Trump’s economic adviser: ‘We’re taking a look’ at whether Google searches should be regulated

[Hatuey]

It's irrelevant if it's "been criticized" as the metric for monopolization

Except of course, that criticism means that our government will not use it as the sole determinant for a monopoly and neither will the courts. This is contrary to your world view. I can see why, it is kind of amazing watching a person argue against the government dismissing its own understanding of monopolies because you say so.

Did you miss this?

Judging the conduct of an alleged monopolist requires an in-depth analysis of the market and the means used to achieve or maintain the monopoly. Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns.

For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services. In the end, courts will decide whether the monopolist's success is due to "the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."

Again, your belief that not having the funds to compete with Google get you get to determine how its algorithm performs is nonsense. Your belief that market share = monopoly is flawed. Even more so if you believe that your layman's claims about a legal system you don't understand are going to be taken serious. You need a lot more proof than market share, buddy.

 

[Hedgology]

Are you forced to use Facebook to see content on Occupy WallStreet? They seem pretty accessible to me:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Occ...rome..69i57.3156j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

:lol:

Sooner or later, you're going to have to learn how to read.

 

[Hatuey]

Again, reading isn't your strong suit. High or no barriers to entry is a characteristic of a monopoly; it's not a determinant of a monopoly.

Sigh, just when I thought we were progressing you go back to square one. Are you really back at the claim that market share = monopoly that you can regulate? That's not what the FTC is telling you buddy. By the way, how will Google's market share change after this regulation is passed?


:lol:

 

[Hatuey]

Sooner or later, you're going to have to learn how to read.

I really wish you'd explain which sites it is you have a problem accessing through Google. You won't. You're relying on anecdotal evidence, from someone else who has an anecdote. That's a pretty low bar to reach after investopedia disproves your claim, and we realize market share could never be used to establish that Google is running a monopoly that the government would be able to regulate and break up.

:lol:

 

[Hedgology]

Except of course, that criticism means that our government will not use it as the sole determinant for a monopoly and neither will the courts. This is contrary to your world view. I can see why, it is kind of amazing watching a person argue against the government dismissing its own understanding of monopolies because you say so.

Did you miss this?

Yeah, I read it. It dispute my argument. Try again.

Again, your belief that not having the funds to compete with Google get you get to determine how its algorithm performs is nonsense. Your belief that market share = monopoly is flawed.

It might be flawed, bt that is the criteria the FTC uses because it is the only tangible evidence of monopolization.

If you don't like it, create your own FTC.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Ladeez and gennermin, Alex Jones is now an unofficial adviser to the White House.

Alex Jones confesses he’s advising Donald Trump on conspiracy theory about Google censorship

 

[Hatuey]

Yeah, I read it. It dispute my argument. Try again.

Are you still promoting the idea that market share is the sole determinant for a monopoly when your link says the exact opposite? You do realize the example given by the FTC literally gives you an example of one company excluding its competitors in its definition of a monopoly?

Seriously? I've seen people desperate to get the W but not like you.

Hilarious, dude.

 

[Hedgology]

Sigh, just when I thought we were progressing you go back to square one. Are you really back at the claim that market share = monopoly that you can regulate? That's not what the FTC is telling you buddy.


:lol:

Can there be no monopoly with high barriers to entry? If your answer is yes, then it's not a determinant.

Can there be a monopoly with low barriers to entry? If your answer is yes, then it's not a determinant.

We know this because market share determines a monopoly, as determined by the FTC.

That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power. Courts look at the firm's market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. In addition, that leading position must be sustainable over time: if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.

 

[Hedgology]

I really wish you'd explain which sites it is you have a problem accessing through Google. You won't. You're relying on anecdotal evidence, from someone else who has an anecdote. That's a pretty low bar to reach after investopedia disproves your claim, and we realize market share could never be used to establish that Google is running a monopoly that the government would be able to regulate and break up.

:lol:

Re-read the post. For your own good.

 

[Hedgology]

Are you still promoting the idea that market share is the sole determinant for a monopoly when your link says the exact opposite? You do realize the example given by the FTC literally gives you an example of one company excluding its competitors in its definition of a monopoly?

You really should work on your reading comprehension skills; nothing in my sources refutes me. However, I am serious when I say "try again" It means I want you to try... for real.

Seriously? I've seen people desperate to get the W but not like you.

Hilarious, dude.

Educated individuals already have the W.

 

[Hatuey]

Can there be no monopoly with high barriers to entry? If your answer is yes, then it's not a determinant.

You tried man, you really did. At this point, you are arguing against the links you are posting, and the very government's view on what is and isn't a monopoly. You claimed market share made it a monopoly. In your world view, that somehow justifies government intervention. The truth is that the government doesn't consider market share to be the sole determinant, and literally considers company action to exclude competitors. Google apparently did this in Europe, another example you cited. You can't seem to find a single example of an anti-trust case being brought where 'market share' justifies breaking up any company you feel has a monopoly.

There just isn't one. It's hard to get to this point for you, but I am glad we've done it. I've learned a person can claim a ton of degrees, and still not understand how the laws on the subject they're discussing work, or how high the standard of proof in a court is - and even when they are provided with this information, they can still deny it because they visit investopedia. You've learned that Google can be used to search links disproving your claims, even Investopedia.

This has been very education for the both of us.

 

[Winston]

Ladeez and gennermin, Alex Jones is now an unofficial adviser to the White House.

Alex Jones confesses he’s advising Donald Trump on conspiracy theory about Google censorship

I thought Jones abandoned Trump?

 

[Linc]

On the internet, people tell themselves things. These things are real until reality hits them back. I am arguing with a person who thinks monopoly power is irrelevant, and considers market share the sole determinant for a monopoly even though no lawyer worth their salt would try a case based on the claim that Google has too many people visiting it. This guy, I swear.

Today’s Republicans stand for the Gilded Ages. GOPs and #45 stand for Violence in 70 days.

Every Republican Candidate = #45; Every last one of them; give McConnellism no political mercy or Quarter

 

[Hatuey]

You really should work on your reading comprehension skills; nothing in my sources refutes me. However, I am serious when I say "try again" It means I want you to try... for real.



Educated individuals already have the W.

I really want you to keep flexing those education muscles, on the internet, they're real:

In the end, courts will decide whether the monopolist's success is due to "the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident."

Hmmmmm, no mention of market share being the only determinant. I wonder why? They probably don't have as many degrees as you at the FTC or DOJ.

 

[Hedgology]

You tried man, you really did. At this point, you are arguing against the links you are posting, and the very government's view on what is and isn't a monopoly. You claimed market share made it a monopoly. In your world view, that somehow justifies government intervention. The truth is that the government doesn't consider market share to be the sole determinant, and literally considers company action to exclude competitors. Google apparently did this in Europe, another example you cited. You can't seem to find a single example of an anti-trust case being brought where 'market share' justifies breaking up any company you feel has a monopoly.

Seriously... learn to read. You are a

There just isn't one. It's hard to get to this point for you, but I am glad we've done it. I've learned a pe

Yeah, the rest of this isn't worth addressing because you apparently haven't learned very much. Especially if your own sources keeps supporting my argument.

The Department is not aware, however, of any court that has found that a defendant possessed monopoly power when its market share was less than fifty percent.(30) Thus, as a practical matter, a market share of greater than fifty percent has been necessary for courts to find the existence of monopoly power.(31)

https://www.justice.gov/atr/competi...conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2

 

[Hatuey]

Seriously... learn to read. You are a

Yeah, the rest of this isn't worth addressing because you apparently haven't learned very much. Especially if your own sources keeps supporting my argument.

Your posts are becoming fractured sentences. You seem unable to support that the claim support your argument, if anything you've literally provided evidence to show the contrary. Which source claims that market share is the sole determinant in determining a monopoly? Your Investopedia link cites quite a few qualities for a monopoly. Why are you dismissing them?

That W is getting further away, my dude.

 

[Hedgology]

I really want you to keep flexing those education muscles, on the internet, they're real:



Hmmmmm, no mention of market share being the only determinant. I wonder why? They probably don't have as many degrees as you at the FTC or DOJ.

Reading comprehension is fundamental! That quote is not defining a monopoly, it's only determining whether a monopoly was acquired through M&A activity or organic growth.

Of course, you can conduct M&A activity and have organic growth and not achieve a monopoly. You're really grasping at straws. Google is a wonderful invention, but it's not going to provide you a shortcut for an education!

 

[Hatuey]

Seriously... learn to read. You are a



Yeah, the rest of this isn't worth addressing because you apparently haven't learned very much. Especially if your own sources keeps supporting my argument.

You aren't understanding that the link as a whole doesn't validate your point of view? That it's conclusion doesn't validate your point of view? Really?

That's gotta be tough.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[Hedgology]

Your posts are becoming fractured sentences. You seem unable to support that the claim support your argument, if anything you've literally provided evidence to show the contrary. Which source claims that market share is the sole determinant in determining a monopoly? Your Investopedia link cites quite a few qualities for a monopoly. Why are you dismissing them?

That W is getting further away, my dude.

If you don't understand the difference between a"quality of a monopoly" and "what determines a monopoly", then there is no hope for you. Monopolies can have qualities similiar to to what is found in competitive marktes, but you don't use the qualities found in competitive markets to classlify a monopoly.

That is beyond dumb, but it doesn't suprise me that you would make such a mistake.

Keep googling!

 

[Hatuey]

Reading comprehension is fundamental! That quote is not defining a monopoly, it's only determining whether a monopoly was acquired through M&A activity or organic growth.

Of course, you can conduct M&A activity and have organic growth and not achieve a monopoly. You're really grasping at straws. Google is a wonderful invention, but it's not going to provide you a shortcut for an education!

This would be easier for you if you could demonstrate bias in Google's algorithm. Try that path.

Currently, your assumption that a government can regulate searches based on market share is simply unfounded.

You know, this, right?



Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[Hedgology]

This would be easier for you if you could demonstrate bias in Google's algorithm. Try that path.

Currently, your assumption that a government can regulate searches based on market share is simply unfounded.

You know, this, right?



Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

Of course I never made such a argument, but it also doesn't surprise me that you have reached such a conclusion.

And I'm not going back to the post so I can share what my argument is; that is YOUR JOB. You should have been reading carefully.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

By instituting the regulation you want you makes the search engine worse at being a search engine. It is impossible to do what you want without destroying Google and what makes its search engine so good.

However what Trump wants is to regulate the news that people see.

He wants to regulate what people THINK, let's get real, okay?

 

[Hatuey]

If you don't understand the difference between a"quality of a monopoly" and "what determines a monopoly", then there is no hope for you. Monopolies can have qualities similiar to to what is found in competitive marktes, but you don't use the qualities found in competitive markets to classlify a monopoly.

That is beyond dumb, but it doesn't suprise me that you would make such a mistake.

Keep googling!

Hedgology, I'm not the one using investopedia to discredit by own claims. You literally ignored market power - used in courts to justify whether the government has a role in determining a monopoly, to justify your weird obsession with Google being forced to show what you want by the government.

You aren't getting that this wouldn't fly in any US court. Ever. I don't know how else I can explain it. Every example you've shown literally shows a company excluding its competition. This isn't what is discussion here. Maybe you should drop the education flexing when you're literally using Google to find what you need.



Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[Hatuey]

Of course I never made such a argument, but it also doesn't surprise me that you have reached such a conclusion.

And I'm not going back to the post so I can share what my argument is; that is YOUR JOB. You should have been reading carefully.

Lmao, yeah your argument is that Google has a monopoly based on market share and government intervention will somehow affect that... Only without the intent of balancing that existing monopoly, just for the purpose of making Google more pleasing to themselves.

It is a ridiculous position, but one you've force yourself into by declaring unaccepted maxims that our courts find irrelevant.

We get it though. Why support authoritarianism, bro?

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[Hedgology]

Hedgology, I'm not the one using investopedia to discredit by own claims. You literally ignored market power - used in courts to justify whether the government has a role in determining a monopoly, to justify your weird obsession with Google being forced to show what you want by the government.

You aren't getting that this wouldn't fly in any US court. Ever. I don't know how else I can explain it. Every example you've shown literally shows a company excluding its competition. This isn't what is discussion here. Maybe you should drop the education flexing when you're literally using Google to find what you need.

U.S. court? Ahhhh! I see your malfunction (among your many others). You think I'm trying to break up Google or stop a merger from taking place. I can assure you that I'm not, and I'm not trying to prevent Google from acquiring new companies, nor am I trying to prevent Google from merging with Apple/Alilbaba/Microsoft/[Name other tech companies here].

You're pretty confused. I am simply just trying to regulate Google. No need to go to court for that, and no need to have any legal definition. The standard definition will do just fine!

Monopoly - Market situation where one producer (or a group of producers acting in concert) controls supply of a good or service, and where the entry of new producers is prevented or highly restricted.

Read more: What is a monopoly? definition and meaning - BusinessDictionary.com