve is to allow for economic growth from capital. Without fractional reserve banking all the money deposited in savings accounts would have to sit there unused.

Money is only 'created' when the federal reserve prints off more dollars.

Fractional reserve banking can appear to create money but they don't increase the total money in circulation.

They only increase the number on paper. Ie

If I'm a bank and you lend me $1k.

I then lend out $900 and put $100 by in your account.

If I lend that $900 directly a business and for some reason they then put that in a savings account with me that will increase the money on paper to $1900, but the money in circulation can never be $1900.

Both of you can't take out your full $1k and $900 deposits at the same time.(In reality of course the banks function in a complicated hierarchy being backed by the bank of england/fed reserve at the top)

The fractional reserve system is really fantastic. It wasn't the cause of the recession, but with the other factors the fractional reserve system was obviously affected since very little money is kept in reserve and all the money is actively put to work, so when everything crashed there wasn't money available in people's accounts.(Well, there was, but in theory there wouldn't have been without government intervention! The whole banking system would have crashed and we'd be looking at every man for himself)

no difference between retail arms of the banks and their investment arms. Essentially banks gambled and leant depositors and created money from fractional reserve on ever risky projects. This brought down RBS and Lloyds and others who had to be bailed out with UK taxpayer funds.

Well, there is a difference.. Retail banks save and lend. They don't invest.

Investors invest. People don't come to investors the same way they go to a bank looking for a loan. (Obviously people go to investors looking for investment, but it's a different type of proposition than a bank loan. You don't pay interest to investors, you give up a share of your company)

An investment bank is an organization who borrows money and puts it to work to make profit. Their capital comes from borrowing and their profit comes from the investments(capital gains+dividends).

A retail bank manages money for consumers and businesses. Their capital comes from people saving(still borrowing, but slightly different, people go to them, investment banks go to others to borrow) and their profit comes from interest in lending. They make less money than investors, but they make their money by lending TO those investors as well as directly to businesses and consumers.

It might seem like I'm being pedantic, but there's an important difference and banks and investors are considered separate entities in our financial system.


Thanks for your comments though. I appreciate good intelligent points like the one you made and it promotes interesting discussion.

 

[gorang]

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...on-Swiss-bank-UBS-Britains-biggest-fraud.html

 

[BlueTurtle]

 

[gorang]

 

[assphuck]

Antitrust laws have nothing to do with a monopoly. You've hit me with another straw-man. I replied to your response where you quoted some information from a legal precedent concerning monopolies.

A homework web site? eh?

Ok how about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Quote:
"A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few entities dominating an industry).[1] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods"

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/monopoly.html

Quote:
"Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service"

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp

Quote:
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products."




Once again, you keep coming back to this profiling thing. Stick to the topic at hand which is discussing whether or not Google is a monopoly.

This whole profiling thing is an entirely separate can of worms. Facebook are in a better position to profile anyway, not that it matters. Who actually cares if Google have anonymous data on what I search for. I don't. If you're that concerned then go and get yourself a nuclear bunker and lock yourself it. Maybe make a tin foil hat too.





Yes, indeed. Debt is a part of our financial system. What's important is the debt to GDP ratio rather than the debt its self.



If they stole products they would be sued. They acquire businesses that have products or they create their own. It's not illegal to copy something if you build your own from scratch, providing you're not impeding on a patent.



That news article is silly and whoever is behind this in France is confused.

Google doesn't steal their product. Google gets them a boat-load of traffic.

So what you want is

A) Google pay you
B) Google send you traffic

Would you like fries with that too?

The French media sites are completely free to block Google from indexing their sites and including them in the news pages if they consider a problem.

It's just an utterly ridiculous 180. One minute people are pissed off because they're not on Google, now you want Google to pay you so you can be on page 1.. It's beyond words really.





What a wonderful example of an extreme straw-man. Thank-you.



So you're comparing Google owning Google to people owning slaves? Right, I see.. Interesting.

So me owning my own company and then changing my company web site is the same as me owning a slave and beating that slave?

Congratulations on the most extreme straw-man argument I have ever come across in my entire life.



Eh, what? The Internet started out as a military network called ARPANET.

Why is it that you are unable to quote actual law? You keep hiding behind ill conceived websites that offer nothing more than definitions, unprofessional interpretations and just about anything outside of actual legal precedent. Instead of getting lost in definitions, read the page I posted before. It states the following:

Likewise, the Third Circuit stated that "a share significantly larger than 55% has been required to establish prima facie market power"[SUP](24)[/SUP] and held that a market share between seventy-five percent and eighty percent of sales is "more than adequate to establish a prima facie case of power.

Google clearly exceeds this LEGAL threshold and significantly surpasses it when all Google owned companies are factored into the equation. Does this make them a monopoly? No. But it is surely one of the most important factors in determining that they are a monopoly.

Antitrust laws have nothing to do with a monopoly. You've hit me with another straw-man.

Once again, you are WRONG. You should have used one of your definition websites before responding to this one in such a way. lol Your statement CLEARLY shows that your understanding of monopolies is severely limited. Let's use Wikipedia since you like quoting them:

The United States antitrust law is a body of law that prohibits anti-competitive behavior (monopolization) and unfair business practices.

You can read the full Wikipedia page and learn of your error here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

I'm sorry BlueTurtle, but you are way in over your head on this topic. Meaning no disrespect to you, everything you have used to validate your opinions is beyond weak. It's either flat out false or simply BS.

 

[BlueTurtle]

He lost billions. This wasn't just a fraud thing, society as a whole hates these type of people and this type of immorality with a passion. They wanted his head and if he didn't get jailed there would have been a huge outcry.

Yes i know how business works, it still doesn't make it right.

That's not why he was jailed though, bro.

You only lose your job if you lose money no matter what the risk.. Anyway, you don't get given large amounts to trade until you've proven yourself. He was hiding losses with fake accounts/trades which is why he was able to lose so much.

He was jailed because of the FRAUD, not the risk.

Sometimes people are wrong about things and that's ok. When I'm wrong I put my hand up, admit I was wrong and learn from it. Don't cling to a false idea just because you're afraid to admit you're wrong.

It's OK to be wrong. I'm wrong all the time! Being wrong and corrected is an opportunity to learn.

If someone comes along and shows me something about my financial/economic understanding wasn't right then I'll be happy because guess what? I'll have learned something new that adds to my knowledge.

 

[gorang]

You're missing the point, the media, public and politicians had his head. You think everyone gets jailed for stuff like this? He was jailed fraud, but the current disgust at bankers and the whole system right now made it happen. And it all comes down to the immorality of his actions. There is no point at which we should just "accept" that this is "business".

You really have no capability of understanding the reasons why things happen other than what's written on paper.

This goes back to the way Google is pushing PPC so heavily while their company projections are not being met. They go hand in hand but you don't seem able to see these things.

 

[BlueTurtle]

 

[gorang]

You honestly think the banking crisis, public opinion and politics had nothing to do with what happened? The guy probably wouldn't have been found out otherwise.

Oh and on the topic of bankers, toxic debt at all? Bankers taking all risks? So it's ok to lose 1.4 billion but fraud isn't?

Yes, keep believing that fraud was the real reason and not the fact that he lost 1.4 billion.

Legally it was fraud, but the loss was the reason it was so intense and well documented. People are sick of this type of thing, and they're sick of Google. So you're not going to be able to convince people to "accept it", that's just not how the world works.

 

[BlueTurtle]

 

[assphuck]

Wow, did anyone notice that Google is picking up a lot of fights with a lot of companies/government bodies? And a lot more companies (especially competitors) are being aware of the biased results month by month?

Yes, it is finally coming to light how Google's appetite for profits is harming industries and innovation. All I can say is it is about time.

 

[We Go]

Meanwhile back on the Euro Front Google feels the need to threaten the French Government......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19996351

and if it goes against G then you will see lots off popups appearing on the french sites before G lets you see them ... lol .. just like ads on YT videos now

 

[gorang]

BlueTurtle, i just can't be bothered picking your argument apart. This is just too draining on something as pointless as your misguided stance on Google.

It's actually as if you don't understand how politics work. I have a good idea of how hedge funds work, again, it doesn't make it right. You're just too stubborn to accept anything, ironically.

 

[gorang]

Here's a good question.

You say we should just accept what Google is doing because it is "your failure".

Should Google just accept the French's governments proposed law? Did Google "fail"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19996351

 

[BlueTurtle]

BlueTurtle, i just can't be bothered picking your argument apart. This is just too draining on something as pointless as your misguided stance on Google.

What's Google got to do with you being wrong about traders going to jail for taking risks?

It's actually as if you don't understand how politics work. I have a good idea of how hedge funds work, again, it doesn't make it right. You're just too stubborn to accept anything, ironically.

We're into politics now?

It doesn't make what right? Hedge funds? I really doubt you have the slightest clue even what a hedge fund is without googling it.

You've resorted to just saying random things like "you don't understand politics" and "your stance on google is misguided".

Here's a good question.

You say we should just accept what Google is doing because it is "your failure".

You're either not as intelligent as I previously gave you credit for, or you're deliberately twisting what I've said.

I said if your business is failing and you can't put food on the table then it's your failure, not Google's.

Should Google just accept the French's governments proposed law? Did Google "fail"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19996351

No, Google haven't failed. They're still unbelievably profitable and have an incredibly high share price.

They're also not moaning about the French government ruining their business.

I'm not sure if you're trolling me or not now, but if you're not then your reading comprehension is incredibly low. I'm saying "apples grow on trees" and you reply with "No, you're wrong, cars have 4 wheels"



In conclusion, if you personally believe that creating fake accounts at a hedge fund was normal practice before the recession and that the only reason the trader was jailed now is because of public opinion towards the wealthy, then there's not much I can say really. There's not really any way to prove to you that it's never been ok to defraud a financial institution by hiding losses with fake accounts so the company pays you big bonuses.