Slashdot Mirror
How To Tame the Tech Titans (economist.com)
dryriver shares an opinion piece from The Economist: Not long ago, being the boss of a big Western tech firm was a dream job. As the billions rolled in, so did the plaudits: Google, Facebook, Amazon and others were making the world a better place. Today these companies are accused of being BAADD -- big, anti-competitive, addictive and destructive to democracy. Regulators fine them, politicians grill them and one-time backers warn of their power to cause harm. Much of this techlash is misguided. The presumption that big businesses must necessarily be wicked is plain wrong. Apple is to be admired as the world's most valuable listed company for the simple reason that it makes things people want to buy, even while facing fierce competition. Many online services would be worse if their providers were smaller. Evidence for the link between smartphones and unhappiness is weak. Fake news is not only an online phenomenon.
But big tech platforms, particularly Facebook, Google and Amazon, do indeed raise a worry about fair competition. That is partly because they often benefit from legal exemptions. Unlike publishers, Facebook and Google are rarely held responsible for what users do on them; and for years most American buyers on Amazon did not pay sales tax. Nor do the titans simply compete in a market. Increasingly, they are the market itself, providing the infrastructure (or "platforms") for much of the digital economy. Many of their services appear to be free, but users "pay" for them by giving away their data. Powerful though they already are, their huge stockmarket valuations suggest that investors are counting on them to double or even triple in size in the next decade. There is thus a justified fear that the tech titans will use their power to protect and extend their dominance, to the detriment of consumers (see article). The tricky task for policymakers is to restrain them without unduly stifling innovation.
But big tech platforms, particularly Facebook, Google and Amazon, do indeed raise a worry about fair competition. That is partly because they often benefit from legal exemptions. Unlike publishers, Facebook and Google are rarely held responsible for what users do on them; and for years most American buyers on Amazon did not pay sales tax. Nor do the titans simply compete in a market. Increasingly, they are the market itself, providing the infrastructure (or "platforms") for much of the digital economy. Many of their services appear to be free, but users "pay" for them by giving away their data. Powerful though they already are, their huge stockmarket valuations suggest that investors are counting on them to double or even triple in size in the next decade. There is thus a justified fear that the tech titans will use their power to protect and extend their dominance, to the detriment of consumers (see article). The tricky task for policymakers is to restrain them without unduly stifling innovation.
The presumption that big businesses must necessarily be wicked is plain wrong.
This presumption is accurate. Corporations are required by law to make money. Share holders can exact retribution if they don't. People lose their job if they fail to steer their company in a growing profitable manner, regardless of whatever else.
Once these companies 'go public', they are beholden to the share holders to give a return on their investment. The ever increasing demand for more profits, more growth, well, it's what turns good ideas into evil entities we despise.
If company's goals were things like do X better for society, discover Y, provide Z service to the best of your ability, things might be better, but that's not how it is. Every company has the same goal: Make more money for their share holders. Period. Every other consideration is secondary.
Every corporation I've ever seen has done one of two things: Get bigger, or disappear.
Bullshit. If there are a larger quantity of providers, they compete harder and customers have more choice. Japan had 7 viable car companies that kicked the ass of our 3 in the 80's.
The only place I see it being a problem is cross-country coverage. But the co's can make roaming deals with other carriers.
Oligopolies consistently have the worse customer service in surveys among different products that have fell under oligopolies/monopolies.
Table-ized A.I.
The US is listed as having a tax burden of around 25% of GDP. Most EU countries have rates in the 40s, with Scandinavian countries in the 50s. Count your blessings
The US do have a very high corporate tax. And there's the problem: small businesses end up paying a serious chunk of their income in taxes, while big corporation can fiddle with overseas income and "license fees for IP", thus ending up paying very, very little.
You're mistaken about the EU, by the way. They do fine domestic companies.
- Daimler was fined €1 billion in an antitrust case, in the same case other auto makers like Volvo and DAF were fined a total additional €1.9 billion.
- Glass manufacturers such as Pilkington and Saint-Gobain received fines totaling €1.35 billion.
- Telefonica: €150 million
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Personally, I think that would break "our democracy" far more than allowing companies to make arguments for their desires.
1.) 'Our democracy' is comprised of 'We the People'. Companies ARE NOT PEOPLE. Therefore, companies should have no right to a voice or opinion. Citizens United was, I think, the worst SCOTUS decision in my lifetime. The decision revolved around the 1st amendment but personhood is personhood. Think of the ramifications of a company, as a 'person', using Citizens United to make arguments revolved around the following amendments: 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 15th (think creatively), 19th (think creatively).
2.) Companies employ and are owned by people. Each one has an individual right to a voice and opinion. If a company has say 1000 employees and say 100 shareholders, those 1100 people already have a voice in the form of 1100 votes in the ballet box.