Slashdot Mirror
Elizabeth Warren Says Apple, Amazon and Google Are Trying To 'Lock Out' Competition (recode.net)
Elizabeth Warren, an American academic and member of the Democratic Party, believes that Google, Apple, and Amazon are trying to use their size to "snuff out competition." In a speech about the perils of "consolidation and concentration" throughout the economy, the Massachusetts senator singled out the three of tech's biggest players. From a report:Warren had different beefs with Google, Apple and Amazon, but the common thread was that she accused each one of using its powerful platform to "lock out smaller guys and newer guys," including some that compete with Google, Apple and Amazon. Google, she said, uses "its dominant search engine to harm rivals of its Google Plus user review feature;" Apple "has placed conditions on its rivals that make it difficult for them to offer competitive streaming services" that compete with Apple Music; and Amazon "uses its position as the dominant bookseller to steer consumers to books published by Amazon to the detriment of other publishers.""Google, Apple and Amazon have created disruptive technologies that changed the world, and ... they deserve to be highly profitable and successful," Warren said. "But the opportunity to compete must remain open for new entrants and smaller competitors that want their chance to change the world again."
If ISP put restrictions on ports etc, it will make it harder for the next Amazon, Apple or Google to prosper and grow. You look at Comcast, they advertise that they block port unless you pay twice as much for half the speed.
As a great teacher once said, "Go educate thyself!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren#Academic
Who is world would call Elizabeth warren an academic?
Apparently, the University of Texas, the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard as she taught at each of their Law Schools. From Wikipedia:
Warren was formerly a professor of law, and taught at the University of Texas School of Law, the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and most recently at Harvard Law School. A prominent scholar specializing in bankruptcy law, Warren was among the most cited in the field of commercial law before starting her political career.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The Warren numbers are easy to find. She has become the most popular politician in Massachusetts, with a 52/39 approval over disapproval rating. She will easily be re-elected. She appears to be the 12th most popular Senator in the US.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Do you think they even realize the deep hypocritical irony?
Although HRC and others have accepted millions in "speaking fees" from Wall Street and big pharma, Elizabeth Warren has not. She is not being hypocritical, since she has also spoken out about the influence of big money on politics.
But the economy was never "unregulated". The big railroad and oil monopolies were a direct result of government protection and corruption that provided exclusive contracts and closed the market to the upstarts. This is the same reason we have no competition in pharmaceuticals, communications, media, internet service, etc. today
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You don't mean the same Rockefeller who used worker gangs to shake down the competition into selling out and buying government officials to look the other way, do you? You make him sound so innocent :-)
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Monopolies are very easy to create in an unregulated economy.
Nope. In an unregulated economy, the only way to make a monopoly is by offering your products or services at a better price than your competition. Rockefeller came close, and he did so by drastically reducing his costs *and* prices.
Nope. The fastest and cheapest way to become a monopoly in an unregulated economy is to bring in the Pinkertons, establish a company town, and extract all of the profit for any and all economic activity for yourself. Rockefeller reduced his costs by murdering strikers using every armed force he could get his hands on, which was most of them. The tricks and techniques utilized by unregulated monopolies to extend and enhance their dominance are many and varied, and it is historical fact that a sufficiently advanced monopoly can and will arrogate the nominal government monopoly on force unto itself, either explicitly using some organization like the Pinkerton Agency or covertly, in the case of Rockefeller getting the Colorado National Guard called out for his benefit.
Even Smith acknowledged this fact.
Smith subscribed to a common misconception. That doesn't make him right.
Adam Smith knew it was a fact because he had already seen it happen with the East India Company, which had operated as a monopoly in every market in which it did business and as de facto government of India for over 150 years at the time he wrote Wealth of Nations. He was not reciting some bullshit academic theory like the one you spout. The consequences of monopoly in an unregulated economy were the reality on the ground for his entire lifetime. Mr. Smith was busy writing his book as East India Company tea was being dumped into Boston harbor. Fortunately for him, he was living in Paris at the time, so his afternoon tea was not interrupted. Still, he knew exactly what an unregulated monopoly was capable of. The later activities of Carnegie and Rockefeller and other Gilded Age robber barons were a pale imitation of their predecessor.
Reducing costs... Pfft. Where do you get this crap, The Toddler's Guide to the Republican Party Platform?