FTC Preparing Antitrust Case Against Google

[jazzc]

These loopholes were added by large corporations in the 60s and then modified and improved later in the 80s.

Congrats for admitting my point then

Yes, Google lobbies for special tax treatments to make them even more competitive than any small business competitor.I linked you directly to it

???

I'm not here to teach you accounting...

You falsely presume 2 things - that I need to be taught and that you can be a teacher.

in fact, your denial of this problem makes me think you've never made a red haired cent in SEO.

Of course. Let 's not forget, tt is a proven fact of the universe that anyone disagreeing with you must be a broke ass punk.

Anyone with a medium sized e-commerce business has likely faced these realities.

Yes, Google 's fault for not giving away money to failures. Seems like you have experience

It is truly impossible to compete with mega multinational corporations that outsource tons of their staff, avoiding payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, state taxes, and shuffle money to pay a lower effective rate than is even possible within the US (all US businesses must pay a ridiculous 35% federal rate, which only small businesses ACTUALLY pay)

History has proven this wrong times and again.

Since you lack reading comprehension seemingly:

Here we note another grave disadvantage of people who don't accept your words as gospel. You can't insult me, keep it up, it 's funny

1) ... 2) ... 3) ... 4) ...

That 's why we call it the entrepreneurial function. People better that you in producing efficiency solve problems you bulk and drown at. Welcome to the world of business.

You're ridiculous...

Sometimes, I 'm also a pink elephant

I'm not going to teach you accounting for taxes in order to prove the above, just read through ALL of section 26 of the USC

haha That must be the lamest argument you 've made on this thread. When you pass accounting 101, come back young Skywalker.

 

[assphuck]

I would think there would be outrage from a lot of small business owners that could influence politicians. We know politicians are obviously in the pocket of the Big Boys but I wonder if this was brought on by angry small and mid-sized companies getting the boot from this Monopoly.

Although they have spent 9 million in lobbying http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000022008, so they own a lot of pockets unfortunately.

Real "Free Market" huh guys.

But how much has Google, Amazon, eBay, Facebook and many of the others collectively spent (or will spend) with their combined Washington D.C. lobby called The Internet Association? Since this cartel speaks for the internet economy, are we to shut up and be led by a bunch of 800lbs gorillas? I think not.

Google owns too many businesses, collectively harvests data from users and has violated privacy rights a number of times. That alone screams for the FTC to demand a breakup of Google's affiliated businesses for the greater good of everyone's privacy.

Defining a monopoly such as Google is difficult under antiquated laws that were first created in the horse and buggy days and tweaked slightly over time. Unfortunately, old goat politicians that can't even turn on a computer (they have aides for that) will not be inclined to listen to anyone other than campaign donors and lobbyists. Google timed this pretty good. Washington D.C. is a cluster fuck because of politics and this provides cover for Google to press ahead by eradicating their final competitors (webmasters).

I don't think there is a large outcry from small businesses because they have been struggling to make ends meet with the poor economy for a while now. Many have no desire to wage a war with Google or even call their representatives to complain. While these small businesses are losing their asses, Google is raking in record profits.

The inept politicians and underlying government agencies have failed in regards to Google and many other problems in our present economy. If these failures continue, Google will simply take as much of the one trillion dollar a year eCommerce industry as they can - cannibalizing many small businesses that stand in their way.

 

[jazzc]

Jazzc needs to stop the Socratic Milton Friedman-type banter and actually face down the problems of his theory that "natural monopolies" exist in the USA today.

It is common for people to throw names of authority in lack arguments. Not only you don't have any idea of what I read or not, your guesstimates are equivalent to your deduction powers

The idea of a "free market", especially in the USA, is an economic fallacy that has been properly debunked in hundreds of market studies.

Ah, yes. The "I 'm unable to back my shit but here 's a pack of random studies to throw you off" argument. Well, Watson, I got studies that debunk your studies - now where are you going to hide?

Articles on this fallacy can even be found on mises:
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=531

You didn't even read that, else you 'd realize that it refutes your argument Let me just quote the very last line for your convenience since reading seems to be a bit uphill exercise to you.

The evolution of property rights institutions and the autonomy they engender, as well as free trade and the social cooperation it engenders, are the human race's best long-term insurance against both.

There 's no need to hurry up when you try to answer to me. Take your time. Next time try to avoid silly mistakes. When I argue, I do not enjoy lousy opposition - get your shit together.

 

[zenoGlitch]

I don't understand why a publicly traded corporation is required to be non-biased in the first place? Google is providing a free service (search) in exchange for displaying ads. What's the difference between an ad placement and a "weighted" search in googles favor? At the end of the day they are both text on a page.

 

[jazzc]

@zenoGlitch

No difference, as long as their customers are aware of it. The average user things Google is a reincarnation of Pope and delivers the best impartial results possible. At the same time, he know what an ad is. Should Google tell him the results are biased, there 's no issue with it.

But then again, there are those people who believe they have a God 's right to dictate the results as if they owned G.

 

[Expertpeon]

It is common for people to throw names of authority in lack arguments. Not only you don't have any idea of what I read or not, your guesstimates are equivalent to your deduction powers

I was actually using Friedman as a bad and flawed perspective.

Ah, yes. The "I 'm unable to back my shit but here 's a pack of random studies to throw you off" argument. Well, Watson, I got studies that debunk your studies - now where are you going to hide?

Did you even read the articles? Apparently not. All 3 discussed at great length several free market fallacies involving modern political climates.

History has proven this wrong times and again.

Examples?
If anything I can only think of counterexamples (GM, Ford and Chrysler being major ones)

That 's why we call it the entrepreneurial function. People better that you in producing efficiency solve problems you bulk and drown at. Welcome to the world of business.

So you've basically admitted that being better than google is not enough to actually beat google?
That's my point, which you of course missed once again.

You falsely presume 2 things - that I need to be taught and that you can be a teacher.

I have to funnel 7 figure sums through offshore holding companies etc each year. I could teach you more than you could ever hope to teach me about the US tax system.

 

[jazzc]

Did you even read the articles? Apparently not.

You do understand it 's kinda lame to accuse me of not reading the articles after I proved you were just posting links without reading them in the exact previous post, right?

Examples?

I 've already mentioned in this thread - it 's bad enough already when you don't read the stuff you link to, don't you think?

So you've basically admitted that being better than google is not enough to actually beat google?
That's my point, which you of course missed once again.

Dude, I said the exact opposite... Perhaps a nap would help?

I have to funnel 7 figure sums through offshore holding companies etc each year. I could teach you more than you could ever hope to teach me about the US tax system.

7 figures eh? Right. That 's why you couldn't tell me shit about your billion+ loophole when I pressed the issue. How could you know? When you get into a company that 's actually into things, we can talk again.

 

[assphuck]

But then again, there are those people who believe they have a God 's right to dictate the results as if they owned G.

Wrong.

According to this post (biased I know), Google controls 79% of the search market. Not sure where they got their figures at and don't really care. Google bounces around from 65-67% IMO. Anything less than 50% is not a monopoly. Anything above 75% is a monopoly. Between 51-74% is inconclusive. To me inconclusive means it warrants an investigation. So the question should not be why is the FTC likely to investigate Google for monopolistic behavior, but why it took them so long.

Look at all the members in the lobbying group Google helped to create. They all enjoy great ranks in Google. Coincidence or not, the fact that they are organized under a lobbying group very well could throw them in a class of being market manipulators.

But hey, they are the voice for the internet economy. But yet Google does not even offer telephone or E-mail support for the many that utilize its services. If Google won't even listen to those that use their services, how could they lie and proclaim to be the voice for the internet economy? They can't. They are the voice of shareholders and could give two shits less about anyone else.

 

[jazzc]

Anything less than 50% is not a monopoly. Anything above 75% is a monopoly. Between 51-74% is inconclusive. To me inconclusive means it warrants an investigation. So the question should not be why is the FTC likely to investigate Google for monopolistic behavior, but why it took them so long.

I 've spent 3 page writing against the above fallacy. My very first post was explaining what a monopoly is. So, I 'm sure you 'll understand why I will not rewrite everything again in order to answer that

 

[Expertpeon]

7 figures eh? Right. That 's why you couldn't tell me shit about your billion+ loophole when I pressed the issue. How could you know? When you get into a company that 's actually into things, we can talk again.

I told you plenty about it... I'm done here... you do not recognize anything at all that is being said and are just ignoring inconvenient contrary theories (that also have a much higher applicability in the real world)

 

[assphuck]

I 've spent 3 page writing against the above fallacy. My very first post was explaining what a monopoly is. So, I 'm sure you 'll understand why I will not rewrite everything again in order to answer that

I understand. But laws are laws and Google is not above them.

55% or greater market share is enough to establish prima facie market power, a threshold commonly referenced in bringing antitrust actions against a corporation. Google has well above this and a full and thorough investigation is entirely justifiable by current laws.

I'll have plenty of popcorn ready for the hearings.

Peace and Prosperity to All

 

[themidiman]

Wrong.

According to this post (biased I know), Google controls 79% of the search market. Not sure where they got their figures at and don't really care. Google bounces around from 65-67% IMO. Anything less than 50% is not a monopoly. Anything above 75% is a monopoly. Between 51-74% is inconclusive. To me inconclusive means it warrants an investigation. So the question should not be why is the FTC likely to investigate Google for monopolistic behavior, but why it took them so long.

Look at all the members in the lobbying group Google helped to create. They all enjoy great ranks in Google. Coincidence or not, the fact that they are organized under a lobbying group very well could throw them in a class of being market manipulators.

But hey, they are the voice for the internet economy. But yet Google does not even offer telephone or E-mail support for the many that utilize its services. If Google won't even listen to those that use their services, how could they lie and proclaim to be the voice for the internet economy? They can't. They are the voice of shareholders and could give two shits less about anyone else.

So the next time you rank a site #1 in google, are you going to divert your traffic away to your competitors once it hits a certain percentage of total searches for the keyword?

 

[assphuck]

So the next time you rank a site #1 in google, are you going to divert your traffic away to your competitors once it hits a certain percentage of total searches for they keyword?

There is no comparison to a single webmaster's impact on a niche to a company that owns a large slice of a one trillion dollar a year industry. None whatsoever.

 

[Expertpeon]

There are other ways a small company can avoid taxes.

lol no... there isn't.
Only people who have never worked with C-corp taxes can hold such a ridiculous opinion.

 

[jazzc]

you do not recognize anything at all that is being said and are just ignoring inconvenient contrary theories (that also have a much higher applicability in the real world)

Whatever makes you sleep better at night, no worries

 

[madoctopus]

you must be out of your mind if you think google gives a rat's ass on this or if they will be touched. they will get a small fine to maintain appearances. The government has waaay too much money rolling in because of Google.

 

[moonlighsunligh]

lol no... there isn't.
Only people who have never worked with C-corp taxes can hold such a ridiculous opinion.

What is wrong with offshore setup we talked about before? That works even for small corporations, actually USA tax system is even better, as you explained, than in my country when it comes to seo businness.

Do you mean google pays even lower taxes, than one small $1M/year "one person" companies can archive using offshore setup?

 

[Expertpeon]

What is wrong with offshore setup we talked about before? That works even for small corporations, actually USA tax system is even better, as you explained, than in my country when it comes to seo businness.

Do you mean google pays even lower taxes, than one small $1M/year "one person" companies can archive using offshore setup?

Firstly, active income vs. IP income are totally different. Secondly, telecommunication companies are taxed currently and cannot use several major loopholes for foreign companies that other types of companies can use. There are EXPLICIT exceptions to them.

Google pays around 8% effective taxes on all their income... due to corporate welfare and using an extremely dirty tax trick that jazzc would just call "capitalism" or something absurd (it involves pretending that offshore holdings are US income, and allows them to write off expenses of offshore subsidiaries and their taxes currently, while actually paying no taxes and deferring it indefinitely. They're able to pretend they paid taxes, to lower their US tax burden, even though they haven't).

 

[moonlighsunligh]

Google pays around 8% effective taxes on all their income... due to corporate welfare and using an extremely dirty tax trick that jazzc would just call "capitalism" or something absurd (it involves pretending that offshore holdings are US income, and allows them to write off expenses of offshore subsidiaries and their taxes currently, while actually paying no taxes and deferring it indefinitely. They're able to pretend they paid taxes, to lower their US tax burden, even though they haven't).

Definitelly dirty. But don't they actually send profits from subdiaries with low tax (like Ireland) to zero taxes countries.

I have heard they paid 80 000$ last year for taxes in Australia. So Australia goverment got a bit angry. I think Australians would do something about it, If google wasn't a USA company.