FTC Preparing Antitrust Case Against Google

antsaoo · Oct 15, 2012

Expertpeon said:
The EC however... definitely appears to be a serious thorn in their side:
http://www.zdnet.com/google-breached-eu-law-by-merging-privacy-policies-report-7000005408/

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/eu-google-universal-idINL5E8KKI2H20120920

Tell this to the FDA, USDA, IRS, etc...
I'd gladly take a huge evil google, if it meant that the above statement were ACTUALLY true.

Unfortunately, you're completely wrong. All sorts of things are regulated, heavily. Telecommunications is no different.

I mean hell, you cannot even sell non-pasteurized milk from your own farm in the USA (You'll go to jail for up to 10 years)... and you're telling me "Google can do anything they want". What planet are you living on?

Well as glew wrote you can do what ever you want. Youll just have to face the consequences if you get caught. But with these "BIG BOYS" they don't even have any consequences when they get caught since they / their masters own the ones who should be punishing them and they know those won't bite the hand feeding them.

jazzc · Oct 15, 2012

Tensegrity said:
I think your programming logic is taking a bit too much control over your debating logic

Sure, it's not a monopoly in the classical sense of the word, I am not arguing that.

But wait, if it isn't a monopoly, why say it is?

But it IS a company that is abusing its power and getting away with it. Regulations should be set to stop that from happening, in my opinion.

Let me know of an example where it used its power to prevent a competitor from competing with it - and I will agree

Regulations that limit the power of a large corporation and strengthen the power of a small business.

Why would you want to do that? You are actually saying you should penalize competition. "Oh, that b*stard, he 's too good and we can 't compete, let 's make a law to stop him"

Let me give an example. Suppose you have a bakery in your town. And you make the most fantastic tasty bread ever. And not only that, you even sell it lower. Customers flock in your shop. Other bakers close by close shop. The rest are struggling.

Now, let 's see it from your competitors side. They can't compete so they want to bring you down with other means. They hire the mob and kill you

(or they lobby to pass a law that forrbits anyone called Tensegrity to operate a bakery). They have now created a barrier to entry - an oligopoly - to prevent competition.
The consumers are of course the losers. They can't get your awesome bread anymore and they have to spend more!

This is why barrier to entry is the bane of a free market.

Expertpeon · Oct 15, 2012

jazzc said:
They have now created a barrier to entry - an oligopoly - to prevent competition.
The consumers are of course the losers. They can't get your awesome bread anymore and they have to spend more!

This is why barrier to entry is the bane of a free market.

You do realize this is precisely what google is?
There are all kinds of reasons to support small businesses over large ones... significant research on this issue has shown much larger hiring among small businesses per net income derived than from large corporations... similarly wages are often higher as well.
There are many, many other benefits to society at large, which I do not feel like outlining

jazzc · Oct 15, 2012

Expertpeon said:
I'm well aware of economists say about monopolies historically, and how they require authoritarian and legal barriers to exist.

Great. So you effectively admit that Google cannot be a monopoly just because it 's more effective than its competitors and that it requires the use of force to become one.

However, this isn't what is being discussed here. The use of the word is irrelevant to the actions and the public interest associated with preventing abuses.

a) That 's the only thing I was discussing - the essence of the monopoly. If it isn't a monopoly, all the rest is moot.
b) Since when is Economics irrelevant to the action of public interest. That 's exactly why we have Economics for.

In fact, I see no reason to even go over this definition with you,

Of course you don't any more

because it's not at all relevant to the issue. What is relevant is if the governments of the EU and USA have the authority to limit the monopolized control Google has, and they clearly do.

Of course the government have the authority to do what ever they please. That 's why the are governments. What s new?

Just slipping the world monopolized in there doesn't negate the fact that you have to prove the monopoly existence btw

Again whatever planet you live on, it's not the Western world that's for sure.

Another epic fail

Not sure why you are worried about my planet though, are you in the monopolized by NASA space travel business?

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Monopoly.html
"A pure monopoly is a single supplier in a market. For the purposes of regulation, monopoly power exists when a single firm controls 25% or more of a particular market."

Again, laws is not Economics. Laws are made by humans and changed by humans and I will repeat, it 's not the all singing all dancing crap of the world which you can hide behind in lack of arguments

Tensegrity · Oct 15, 2012

jazzc said:
But wait, if it isn't a monopoly, why say it is?

I didn't! LOL

I said it's the same anti-monopoly fight as SOPA/PIPA.

That's the third time I said that now, try to let it sink in this time

Let me know of an example where it used its power to prevent a competitor from competing with it - and I will agree

Suspending adwords and adsense accounts with no clear reason is a good example, no? It may not be the example you are looking for, but it is an example of my point: abuse of power and hurting small business.

Why would you want to do that? You are actually saying you should penalize competition. "Oh, that b*stard, he 's too good and we can 't compete, let 's make a law to stop him"

Let me give an example. Suppose you have a bakery in your town. And you make the most fantastic tasty bread ever. And not only that, you even sell it lower. Customers flock in your shop. Other bakers close by close shop. The rest are struggling.

Now, let 's see it from your competitors side. They can't compete so they want to bring you down with other means. They hire the mob and kill you (or they lobby to pass a law that forrbits anyone called Tensegrity to operate a bakery). They have now created a barrier to entry - an oligopoly - to prevent competition.
The consumers are of course the losers. They can't get your awesome bread anymore and they have to spend more!

This is why barrier to entry is the bane of a free market.

I'm not sure why you gave that example. First off, you are talking about barrier of entry which is not what I suggested. Second of all, your example actually proves my point, that a cut throat business tactic like dropping your prices so low destroys the competition and now that all the other shops have closed the consumer must buy the Tensegrity bread. With a regulation in place, the consumer will have the option to pay the SAME PRICE for Tensegrity bread or jazzc bread and it will be the QUALITY that determines the sale.

Expertpeon · Oct 15, 2012

jazzc said:
Again, laws is not Economics. Laws are made by humans and changed by humans and I will repeat, it 's not the all singing all dancing crap of the world which you can hide behind in lack of arguments

Call it whatever you want... I don't care if you want to use the modern definition of monopoly or the classic one. Call it anything you like, the simple fact of the matter is they exert monopoly powers, price fix, and artificially support their own products becoming more pervasive through mergers and aggressive buyouts.... hurray?

I've offered you multiple sources describing monopolies as I am, you have provided nothing as of yet. I attempted to find Mills definition, but it actually matched up well with what the Oxford English dictionary stated.
You're arguing the definition of a word in a discussion about anti-trust which has no bearing on how anti-trust laws work and their underlying purpose.

I also went ahead and checked out Rawls (since you know between Rawls and Mills, most of the 19th century-early 20th century laws were interpreted through their eyes) and he spoke similarly and even defined monopolies as above:
"Rawls decries the tendency of capitalism to "permit a small class to have a near monopoly of the means of production"

We Go · Oct 15, 2012

Cratos said:
billions? thats chump change for google. More like in trillions would be a nicer fine for the big G. Scroogle.

IF G were converted to a public utility (or their different parts ripped out like the railroad monopolys way back when) would all that cash be used to paydown the US debt?

jazzc · Oct 15, 2012

Expertpeon said:
You do realize this is precisely what google is?

Huh? You only have to give one example where google used force to prevent a competitor from competing with it to refute me. Feel free to.

There are all kinds of reasons to support small businesses over large ones... significant research on this issue has shown much larger hiring among small businesses per net income derived than from large corporations... similarly wages are often higher as well.
There are many, many other benefits to society at large, which I do not feel like outlining

Yes, I get it. You are against competition. You believe competition is a bad thing. No problem. That system has already been tried and crashed within less than 80 years.

For us people who believe that competition actually is a great thing for society, monopolies are created from barriers to entry and we are not in favor of killing the fastest runner because the rest should have the right to get a gold medal too despite the fact that they can't do it by their own merit.

Expertpeon · Oct 15, 2012

jazzc said:
Huh? You only have to give one example where google used force to prevent a competitor from competing with it to refute me. Feel free to.

Yes, I get it. You are against competition. You believe competition is a bad thing. No problem. That system has already been tried and crashed within less than 80 years.

Ummmm.... what?
I would rather have 5000 small businesses selling something than 1 large business. That means I'm against competition?

Huh? You only have to give one example where google used force to prevent a competitor from competing with it to refute me. Feel free to.

What do you define as force? because it does not necessarily have jack to do with this issue... (assuming you mean physical force)
There are lots of instances part of the EC complaint where google promoted their own products and pushed down competitors in their search results, however.

jazzc · Oct 15, 2012

Tensegrity said:
I didn't! LOL

I said it's the same anti-monopoly fight as SOPA/PIPA.

That's the third time I said that now, try to let it sink in this time

Ok, I 'm confused. You 're saying it 's "the same anti-monopoly fight" but also that Google "isn't a monopoly" at the same time?

Suspending adwords and adsense accounts with no clear reason is a good example, no? It may not be the example you are looking for, but it is an example of my point: abuse of power and hurting small business.

There 's no abuse of power. It 's their property to do as they see fit. We are not entitled to those accounts by some God given right.

That said, if they did something in violation of an agreement between you and them, they are liable and can be sued.

I'm not sure why you gave that example. First off, you are talking about barrier of entry which is not what I suggested. Second of all, your example actually proves my point, that a cut throat business tactic like dropping your prices so low destroys the competition and now that all the other shops have closed the consumer must buy the Tensegrity bread. With a regulation in place, the consumer will have the option to pay the SAME PRICE for Tensegrity bread or jazzc bread and it will be the QUALITY that determines the sale.

No. In a free world, as a producer you are free to provide your services as high or as low as you deem, just like as a consumer you are free to choose from various vendors based on whatever criteria you like.

But suppose we have price controls and everyone is selling at the same price. Tensegrity bakery can create the best bread and make everyone else close shop because the consumer want the best value for their buck. Now we are back on the same result. Are you going to suggest that closing down Tensegrity 's business is beneficial to the consumers?

Expertpeon · Oct 15, 2012

jazzc said:
No. In a free world, as a producer you are free to provide your services as high or as low as you deem, just like as a consumer you are free to choose from various vendors based on whatever criteria you like.

But suppose we have price controls and everyone is selling at the same price. Tensegrity bakery can create the best bread and make everyone else close shop because the consumer want the best value for their buck. Now we are back on the same result. Are you going to suggest that closing down Tensegrity 's business is beneficial to the consumers?

Do you have any actual sound argument that such a world is better?
The vast majority of economists and citizens would disagree.

jazzc · Oct 15, 2012

jazzc · Oct 15, 2012

Expertpeon said:
Do you have any actual sound argument that such a world is better?

Yes I do. Lots and lots and lots.

The vast majority of economists and citizens would disagree.

And of course since they can't come here and tell us themselves, they have appointed you as their authorized representative to express their opinions authoritatively

Hint: Google "schopenhauer's stratagems" and read it. You will learn a thing or 38

jazzc · Oct 15, 2012

Expertpeon said:
Ummmm.... what?
I would rather have 5000 small businesses selling something than 1 large business. That means I'm against competition?

You will be surprised by my answer, but "not necessarily, no". You and me don't know which of those businesses are more competitive. That 's what we have the market for. We throw them into a big pit, they fight and the strongest ones reach an equillibrium. Society wins in multitutes. Goods are created in more quantities and better quality for the same cost and there is am elimination of the waste of resources that would have been created from malinvestments.

What do you define as force?

Remember your own post where you said that you understood that the requirement for monopoly is some authority taking action? That 's force.

If G lobbied to the government to create barriers of entry in any market -> guilty. If it hired mobsters to threaten competitors -> guilty etc.

Expertpeon · Oct 15, 2012

jazzc said:
And of course since they can't come here and tell us themselves, they have appointed you as their authorized representative to express their opinions authoritatively

Hint: Google "schopenhauer's stratagems" and read it. You will learn a thing or 38

You've provided shockingly little of substance to this discussion, so this is my last post and I'm back to work:
http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Monopoly.html

"Monopoly power can be controlled, or reduced, in several ways, including price controls and prohibiting mergers.It is widely believed that the costs to society arising from the existence of monopolies and monopoly power are greater than the benefits and that monopolies should be regulated."

I don't have to fabricate anything... I've provided sources for everything I've said, including the above that most people/economists feel that monopoly power and monopolies have much greater costs than benefits.

Your 4 year economics degree is meaningless with regards to this matter... which is why I suspect you've offered nothing of substance and have spent all of your posts debating definitions.

Goods are created in more quantities and better quality for the same cost and there is am elimination of the waste of resources that would have been created from malinvestments.

Until the point when they become inefficient again (which always happens along with size), but have too much market control for proper correction. And then they wind up wasting more and creating significantly large malinvestments over an increasingly long period of time... hurray

s0ap · Oct 15, 2012

I understand very well the differences between antitrust legislation and civil liberties. What you are failing to take into account is the precedent this would set for allowing federal interdiction across the board on what is an inherently border-less medium. The DOJ telling google what it can and can't display on it search results and paid ads is a sideways shot with the same intent as SOPA.

The feds know very well that they need to load the deck in their favor before they attempt something like that again, and this is one of the ways they are setting precedent.

Call me a capitalist or whatever other dirty names you want, zero fucks given. The expansion of government authority is toxic and if left unchecked it will destroy everything it touches.

AdisLCS · Oct 15, 2012

Who needs late night TV drama shows when we got Expertpeon & Jazzc.

No seriously you both make good arguments, now the best thing would be to find a common ground like "I love When Google Helps me make money, even that I {insert here/ "think they are capitalist greedy swine eating double Dutch sandwich" or "are just coolest most efficient money swindlers who I love" }

Now go ahead and create special edition WSO for Warrior Forum on how to monetize on "How Google's {insert here " got its balls crsuched by the White House" or "conqueried the White House" }

PS: no I am not big fan of G's business practices and would not drop a single tear when they go under, but I can admire their success and hypocritically love it when I use G to make money.

Expertpeon · Oct 15, 2012

s0ap said:
I understand very well the differences between antitrust legislation and civil liberties. What you are failing to take into account is the precedent this would set for allowing federal interdiction across the board on what is an inherently border-less medium. The DOJ telling google what it can and can't display on it search results and paid ads is a sideways shot with the same intent as SOPA.

The easiest way to destroy google (and other massive companies) is actually to remove tax loopholes (international transfer pricing issues) and decrease the corporate US tax rate to 15%. Google can no longer shelter 80% of its revenue in Dutch subsidiaries and will be forced to face down start ups paying 35+% in raw US taxes head on. They will undoubtedly lose such a battle.

Also significant tax breaks should be added into the system for small business employers, allowing them to double deduct payroll costs up to 50 employees at a time.

No company, at all, can compete with a company with 94% market share, paying 8% effective tax on billions in revenue by paying 35-40% taxes on their small business with a dozen employees.
Such companies cannot even seriously get this kind of accounting done, as proper transfer pricing studies on intellectual property and marketing cost millions.

How US tax policy is not a barrier for small businesses is beyond me... absolutely absurd notion that direct lobbying is necessary.

s0ap · Oct 15, 2012

As a side note, insulting staff members is not tolerated so everyone keep your political debates in line unless you want to take a short vacation courtesy of me.

jazzc · Oct 15, 2012

Expertpeon said:
You've provided shockingly little of substance to this discussion, so this is my last post and I'm back to work:

Ha!

As if my value to the discussion is in any way determined from the people that don't agree with me. Next time, try to refute with arguments instead of sensationalistic nonsense

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Monopoly.html

"Monopoly power can be controlled, or reduced, in several ways, including price controls and prohibiting mergers.It is widely believed that the costs to society arising from the existence of monopolies and monopoly power are greater than the benefits and that monopolies should be regulated."

You do realize that the above quote is not refuting me but you, right?

I don't have to fabricate anything...

I didn't accuse you of fabricating anything. I do say that you do not have a grasp of Economics though.

I've provided sources for everything I've said, including the above that most people/economists feel that monopoly power and monopolies have much greater costs than benefits.

No, you are quoting things from dictionaries and you don't understand the concepts. What *you* think most people feel is irrelevant to science. And for the record, I never said monopolies are good. I said, Google is not monopoly.

Your 4 year economics degree is meaningless with regards to this matter... which is why I suspect you've offered nothing of substance and have spent all of your posts debating definitions.

Did I ever mention about any degrees to back my thesis over yours? Sorry mate, that 's not how the scientific process works. Call to authority may be a good tactic when you chat with your pals, but not for people that wish to discover the truth unbiased.

And again, your judgmental value of anyone 's contribution is worthless before you can actually win the argument

Until the point when they become inefficient again (which always happens along with size), but have too much market control for proper correction. And then they wind up wasting more and creating significantly large malinvestments over an increasingly long period of time... hurray

Guess what? When they become inefficient competitors step in - Don't need to stress to much; remember Microsoft? The only way competitors won't come in is with .. you guess it ... barriers to entry!

FTC Preparing Antitrust Case Against Google

Supreme Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Junior Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Regular Member

Power Member

Elite Member

Regular Member

Elite Member

Main Menu

Marketplace

Making Money

BlackHat World