- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 28,644
- Reaction score
- 6,373
- Location
- Washington
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I’d say apple wouldnt apply but i still dont like them for jacking up the price and acting like all their products are precious diamonds.
Disney for example...... yes slap disney silly with antitrust.
So the DOJ is preparing to go after Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon for antitrust, and the government wants to "break up" big tech.
I want to ask, what does this exactly accomplish? So Amazon needs to be punished and broken up for providing fast shipping to its customers and lower costs?
Imagine if the government ran an Amazon store! You would be lucky to receive your package in a month! Facebook ads are one of the greatest advertising tools for small and mid-size businesses. What does the government provide on a similar scale besides loans?
And what exactly is the point of a breakup? What would prevent Amazon AWS from becoming a monopoly or Instagram, Apple Store?
Lastly, we are in a tech war with China. China actually wants companies like their Alibaba, Baidu, and Tencent to get more powerful. They actually like monopolies. So why on earth are we trying to handicap our best players when the Chinese government is doing the complete opposite?
Breaking up of big tech seems misguided and light on details.
Amazon is an absurdly massive monopoly for which one of their major sources of wealth is the federal government subsidizing every Amazon package by $1.43 each. Multiply that by billions. NO other company or business has the 1 and 2 day shipping rate Amazon does - having to pay 250% to 400% more.
Because of the marriage between Amazon and Google (80+% percent of internet traffic), no company can compete with advertising either. Google also is heavily subsidized by the government - and neither pay any taxes. Small businesses do.
Why do you think Amazon and Google are American companies? They are International companies.
As an investor who actually reads the details of shareholder statements, Amazon's major source of income is sale of cloud services and associated software. It's retail business bare breaks even. And its own retailing losses are covered by profits earned from carrying other smaller marketing companies. Reinvesting profits in the company for future growth and remuneration avoids taxation, but eventually the bill will become due. The US Postal Service is not underwritten by the US Government. No tax dollars go towards its operation. It is a self supporting quasi public service corporation forbidden by law from profits.
Considering that porn still accounts for at least 45% of internet traffic, unless new math has created a miracle, you've misinterpreted internet traffic for advertising. Amazon and Google account for 80% of internet advertising through their cloud services, not internet traffic. This still does not make them responsible for 80% of internet advertising, merely the transmission of internet advertising.
Monopolies are not unlawful in the US, nor anywhere else on this planet. However, use of monopolistic powers to thwart competition is a violation of anti trust laws.
Now, when examining the governmental reactions toward big tech, and I hate using this language, it is not an issue of monopolies that government fears, but a loss of controlling powers to forces of the marketplace government does not control. The FCC lobbying for the end of internet neutrality was the first salvo to bring technological freedoms under government controls. I am far more concerned with governmental intrusion into technological achievement and growth by a government mired in partisan back stabbing and quibbling than actual governance, especially by politicians who still can't program a VCR or use more than 5% of the software built into their cell phones. No one can govern when they don't understand what they intend to govern. How many members of the FCC can code? Here's the answer, none. How many congressional members can code? Here's the answer, 7. That's from their own surveys of congressional members, and only one senator had coding experience. Basic One in college 20 some odd years ago.
The chief antitrust prosecutor freely admitted this week he does not concern himself with monopolistic processes as a concern for protecting consumers from big tech pricing. His concerns are "misuse of power." Meaning, "who holds the reins." Do you really believe big tech is best governed by our government? Give that some thought before responding. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Apple's CEO, Tim Cook, didn't object to industry oversight, and neither do I, but I certainly don't trust government intrusion from people like Elizabeth Warren seeking hot button key words for votes. "Don't screw this up, girl."
Why do some people think that lying is persuasive? There is no reason to go thru your message point by point since truth clearly is absolutely irrelevant in it with your post office comment, rather just tell what ever lies make the claim you want in your message:
American taxpayers give an $18 billion gift to the post office every year
U.S. Post Office gets an $18 billion gift from taxpayers every year | Fortune
You statement that Amazon makes no money off of sales of it's products and that neither Amazon or Google make any money off internet advertising in your message is so radically - absurdly - false there is no rational discussion possible.
Apple won't qualify, there is plenty of competition for their products.
Facebook, if they made themselves less useful to foreign governments for sinking campaign dollars, wouldn't be on this list either.
Google and Amazon, however, are good candidates for anti trust, unfortunately. Google wields more power over public perception and opinion than any other multiple sources combined, and they sell that power to the highest bidder. Amazon is using a reinvesting strategy to pay zero taxes, while under cutting prices and driving down labor costs using...unethical hiring and employment practices...to drive any and all competition out of business.
Tax breaks for a quasi public service company with service mandates from congress in exchange, is not a gift from tax payers, it is a gift to tax payers who use the services supplied. A very weak and long refuted argument resurrected for partisan political bickering.
Understanding how both Amazon and Google truly make their money could lead to realistic antitrust regulation for the digital age. But then you can lead a horse to water, and you can't make him drink. When a prosecuting attorney for an antitrust investigation brags that the investigation is not about protecting the consumer, how could you not understand the issue is really a power play?
There is nothing "quasi" about the USPS. It is funded by taxpayer funds that were appropriated by Congress. The USPS does generate some revenue through the sale of stamps and other services, but not nearly enough to offset the cost of their operation. There is nothing "self-sufficient" about the USPS, and there never has been. The USPS exists because Congress has the constitutional authority "to establish post offices..." It is not a private organization, or a "quasi-" anything, it is entirely a federal government entity. Just like NASA, the CIA, and dozens of other alphabet agencies, they all fall under the "Independent Agency" label. Meaning they do not belong to a particular department. An "Independent Agency" is not independent of the government, just not part of any established department, like the Department of State, or the Department of Justice, or the Department of Defense, etc., etc.
Perhaps you should look up the charters that established and regulate the USPS.
What are you talking about? The US Constitution and Congress established and regulate the USPS. The origins of the USPS goes back to the Continental Congress when on July 26, 1775, they appointed Benjamin Franklin the first Postmaster General. The first session of Congress created (or recreated) the USPS in 1789.
What are you talking about? The US Constitution and Congress established and regulate the USPS. The origins of the USPS goes back to the Continental Congress when on July 26, 1775, they appointed Benjamin Franklin the first Postmaster General. The first session of Congress created (or recreated) the USPS in 1789.
There is nothing "quasi" about the USPS. It is funded by taxpayer funds that were appropriated by Congress. The USPS does generate some revenue through the sale of stamps and other services, but not nearly enough to offset the cost of their operation. There is nothing "self-sufficient" about the USPS, and there never has been. The USPS exists because Congress has the constitutional authority "to establish post offices..." It is not a private organization, or a "quasi-" anything, it is entirely a federal government entity. Just like NASA, the CIA, and dozens of other alphabet agencies, they all fall under the "Independent Agency" label. Meaning they do not belong to a particular department. An "Independent Agency" is not independent of the government, just not part of any established department, like the Department of State, or the Department of Justice, or the Department of Defense, etc., etc.
Part of the problem is that the USPS has to fund 70 years of pensions, and also their 'pension fund' got 'borrowed' from. They also has to serve everyone, no matter where they live.
The USPS doesn't fund anything. Congress funds the USPS, just like they fund every other government agency - with taxpayer dollars.
The USPS doesn't deliver my mail, nor do they deliver the mail to half the State of Alaska. Most of western Alaska doesn't even have ZIP codes. Residents have to use the ZIP Code of Bethel or some other nearby city. So the USPS hardly serves everyone no matter where they live, as you erroneously claimed.
That's not what I said. I said that the USPS has to prefund 75 years of pention in just 10 years The Truth About The Post Office's Financial Mess
Disney? Seriously?
The USPS doesn't fund anything. Congress funds the USPS, just like they fund every other government agency - with taxpayer dollars.
The USPS doesn't deliver my mail, nor do they deliver the mail to half the State of Alaska. Most of western Alaska doesn't even have ZIP codes. Residents have to use the ZIP Code of Bethel or some other nearby city. So the USPS hardly serves everyone no matter where they live, as you erroneously claimed.
Nope. USPS funds itself.
Also, "some remote areas of Alaska have extra hoops to go through to get mail" is your big rebuttal? :lamo
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?