Is Google a monopoly?

jazzc said:

Not really. One is either pro-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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

Click to expand...

As I said, no offense, but this reflects a total bias towards a theoretical approach that doesn't add much to a number of personal interpretations. In a word: this is totally FALSE. There's no binary or boolean tree here... It's PERFECTLY not only acceptable but normal that a government might have weakness or strengths in different areas, reflecting different policies when it comes to the "good ol' real world" and this is what happens every single second in every single inch of planet earth. Adjustments, addition or removal of authorities are also possible... Various economic doctrines justify various degrees of intervention as well... So, I understand making it a binary tree would mentally simplify things to sort them out but, nah not a chance here. I cited Einstein beforehand because I already knew some of the possible objections since I had like a million times arguments like these... Boolean [thingies] here: out of scope, as they say, not applicable

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.

Click to expand...

These kinds of -again theoretical, out of the book- examples are the equivalent in terms of relevance and scope to comparing the turing machine to the latest multimedia algorithms embedded in the current cpus... Yes both are algos and their similarities end pretty much at that point... In this case the example is in the theoretical domain not because it didn't happen, but because it reflects an economic world that revolved around dynamics that were in large part so different to make a comparison very hard to make. And from multiple standpoints. I'll briefly repeat myself (I'm getting older and tedious? lol) by saying that every area of the market has specific, peculiar and intrinsic technicalities that are not always possible to cage inside a general macro theory, let alone making comparisons of specific BRIEF (100 years..) time frames, in specific conditions.. Even nowadays an administration steers consistently, adding/removing/limiting authorities, even here in the States, according to what needs to be done, as you go... Now not everybody that's not a 100% supporter of the free market theory is by default a supporter of the opposite or of evil dictatorships and that probably needs to be pointed out because in this country there's this eerie feeling that a bit too many things can be either true or false... And most of the time, like here exceptionally out of scope..

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

Click to expand...

Perfect. Since you rightly pointed there's a lot of misinformation and you're a mathematician, I'm sure you know that the "secret hand of the market" has been proven -mathematically- a nonsense like a lot of other theoretical forecasts that rigorous models have butchered ruthlessly... (The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal, Journal of Political Economy among others..). There could be a lot more to say that doesn't try to limit economics to oversimplified ergo FALSE boolean decision trees, but it's already be debunked in a number of ways by a number of mathematicians way more authoritative than me and not really on a forum to do the research for anybody genuinely interested in this and not some subpar product of math like "free market" theories, lol... Anybody interested might want to look around -not on crappypedia or some conspiracy bs about the banks on yt, pls- but on some academic papers, thx...

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it's not what I wrote and this is the answer to a different -unrelated- question... Chances are that competition simply CAN'T happen anymore if a "free market entity" becomes too large and without the intervention of the "bureaucrats" or a centralized regulator you'll -logically- end on a deadlock. Unless we're all living in the world of snow-white and consumers genuinely drive the demand to the "best" (and here we could open an entire forum on the interpretation of optimal paretian...) supply and divisions by zero never occur because.. well, we know that you can't do it, the book says it! OK, here I played a bit of a smartass didn't mean to troll, but hope I got my point across and a discussion should always be in the best interest of the discussion for the other fellow guy that commented on this regard. Back to the OP, Google qualifies is in the search engine niche for a de facto monopoly 100% that unless some central intervention will probably stay as such in saecula saeculorum amen.... And to wrap this long thing, with the best of intention, I'm a practical kind of numbersman... So there's just one question for me to be answered.. Let's do the reasoning the other way around... If Google is not a "de facto" monopoly, how come each time they make an update there are ppl on here going as far as wanting to pay a personal visit to munt cunts? Good luck!

pxoxrxn said:

because the government has been slow on internet business

Click to expand...

??? :wink:

they have been able to take a massive proportion of the market share and this has created an unfair market.

Click to expand...

I don't get this unfair part. They got their market share because they have superior products. There 's quite a few search engines there today. Google 's results are simple better. How on earth is it unfair if people chose the best provider?
I 've been around since before Google 's launch and believe me, their product was far far better than anything else at that time. The kept the quality high and crushed the competition. That 's the idea in a competitive market - improve quality - reduce prices.

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

Click to expand...

Good luck The costs to get started are not that high by the way. Getting quality results, that 's the hard part.

Thank you for taking the time for a long reply sirgold. You are very liberal at the usage of terminology, so I 'll just comment a few parts

sirgold said:

It's PERFECTLY not only acceptable but normal that a government might have weakness or strengths in different areas, reflecting different policies when it comes to the "good ol' real world" and this is what happens every single second in every single inch of planet earth.

Click to expand...

Certainly it 's normal because failure is inherent to the State Whereas a free market always optimizes. That 's the point.

I'm sure you know that the "secret hand of the market" has been proven -mathematically- a nonsense like a lot of other theoretical forecasts that rigorous models have butchered ruthlessly...

Click to expand...

You are referring to the "invisible hand" from Adam Smith 's classic treatise "The Wealth of Nations" and it has nothing with forecasting whatsoever. Actually, it 's the Justin Bieber of Economics. The man only mentioned the expression once on the book and all the haters and fan-boys have created a mess.

Of course, Google is a monopoly! And as I see it wanna become the synonym of Internet.

SeoMall said:

Of course, Google is a monopoly! And as I see it wanna become the synonym of Internet.

Click to expand...

We do all use the term in my country to "Google" something, LOL, maybe that is all the proof of monopoly you need.

Yo LordSummerisle, I'm really happy for you and I'm'a let you finish, but Nigel Farage had one of the greatest posts of all time! kanye.gif

Nigel Farage said:

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.

Click to expand...

But seriously, great post, well worth the read. Just letting everyone who thought 'WALL OF TEXT' know that it's a very interesting read.

jazzc said:

Thank you for taking the time for a long reply sirgold

Click to expand...

My pleasure to have an interesting discussion.

Certainly it 's normal because failure is inherent to the State Whereas a free market always optimizes. That 's the point.

Click to expand...

Fact: economic failure is more common with businesses than it is with governments, so there must be a problem with supporting this point.. Taking it for granted is definitely a risk... If you don't feel like supporting dicey theories with little evidence (I don't, for instance..) the only practical solution calls for a central authority to regulate whenever a risk to any safe competition arises. And -as we see- it can arise, like in the case of google.

You are referring to the "invisible hand" from Adam Smith 's..

Click to expand...

I intentionally referred to the presence of a secret hand (wasn't specifically citing the trite "invisible hand") because mathematically it's proven there's not such a thing to this day, so I still wonder what should keep the "free market" devoid of deviations and basically.. maintain the status of what defines it as "free market" along the way... It certainly doesn't have an intrinsic mechanism to prevent "de facto" monopolies during the time... That's again the case of google OP was mentioning. We could fuck around like freshmen with terms and terminologies and lingo, but how do we eliminate the possibility of the creation of "de facto" monopolies without a central authority? In practical terms. Interested to hear your take, if you care to share it.Regards.

Too what degree do you believe that the market wants a monopoly when it come3s to search engines. Is there something about our psychological nature when it comes to this kind of service that leads us to be willing to accept a monopoly? How many search engine providers do we really want?

I guess like most things in life there is a little bit of subjective interpretation as to what exactly a monopoly is, maybe the real question is has Google become too powerful?

I'm not an expert on these things, but I am currently majoring in economics... Just finishing up my second year. I think what this argument about theoretical division and labeling ignores the fact that in the real world, there are subtle layers of everything, and things do not just naturally get labeled as a monopoly or not a monopoly. The Classical Theory of Economics assumes that all people are rational, and in most cases that markets are perfectly competitive. As anyone who has had a girlfriend, or talked to a girl before (haha) knows... not all people are rational. Perfectly competitive markets are also EXCEEDINGLY rare, if they exist at all. Maybe the market for crude oil...I personally think the market for currencies comes about as close as you will get in real life.

That being said, I think a more important question to ask is this: Why are you asking this question? If you are asking this question because you are going to use the fact that Google is a monopoly (in your mind) to NOT DO WORK... then that's not an ideal situation. If you are asking because you are genuinely curious, then fine, but as an entrepreneur myself, and a decent student economist, I would say this: Who cares? You the man, you gonna make shit work whether Google is on your ass, or Monsanto, or any other "evil" corporation. It's only with this attitude that you'll make shit work anyway.

All in all, the market DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL! It is the PEOPLE and their ATTITUDE... Question: During what period of American History were more millionaires made than any other time?

Answer: The Great Depression!

Now go make some fucking money guys, and stop whining about some pie in the sky theory! When you're smoking a cuban on your own private Carribean island with your 10 hot "playmate" babes in bikinis, then you can spend some time
thinking about shit that don't matter... until then Get Hustlin'!

DG

dgaunn4114 said:

Now go make some fucking money guys, and stop whining about some pie in the sky theory! When you're smoking a cuban on your own private Carribean island with your 10 hot "playmate" babes in bikinis, then you can spend some time
thinking about shit that don't matter... until then Get Hustlin'!

DG

Click to expand...

Yeah I guess you are right, it probably is stupid to care when there's money to make and stuff to buy. Maybe we should just be like homer "I used to believe in things too." I just thought I would see if there were others that had an issue with the situation but perhaps most people just don't care and maybe they are right. At least it's made an interesting thread for those who like to think and talk about this kind of thing and maybe it's not a waste of time doing a bit of what you like in between making the bread, after all we can't spend all our time making money, otherwise none of us would be here chatting in the first place and every now and then you have to stop for a little chat, even you couldn't resist DG . Anyway back to baking, more piles to bake up for me, but maybe there are others out there who still want to share their views, at least this place is letting people have their say.

All the best,

I just want to add one last thing whether I should care or not. The bottom line is it doesn't matter how good an individual company Google is and call it a monopoly if you want and don't if you don't, but whatever you want to call it any market place that is so heavily dominated by just one company and with such a serious lack of real competition is extremely unhealthy and very bad for everyone in the long term. That's all there is to it and why someone needs to intervene as it doesn't look like things are going to change by themselves, regardless of how good the economic theory is it clearly hasn't worked well in this particular market place and something needs to change.

All the best,

It will be interesting to see how people will justify Google spying on us and stealing our personal data, that said when people have a motive they will justify anything. Tune into today?s news for those who don?t already know yet.

IF and only IF Google's services eventually become the only services of their type on the entire internet (and that IS a possibility, though it's unlikely), then Google will be a monopoly. But for now, it just has a really huge, leading market share. It's like Microsoft: yes, their products are the most widely-used, but there are alternative software products from other companies that do the same things, so Microsoft is not a monopoly.