What would have happened if Prof Reich had written this article ten years ago - twenty years ago?
Recall that monopoly in dial-up AOL - or how about that consumer-of-souls HotBot - or how about the dominance of Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect.
The only thing that has remained the same is the talking heads who have never created anything of value in their lives trying to tell those that do - how to run their businesses.
Recall that monopoly in dial-up AOL - or how about that consumer-of-souls HotBot - or how about the dominance of Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect.
The only thing that has remained the same is the talking heads who have never created anything of value in their lives trying to tell those that do - how to run their businesses.
16
When you write that one-third of people seeking to buy ANYTHING start with Amazon, you must mean seeking to buy anything on the web. I'm a big Amazon shopper, probably well above average, but I don't even consider it for 95% of where I spend my money. I'm hardly beholden to Amazon.
2
Right on Robert Reich.
Because I am an immigrant and afraid of any one constituency getting too much power (because who ever gets it eventually hurts people without consequence, and with catastrophic results), I know of what you speak.
Yet, a good idea does not translate seamlessly into policy, much less into effective implementation - precisely because big business will not let it happen (see our 70 thousand plus page tax code).
This change will not be initiated by our super corrupt legislature; we will need grass roots change. What should we do about that? What would help?
Because I am an immigrant and afraid of any one constituency getting too much power (because who ever gets it eventually hurts people without consequence, and with catastrophic results), I know of what you speak.
Yet, a good idea does not translate seamlessly into policy, much less into effective implementation - precisely because big business will not let it happen (see our 70 thousand plus page tax code).
This change will not be initiated by our super corrupt legislature; we will need grass roots change. What should we do about that? What would help?
5
Well-said! Unfortunately, most of us Americans are clueless, when it comes to the role the government and corporations play in the welfare of our society as a whole. This is partly because of the successful disinformation and distraction strategy so meticulously formulated and so skillfully deployed by one of our two political parties. Just throw out phrases like "big government", "conspiracy against job creators," "free market" etc. and keep repeating it ad nauseam, and lo and behold, you can fool 100% of the gullible 100% of the time! Add to this, distracting issues such as abortion, gays, God, us vs them etc., it is enough to make most forget pocket book issues and elect the same charlatans bought out by the rich and the corporations over and over again, thus dooming the welfare of the nation as a whole!
Don't get me wrong. Corporations and free market are essential to a nation's economy. And national treasury is not a bottomless money pit to dole out to all the needy, either. However, compassion-less capitalism, especially unbridled by constraints imposed by society (in the form of laws passed by Congress and enforced by the Government) is as evil as Communism! Interestingly, our Constitution does not mention Corporations at all. They are entities, we the people allow to exist so that we can all benefit, not just their owners. Otherwise, why have an LLC? Let them compete without LLC protection. Let us see how well they function then!!!!
Don't get me wrong. Corporations and free market are essential to a nation's economy. And national treasury is not a bottomless money pit to dole out to all the needy, either. However, compassion-less capitalism, especially unbridled by constraints imposed by society (in the form of laws passed by Congress and enforced by the Government) is as evil as Communism! Interestingly, our Constitution does not mention Corporations at all. They are entities, we the people allow to exist so that we can all benefit, not just their owners. Otherwise, why have an LLC? Let them compete without LLC protection. Let us see how well they function then!!!!
7
Reich has it wrong. The reason Google, Apple, etc. are buying patents is defensive. Our patent system only serves the lawyers who have made patent trolling a big business. As to anti-trust, Reich seems to favor the European classical view that competition is the one and only criterion. The problem is that this is a static view and doesn't accommodate the network effect where successful first movers dominate a new space. Over time history has shown that new technologies create new markets which spawn a new set of contenders resulting in a dominant player. However that dominance is subject not to 'me-to' competitors but to startups pioneering the next big thing. Reich favors EU policies that have extorted billions from US companies in fines and failed miserably in nurturing an IT ecosystem. He advocates a larger role for the US government. Yes, the same people who are on the cutting edge of 1980's in the application of IT.
1
The constant emphasis on the benefits of "free markets" is a myth promoted by the privileged wealthy of our society, to distract the rest of us even as they manipulate and control all institutions, including government, to enhance their own wealth. Law firms, banks and financial institutions, politicians, lobbyists, Congressional Representatives and Senators, the courts, work to one end only - to build more wealth for the wealthy.
The middle class is getting squeezed, the poor are ignored and forgotten. There is no government by the people, for the people. Wealthy financial and corporate interests have bought and paid for their respective government fixers, even as they decry the threats of government regulation and legal constraints.
It's all about the wealthy and powerful grabbing even more wealth and power. Break up huge monopolies? Sure, the smaller entities will continue to grow and suck up wealth from everyone else.
It's all about the money, honey. That's just the way it is.
The middle class is getting squeezed, the poor are ignored and forgotten. There is no government by the people, for the people. Wealthy financial and corporate interests have bought and paid for their respective government fixers, even as they decry the threats of government regulation and legal constraints.
It's all about the wealthy and powerful grabbing even more wealth and power. Break up huge monopolies? Sure, the smaller entities will continue to grow and suck up wealth from everyone else.
It's all about the money, honey. That's just the way it is.
12
If only the government was run as efficiently as these companies.
1
Let's first look at the bright side: I am able to read this article while sitting in Spain thousands of miles from my doorstep where the NY Times has been delivered every day for the past 37 years. And yes, while Google and Facebook may be the first stop for news and information they are the equivalent of a News stand as neither have their own news creation organizations. Thus, they enable consumers to find news from legit news organizations much more efficiently (ditto for Apple's new News app which points readers to stories from countless publications.
The fortunes of Google and Facebook could very well change in the future as the Internet is a place that is subject to the whims of fashion just like anything else. If this article was written in 2000 it would be about how AOL was going to control the world and Microsofts "WebTV" would destroy broadcast TV. The children of today could very well skip Facebook as they look for something better than what mom and pop use (and to steer clear of being friends with mom and pop).
The big issue is actually hinted at in Robert's column: once something is created on the Internet it can be replicated for free.
The Internet is an amazing thing but when one looks at its impact on businesses and industry it is hard to find any that has thrived because of it. Retail outlets, media companies, and others have all suffered due to piracy and consumers who feel the Internet=Free.
The fortunes of Google and Facebook could very well change in the future as the Internet is a place that is subject to the whims of fashion just like anything else. If this article was written in 2000 it would be about how AOL was going to control the world and Microsofts "WebTV" would destroy broadcast TV. The children of today could very well skip Facebook as they look for something better than what mom and pop use (and to steer clear of being friends with mom and pop).
The big issue is actually hinted at in Robert's column: once something is created on the Internet it can be replicated for free.
The Internet is an amazing thing but when one looks at its impact on businesses and industry it is hard to find any that has thrived because of it. Retail outlets, media companies, and others have all suffered due to piracy and consumers who feel the Internet=Free.
11
"Big Tech — along with the drug, insurance, agriculture and financial giants — dominates both our economy and our politics." The influence of big tech doesn't produce the visceral reaction I had after reading about the appalling antics of the pharmaceutical companies --one raising the price of a $13 pill to $750 overnight. Just because they can. Regulation of corporations is way overdue.
33
Google and Facebook lied to get the numbers of users (“marketshare”) that made them big enough to openly violate the promise they made (We will not monetize your personal information.) to get that user base.
Amazon was petty open about its intent to establish a monopoly but no one believed they would last because they never made a “profit”. The dumbing down of America also helped there as so few people still used book stores they had no concept of the real harm in allowing Amazon to destroy the book selling industry and thereby establishing control over publishers by being the only way they can sell the volume of books necessary to be in business. Is editorial control next?
Google is not good. They bought YT and forced everyone to join their network. It was not a convenience and I said as much in my profile. I posted a few times about a particular place that I stayed as a child where systematic abuse of the children took place. Well someone at google finally noticed my post in my profile that said I did not approve of google forcing me into their network and pointing out that they had stated when they bought YT that this would not happen. My account has been deleted. They never told me and forced me to enter my info several times to find out I had no account.
I have no personal beef with Facebook except that they too operate in shady ways.
All three companies behavior while a common enough occurrence in American business history are the antithesis of American Values.
Amazon was petty open about its intent to establish a monopoly but no one believed they would last because they never made a “profit”. The dumbing down of America also helped there as so few people still used book stores they had no concept of the real harm in allowing Amazon to destroy the book selling industry and thereby establishing control over publishers by being the only way they can sell the volume of books necessary to be in business. Is editorial control next?
Google is not good. They bought YT and forced everyone to join their network. It was not a convenience and I said as much in my profile. I posted a few times about a particular place that I stayed as a child where systematic abuse of the children took place. Well someone at google finally noticed my post in my profile that said I did not approve of google forcing me into their network and pointing out that they had stated when they bought YT that this would not happen. My account has been deleted. They never told me and forced me to enter my info several times to find out I had no account.
I have no personal beef with Facebook except that they too operate in shady ways.
All three companies behavior while a common enough occurrence in American business history are the antithesis of American Values.
8
The fundamental issue for me, is the rights of the individual, versus the rights of corporations to exploit individuals.
I do agree with Prof Reich that big tech has become too powerful, and that the interests of consumers are being neglected. And also, that there already exists a basis for an anti-trust inquiry in regard to this whole sphere of business.
But the position on=f the EU, concerning a "right to be forgotten", is something entirely different than the US tech business perspective.
The idea that "information is free", is no more than a smart bit of business propaganda designed to allow companies to steal and use personal information without restrictions and without paying for it.
Our biggest challenge in fighting these business practices, is the inherent corruption in our political process, that allows the use of private money in the pursuit of public office.
When Microft was found guilty of anti-trust in federal court, it appealed the decision and won on appeal. It was the administration of George W Bush and his dept of justice, that choose not to appeal the case further.
The government simply sat on its hands.
For those who argue of the independence of our courts, who can forget the spectacle of Bush V Gore, and the wholly political decision of the US Supreme Court handing the presidency to their favored son.
We have a long hard fight ahead, but making common cause with the citizens of the EU, who face the same issues, is the place to start.
I do agree with Prof Reich that big tech has become too powerful, and that the interests of consumers are being neglected. And also, that there already exists a basis for an anti-trust inquiry in regard to this whole sphere of business.
But the position on=f the EU, concerning a "right to be forgotten", is something entirely different than the US tech business perspective.
The idea that "information is free", is no more than a smart bit of business propaganda designed to allow companies to steal and use personal information without restrictions and without paying for it.
Our biggest challenge in fighting these business practices, is the inherent corruption in our political process, that allows the use of private money in the pursuit of public office.
When Microft was found guilty of anti-trust in federal court, it appealed the decision and won on appeal. It was the administration of George W Bush and his dept of justice, that choose not to appeal the case further.
The government simply sat on its hands.
For those who argue of the independence of our courts, who can forget the spectacle of Bush V Gore, and the wholly political decision of the US Supreme Court handing the presidency to their favored son.
We have a long hard fight ahead, but making common cause with the citizens of the EU, who face the same issues, is the place to start.
12
Reich just can't stand it when something is successful with very little government involvement. Imagine how quickly your search engine would find what you're looking for if the government had been more involved. You would have ample time to imagine while it was looking.
Stale ideas Reich, go fishing.
Stale ideas Reich, go fishing.
6
All true.
Now we can fix it.
Yes, isn't it pretty to think so.
Now we can fix it.
Yes, isn't it pretty to think so.
3
"There can’t be a market without government. Legislators, agency heads and judges decide the rules of the game. And, over time, they change the rules."
Uh, wrong on facts. The market PRE-DATES government, according to history. Why? Because human beings living without benefit of government, have demonstrated that TRADE exists without government's existence.
Government's only responsibility with respect to the free market is: Prevention of the use of physical force by one side of a trade. There is no need of any other outside entity to interfere.
If you want to comprehend the vastness of government interference in America's free markets, count the pages in the Federal Register. Count the number of feet of shelf space needed to contain it. Count the number of rules and regulations that your government has forcibly imposed upon Americans trying to produce and trade as human beings. And then ask yourself: Has any rule your employer placed upon you made your productivity increase? Nowhere has this happened, ever. Which translates to: The American government's illegal and arbitrary creation of rules and regulations has stifled productivity in this country, which destroys the lives of Americans.
What's truly sad: Conservatives are as evil as Liberals in the destruction of America's productivity.
Throw them all out.
Uh, wrong on facts. The market PRE-DATES government, according to history. Why? Because human beings living without benefit of government, have demonstrated that TRADE exists without government's existence.
Government's only responsibility with respect to the free market is: Prevention of the use of physical force by one side of a trade. There is no need of any other outside entity to interfere.
If you want to comprehend the vastness of government interference in America's free markets, count the pages in the Federal Register. Count the number of feet of shelf space needed to contain it. Count the number of rules and regulations that your government has forcibly imposed upon Americans trying to produce and trade as human beings. And then ask yourself: Has any rule your employer placed upon you made your productivity increase? Nowhere has this happened, ever. Which translates to: The American government's illegal and arbitrary creation of rules and regulations has stifled productivity in this country, which destroys the lives of Americans.
What's truly sad: Conservatives are as evil as Liberals in the destruction of America's productivity.
Throw them all out.
6
And once they are broken up, all the power can be shifted to New York City, where it rightfully belongs!
3
If you think this is a problem, just wait until computers and robots replace all workers, including management. It's already happening because labor is the greatest cost for any business. That's why the so-called "job creators" do everything they can to avoid creating jobs. You know that $15 minimum wage? Just more incentive to replace people with machines. Ever wonder why money = speech and companies are "people?" Soon, people won't be people.
14
Like Reich, I'm not too thrilled about the total dominance of a handful of tech companies. Also apparently like Reich, I have absolutely no idea how the government would go about "breaking-up" these modern monopolies. Google's Alphabet or Amazon's marketplace might be easier to segment, but how do you split Facebook? Or a search engine? Or something like iTunes? Whatever solution the anti-trust lawyers whip up, I suspect they'll make e-commerce less convenient and-- by the very nature of rending one point of sale into several-- more susceptible to taxation.
6
"I suspect they'll make e-commerce less convenient and-- by the very nature of rending one point of sale into several-- more susceptible to taxation."
So, instead of going to amazon.com, I'll have to go to sahara.com? Man, pass me an energy drink. I'm tired just trying to remember all these website/place names. The point isn't to segment the market but to have competition. Let amazon, sahara, and any other site sell as much of as many types of gum as they want. You don't split up Facebook. You set up the system so that more than one social networking site exists and so that information can be relatively easily shared between them. The winners with that kind of competition will be a new type of app that aggregates your account information like sites such as Orbitz do for plane fares.
I'm not sure why having multiple points of sale makes it easier to tax something. I pay the same tax regardless of which of the five grocery/convenience stores near me I visit. Are my taxes higher because of this?
So, instead of going to amazon.com, I'll have to go to sahara.com? Man, pass me an energy drink. I'm tired just trying to remember all these website/place names. The point isn't to segment the market but to have competition. Let amazon, sahara, and any other site sell as much of as many types of gum as they want. You don't split up Facebook. You set up the system so that more than one social networking site exists and so that information can be relatively easily shared between them. The winners with that kind of competition will be a new type of app that aggregates your account information like sites such as Orbitz do for plane fares.
I'm not sure why having multiple points of sale makes it easier to tax something. I pay the same tax regardless of which of the five grocery/convenience stores near me I visit. Are my taxes higher because of this?
4
you start by not allowing a non level playing field that favors "tech" companies that avoids the regulations that traditional providers still have to follow. Like allowing online retailers to to avoid collecting sales taxes. Or allowing uber cab drivers to work without the licenses, taxes and insurance costs that old school cabs have to pay. It's so basic and the unfairness so blatant. How is it allowed??
5
Monopolistic behavior leads to less innovation, slower and weaker economies. There was an exception with the pre-1984 AT&T Bell Labs due to its legal constraints on its own inventions.
Monopolistic firms also play government against government as well as one countries' employees against another countries employees.
This quickly leads to destabilized careers of employees hence driving away innovation.
Indeed, it is a competitive world, but many large firms trade jobs in order to get access to markets (which often does not happen anyway). By the time the career arbitrage gets to middle management- the talent that actually innovates invariable hears the "we can get your skills cheaper elsewhere." As if competing countries are foolish enough to bid below market price for years at a time. Silliness at best, damaging to innovation in actually.
Monopolistic firms also play government against government as well as one countries' employees against another countries employees.
This quickly leads to destabilized careers of employees hence driving away innovation.
Indeed, it is a competitive world, but many large firms trade jobs in order to get access to markets (which often does not happen anyway). By the time the career arbitrage gets to middle management- the talent that actually innovates invariable hears the "we can get your skills cheaper elsewhere." As if competing countries are foolish enough to bid below market price for years at a time. Silliness at best, damaging to innovation in actually.
4
The assertion that, "whenever markets become concentrated, consumers end up paying more than they otherwise would, and innovations are squelched" is faulty logic when discussion Google and Amazon. Since, pricing power, an essential element of monopolistic practices, isn't harming consumers.
1
Put it on a campaign button: I LEICH REICH!
15
As someone who's spent decades in and around the tech industry, I find this discussion not nearly as provocative as some others out there. For example:
* Is the tech industry as we know it today still a net-positive jobs creator? Or has it become a jobs "destroyer?"
Twenty years ago, we saw many jobs inside the so-called back-office disrupted by automation. It worked out just fine because the net result was more jobs -- back-office admin jobs were "replaced" by even more jobs developing software, selling IT services, and administrating networks.
Tech jobs historically have been high paying and prestigious. Signs reveal this is changing.
Today, things like the cloud and advances in web analytics are disrupting virtually every job. Consider that more than half of all business sales transactions are fulfilled entirely digitally now, without sales reps. So much so, you can now find many new organizational structures without sales departments, let along sales people. Entire divisions are disappearing.
Also, there's an intriguing way in which the Internet is commoditizing prices and impacting profit margins. All kind of (profitable!) premium services are being undercut because buyers simply have unlimited choices through their own web searches. With more choice, buyers tend to prefer a la carte over the deluxe model. Consider the hotel industry which is today facing enormous price competition.
* Is the tech industry as we know it today still a net-positive jobs creator? Or has it become a jobs "destroyer?"
Twenty years ago, we saw many jobs inside the so-called back-office disrupted by automation. It worked out just fine because the net result was more jobs -- back-office admin jobs were "replaced" by even more jobs developing software, selling IT services, and administrating networks.
Tech jobs historically have been high paying and prestigious. Signs reveal this is changing.
Today, things like the cloud and advances in web analytics are disrupting virtually every job. Consider that more than half of all business sales transactions are fulfilled entirely digitally now, without sales reps. So much so, you can now find many new organizational structures without sales departments, let along sales people. Entire divisions are disappearing.
Also, there's an intriguing way in which the Internet is commoditizing prices and impacting profit margins. All kind of (profitable!) premium services are being undercut because buyers simply have unlimited choices through their own web searches. With more choice, buyers tend to prefer a la carte over the deluxe model. Consider the hotel industry which is today facing enormous price competition.
7
"things like the cloud and advances in web analytics are disrupting virtually every job".. you are correct except as it relates to government and public ed. There are half the number of students in many northeast cities(mine has decreased from 14k to 7500 students, but almost the same number of educators (800 to 790). If you go to a court there are stenographers, typists bailiffs etc just like "Miracle on 34 street". Ditto Motor Vehicle, etc. Govt for some reason does not utilize tech to reduce jobs as private industry does.
This is an incredibly poor argument by a more pragmatic policy maker and economist from the left. Did Facebook's or Google's rise come as a result of their connections in government or some unfair advantage? Was Amazon not an underdog going against well established ebay and more traditional books/media entities? Just as they disrupted the existing market players and became powerful, others will come and impair their domination. Government has absolutely NO role in interfering with natural market cycles. This is an absolute NO.
9
It's too easy to refute this. If, for example, the book industry had been allowed to consolidate and monopolize before the rise of Amazon, do you think Amazon's "disruption" of publishing would have gotten very far? Hahahahaha.
Google's a bit different because search is different, but the real question Reich raises is the monopolization of power, whether temporarily or durably. What kind of person doesn't think of autocracy as a problem?
Just because one likes and uses the products of a commercial tyranny like Amazon or Google doesn't mean that tyranny is a good model for human relations - and economics is certainly one of the rule-constrained areas of human relations. I'm constantly amazed how many Americans seem to admire autocracies.
Google's a bit different because search is different, but the real question Reich raises is the monopolization of power, whether temporarily or durably. What kind of person doesn't think of autocracy as a problem?
Just because one likes and uses the products of a commercial tyranny like Amazon or Google doesn't mean that tyranny is a good model for human relations - and economics is certainly one of the rule-constrained areas of human relations. I'm constantly amazed how many Americans seem to admire autocracies.
9
Your framing of this essay in terms of the way our 'government vs. markets' debate distorts the issue is much appreciated. This completely incoherent debate makes intelligent politics or discussion impossible.
It's important to recognize that this framing itself is designed to obscure particular facts. Those who claim to favor the power of markets over that of government do not, in fact, advocate trusting some abstract market force; they advocate giving specific private interests control over the rules with which government must, in fact, structure markets. These phony free-market advocates should read Adam Smith. He was against letting business have any voice, via lobbying or bribery, in government decisions, as that itself constitutes an corrupting interference in the market. We need to enforce antitrust laws, but even more fundamentally we need to get money out of politics.
It's important to recognize that this framing itself is designed to obscure particular facts. Those who claim to favor the power of markets over that of government do not, in fact, advocate trusting some abstract market force; they advocate giving specific private interests control over the rules with which government must, in fact, structure markets. These phony free-market advocates should read Adam Smith. He was against letting business have any voice, via lobbying or bribery, in government decisions, as that itself constitutes an corrupting interference in the market. We need to enforce antitrust laws, but even more fundamentally we need to get money out of politics.
25
Big government favors big business and big data. Both political parties pay lip service to promoting small business but in practice Democrats choke with ridiculous compliance and work rules while Republicans stifle by allowing monopoly and oligopoly behavior by giant corporations. Big Tech uses access to personal data to destroy small and medium size businesses by predatory pricing.
7
"....In the 1990s, the federal government accused Microsoft of illegally bundling its popular Windows operating system with its Internet Explorer browser to create an industry standard that stifled competition. Microsoft settled the case by agreeing to share its programming interfaces with other companies...."
As someone who was involved with lobbying in the 90's, I recall reading how Microsoft at the time distained the idea of "government relations". As I understood it, their D.C. office consisted of one person. And at the time I figured that this was the main reason they could get beat up whenever any other company complained about their market dominance. Sounds like today's Microsofts play the money/politics game as well as everyone else.
As someone who was involved with lobbying in the 90's, I recall reading how Microsoft at the time distained the idea of "government relations". As I understood it, their D.C. office consisted of one person. And at the time I figured that this was the main reason they could get beat up whenever any other company complained about their market dominance. Sounds like today's Microsofts play the money/politics game as well as everyone else.
1
Lack of demand is the primary driver of failure to launch new business.
Consolidation is another big factor, with small businesses having a difficult hurdle to overcome.
Low wages are a big barrier to small business formation, due to most of the population not being able to save enough money to start a business.
Low minimum wages and high unemployment also greatly increase the risk to the individual, should their business fail. In the 1950's and 1960's, an entrepreneur could be secure in the belief that, should his/her business fail, there was literally no doubt that they could immediately obtain a job sufficient to keep their house, and raise their family. Now, they cannot be certain of getting any job at all. In many cases, they know for certain if they leave their present job, they will likely lose everything, and never regain their former earning power. Who in their right mind would even consider taking a chance on being put in that position, if they can possibly avoid it?
In a tight labor market like the 1950's and 1960's, it was possible for an entrepreneur to focus on starting up with a niche product, since the high general demand and low labor availability left these niche opportunities.
Also, the willingness of an entrepreneur to provide long hours of "sweat equity", provided a much bigger advantage, when the cost of that labor was higher.
Low wages and high unemployment are stifling business formation.
Consolidation is another big factor, with small businesses having a difficult hurdle to overcome.
Low wages are a big barrier to small business formation, due to most of the population not being able to save enough money to start a business.
Low minimum wages and high unemployment also greatly increase the risk to the individual, should their business fail. In the 1950's and 1960's, an entrepreneur could be secure in the belief that, should his/her business fail, there was literally no doubt that they could immediately obtain a job sufficient to keep their house, and raise their family. Now, they cannot be certain of getting any job at all. In many cases, they know for certain if they leave their present job, they will likely lose everything, and never regain their former earning power. Who in their right mind would even consider taking a chance on being put in that position, if they can possibly avoid it?
In a tight labor market like the 1950's and 1960's, it was possible for an entrepreneur to focus on starting up with a niche product, since the high general demand and low labor availability left these niche opportunities.
Also, the willingness of an entrepreneur to provide long hours of "sweat equity", provided a much bigger advantage, when the cost of that labor was higher.
Low wages and high unemployment are stifling business formation.
3
Awesome, another lefty shakedown, from Robert Reich no less. "That's an awful nice search engine you've built there, Google. It'd be terrible for anything to happen to it."
Last I checked, I've never paid Google (or Facebook) one dollar. How are they abusing me? By offering me a great service for the price of having to look at a few dumb ads? How in the wide world of sports is Facebook a monopoly? A monopoly on what? On transmission of silly aspirational quotes? We better call the Feds!
Robert Reich should just come clean. He's yet another progressive who is terrified of progress of any kind. Mostly because he hasn't yet figured out a way to shake down those who are making that progress. Give him time though, a lefty always finds a way. Berkeley must be so proud!
Last I checked, I've never paid Google (or Facebook) one dollar. How are they abusing me? By offering me a great service for the price of having to look at a few dumb ads? How in the wide world of sports is Facebook a monopoly? A monopoly on what? On transmission of silly aspirational quotes? We better call the Feds!
Robert Reich should just come clean. He's yet another progressive who is terrified of progress of any kind. Mostly because he hasn't yet figured out a way to shake down those who are making that progress. Give him time though, a lefty always finds a way. Berkeley must be so proud!
If you're not paying for it, you're the product.
Data mining, my friend. Your online searches, profiles, and purchases are worth more than gold to these companies (and many more). Protect your privacy - soon true privacy/anonymity will be far more valuable than anything tech, and far more elusive.
Data mining, my friend. Your online searches, profiles, and purchases are worth more than gold to these companies (and many more). Protect your privacy - soon true privacy/anonymity will be far more valuable than anything tech, and far more elusive.
1
This man lives in the fictional world inhabited by academics. Why do losers insist on trying to pull down winners?
1
Ayn Rand hyperbole. A real winning economic system consists of entrepreneurs, investors, employees and customers. To suggest that entrepreneurs deserve all the credit or compensation in the economy and that critics of monopolies, like Robert Reich, are losers is absurd.
3
when you're right, you're right, mr reich! and that SHOULD go for telephone, cable, electric and health insurance companies etc etc also.
super-large companies give no choice, no customer SERVICE, falsely inflated pricing, no worthwile innovation.
super-large companies give no choice, no customer SERVICE, falsely inflated pricing, no worthwile innovation.
10
Technology is now our oxygen, could we go on without it if our economy runs on it? It is the new currency and when a few hold it, then we live in a fiefdom of the few.
2
They created that technology and therefore have the right to control who gets to use it.
Government has become way too powerful and needs to be broken up. As for industry, it depends on the sector: competition does not work uniformly across all sectors nor is antitrust always appropriate. The University of Chicago's Lester Telser is probably the most coherent economist in this regard. See his "Core Theory" publications. Reich is not an economist, theoretical or practitioner. As for large-cap technology companies, many are joined to the hip of government, especially in security, surveillance, the Agency and defense and are "big" precisely because of government contracting and partnership. Government loves mega-corporations. They are just like government itself in financial opaqueness, resource co-option and fungibility, sticky incumbent management and largely detached governance acting in self-agency (dealing).
2
Re: "Government has become way too powerful and needs to be broken up."
Government will *always* be powerful.
Government has the power to conscript, tax, and put people in jail for crimes. Which of those extremely powerful functions do you deem unnecessary?
Even if you could make government disappear, that leaves a power vacuum, which is inevitably filled by wealthy, and by corporations. History shows where that leads (poverty for the masses) and it isn't pretty.
The best economy for the masses, is a compromise between unregulated capitalism with no government safety net, and complete government control of everything (Socialism as defined by Webster). The best balance was something like that achieved in the US between WWII and 1980 (New Deal era).
Whatever government we *do* have must be held to account to voters, via transparency, and adherence to law. Bypassing reform in the name of "small" government is misguided.
An overwhelming majority of the population favors keeping SS, even if it means higher taxes. Over 70% favor a higher minimum wage. Having a small minority of misinformed voters elect co-opted leaders to create gridlock in the pursuit of "small" government is not in the interests of the typical American worker.
But it looks like the veto power of Tea Party Plutocrats over the Republican primary, and Wall Street over the Democratic primary may be challenged - so there is hope.
Government will *always* be powerful.
Government has the power to conscript, tax, and put people in jail for crimes. Which of those extremely powerful functions do you deem unnecessary?
Even if you could make government disappear, that leaves a power vacuum, which is inevitably filled by wealthy, and by corporations. History shows where that leads (poverty for the masses) and it isn't pretty.
The best economy for the masses, is a compromise between unregulated capitalism with no government safety net, and complete government control of everything (Socialism as defined by Webster). The best balance was something like that achieved in the US between WWII and 1980 (New Deal era).
Whatever government we *do* have must be held to account to voters, via transparency, and adherence to law. Bypassing reform in the name of "small" government is misguided.
An overwhelming majority of the population favors keeping SS, even if it means higher taxes. Over 70% favor a higher minimum wage. Having a small minority of misinformed voters elect co-opted leaders to create gridlock in the pursuit of "small" government is not in the interests of the typical American worker.
But it looks like the veto power of Tea Party Plutocrats over the Republican primary, and Wall Street over the Democratic primary may be challenged - so there is hope.
Read "Who Owns The Future?" By Jaron Lanier.
2
How many bricks 'n mortar stores did Amazon & Jeff Bezos put out of business along with their employees no because of any new innovation but simply because for many years they were not required to collect sales-taxes in the states they did business in?
25
The claim that Amazon put brick and mortar stores out of business because they did not collect sales tax is rubbish. Brick and mortar stores went out of business because they provide poorer choice and service than Amazon, and at a higher price before sales taxes.
Further, it is not at all obvious why a store with no physical presence in a state should be required to collect taxes for that state, or for that matter why taxes on their sales even should be duo there. The often offered reference to use of state supported facilities and services does make sense. The delivery services who do pay taxes in the state actually are taking advantage of those facilities and services and fold the taxes into the charges that Amazon and other internet services pay to them.
Further, it is not at all obvious why a store with no physical presence in a state should be required to collect taxes for that state, or for that matter why taxes on their sales even should be duo there. The often offered reference to use of state supported facilities and services does make sense. The delivery services who do pay taxes in the state actually are taking advantage of those facilities and services and fold the taxes into the charges that Amazon and other internet services pay to them.
I'm actually quite happy with the services Google and Facebook provide me right now at little cost. What I'd like to see Mr. Reich focus on is the cable companies that lack competition, charge us a fortune, and provide contemptuous to no service. They need to be broken up, cities and states should provide public wifi and internet (along the lines of Google's optic fiber) and cable companies should be forbidden from bundling. Those would be changes for the greater good.
60
Wait, doesn't google fiber cost $120 a month? Also not quite sure you want the government to supply your fiber or wifi...at least now there is at least the pretense that the government is not monitoring how people use the Internet...not sure they would be able to resist themselves from monitoring it if it was provided by them.
Unfortunately, many people think that an unregulated free market encourages competition. That's only true in the early stages. The ultimate goal of any company is monopoly, and, as Robert Reich states, some are close to achieving it.
24
The US is now an interlocked directorship so sweeping that it would blow Sherman's mind to see it.
7
We ARE in a new Gilded Age, but what is different this time around, among other things, is that today's tech sweat shops are all in Asia, not in New York City and visible to the politically connected and the concerned there. When child labor practices, 20 hour work days, and lack of fire escapes take place, nobody in America sees these egregious conditions, and gets outraged about them. Instead, they all walk around staring at their smart phone screens, oblivious, not only to the conditions they were made under in Asia, but oblivious to what is happening 20 feet away from them.
The revolution that has been brewing in America for the past 3 decades is the personal tech revolution, one which allows each of us to be in our own bubble world, with only the music we want to hear coming into our earbuds, only the news we want to read coming into our eyes, and only the political views we want to entertain entering our consciousness. What would Sinclair Lewis do in today's world to get attention? He would be frantically putting pictures of overworked Italian immigrants in sweat shops on his Instagram feed, only to be outdone in page views by Kim Kardashian showing us her newest outfit. The free market now sells us iPhones with usurious lease agreements, and we can't buy enough of them.
40
Microsoft is fading out, Apple is rising, Google is looking over its shoulder at Bing and DuckDuckGo. What Reich is completely igorant of is that there are two types of monopolies:
1. The one we always think about - the utilities and such which have a government mandate to be the only utility permitted in an are. These are the coercive monopolies. They never face competition of any kind and hence must be heavily regulated to prevent price gouging and such.
2. The ones that happen in the free market. Yes, you can have them, but they are non-coercive. They face what is called implied competition. This is the constant threat of new companies entering their field if they attempt to raise their prices too high. To avoid this, they aggressively lower their prices.
Lets take a look at Standard Oil:In 1865, when Rockefeller’s market share was still minuscule, a gallon of kerosene cost 58 cents. In 1870, Standard’s market share was 4%, and a gallon cost 26 cents. By 1880, when Standard’s market share had skyrocketed to 90%, a gallon cost only 9 cents — and a decade later, with Standard’s market share still at 90%, the price was 7 cents. These data point to the real cause of Standard Oil’s success — its ability to charge the lowest prices by producing kerosene with unparalleled efficiency. ( http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/13/vindicating-standard-oil-100-years-later/ ).
This article http://capitalism.org/category/antitrust/ looks at Alcoa
1. The one we always think about - the utilities and such which have a government mandate to be the only utility permitted in an are. These are the coercive monopolies. They never face competition of any kind and hence must be heavily regulated to prevent price gouging and such.
2. The ones that happen in the free market. Yes, you can have them, but they are non-coercive. They face what is called implied competition. This is the constant threat of new companies entering their field if they attempt to raise their prices too high. To avoid this, they aggressively lower their prices.
Lets take a look at Standard Oil:In 1865, when Rockefeller’s market share was still minuscule, a gallon of kerosene cost 58 cents. In 1870, Standard’s market share was 4%, and a gallon cost 26 cents. By 1880, when Standard’s market share had skyrocketed to 90%, a gallon cost only 9 cents — and a decade later, with Standard’s market share still at 90%, the price was 7 cents. These data point to the real cause of Standard Oil’s success — its ability to charge the lowest prices by producing kerosene with unparalleled efficiency. ( http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/13/vindicating-standard-oil-100-years-later/ ).
This article http://capitalism.org/category/antitrust/ looks at Alcoa
2
Your comment ignores lots issues. First just because prices for consumers go down doesn't mean a monopoly isn't bad. Technological innovation always has the ability to reduce prices with or without a monopoly, just look at computer and most electronic prices over the last few decades. In many cases monopolies like standard are able to maintain their power and low prices by sticking it to suppliers and shippers (as I think was the case with standard) getting overly generous deals and other anticompetitive practices. Just look at amazon which has been gradually increasing prices and their free shipping is slower than Christmas when it used to only take 2-3 days for most items. Companies with large market share almost always follow a pattern of really good customer service/prices to gain market share, then gradually increasing prices or cutting service to achieve profitability. As far as Alcoa they don't sell anything to the masses just industrial customers which are more sophisticated and are literaly paid to get the best deal so it might work in that case just like electric utilities work.
5
High tech and social media are bubbles that are going to burst and when they do the stock market is going to have a very bad day.
5
There's just not much substance to Reich's essay. Google won its antitrust action by the DOJ because there wasn't a case for it. There case of the EU against Google is even weaker. In both cases, there actions seem to be politically inspired. The inherent weakness of the Government's case against Microsoft can be seem in how quickly Microsoft lost it so called "monopoly" position.
So, Reich is simply throwing an tantrum here. It's not clear what he wants except to have the Government do things his way.
So, Reich is simply throwing an tantrum here. It's not clear what he wants except to have the Government do things his way.
2
If the problem is dominance of a few areas technology is a problem to Mr Reich is he also bothered that Harvard and/or Yale are the prime providers of recent Presidents and Supreme Court Justices? Shouldn't they also be 'broken up' allowing the majority of the US some representation?
7
Big government has become way too powerful.
1
....and you're joking, right? Seriously, you must be joking!
1
Richard--I suppose it's useless to ask, but did you read the article? It was about, among other things, the impossibility of distinguishing government & corporate power.
2
Excellent article.
22
The Code of Hammurabi and its nearly 300 laws has been around The bible and other religious books of "laws" have been at least 2000 years. There are, in most cities, churches practically on every corner and law offices on every other corner. And yet, we still have SIN and CORRUPTION.
It would seem to be part of the "human condition". At some points in time, "the people" were dominant and perhaps they were smarter than the times in which they lived. Now, not so much. Perhaps it will happen again that people will turn off their gadgets, undertake to again become "smarter than the times in which they live" and take control of the few who would dominate the many. Do not hold your breath.
It would seem to be part of the "human condition". At some points in time, "the people" were dominant and perhaps they were smarter than the times in which they lived. Now, not so much. Perhaps it will happen again that people will turn off their gadgets, undertake to again become "smarter than the times in which they live" and take control of the few who would dominate the many. Do not hold your breath.
3
I'm not sure I buy the premise that most digital phenomena are 'information' that can be considered our most valuable asset in the same sense as physical assets.
Whereas agrarian and industrial age property was required to produce things that helped us survive, the purveyors of digital phenomena exist in a solipsistic universe that doesn't have much overlap with what's uniquely required to keep us alive.
In other words, society could pretty easily unplug from 99% of digital phenomena without any palpable loss in standard of living. By contrast, if 99% of property were suddenly taken off the table during the agrarian or industrial ages, the world as we know it would effectively cease to exist.
The important change is that the nature of valuable property has migrated from being things that we need to survive to things that we use to kill time. This is the contradiction at the heart of the information age: we don't really need most of it, and it doesn't really contribute to any useful outcome.
This is rather like a distributed form of what Egyptians achieved during Pharonic times: a society dedicated to creating otherwise useless gravestones. Ironically, these were also supposed to be valuable property in a virtual world of a (nonexistent) afterlife.
The problem isn't that monopolies are accumulating value , but rather that we have assigned value to something that is worthless--rather like the Dutch during the tulip craze.
Whereas agrarian and industrial age property was required to produce things that helped us survive, the purveyors of digital phenomena exist in a solipsistic universe that doesn't have much overlap with what's uniquely required to keep us alive.
In other words, society could pretty easily unplug from 99% of digital phenomena without any palpable loss in standard of living. By contrast, if 99% of property were suddenly taken off the table during the agrarian or industrial ages, the world as we know it would effectively cease to exist.
The important change is that the nature of valuable property has migrated from being things that we need to survive to things that we use to kill time. This is the contradiction at the heart of the information age: we don't really need most of it, and it doesn't really contribute to any useful outcome.
This is rather like a distributed form of what Egyptians achieved during Pharonic times: a society dedicated to creating otherwise useless gravestones. Ironically, these were also supposed to be valuable property in a virtual world of a (nonexistent) afterlife.
The problem isn't that monopolies are accumulating value , but rather that we have assigned value to something that is worthless--rather like the Dutch during the tulip craze.
35
This is an interesting take, and there's a lot to what you say. Our modern economy, though, absolutely depends on digital invention. Computer software is at the heart of drug discovery -- which keeps some of us alive; at the heart of modern warfare, which keeps the "barbarians at the gate"; at the center of recreation and fitness; runs our supply-chain and logistics. I, too, would be more than comfortable sleeping beneath a tree with a mortar and pestle, witnessing the divine purity of God's creation. But let's get real -- the modern economy is a little bit more than a mortar and pestle.
"In other words, society could pretty easily unplug from 99% of digital phenomena without any palpable loss in standard of living."
That's true if you don't consider the loss of the supply of electricity/water/natural gas in urban areas, cable service, VOIP, cellular service (3G and above) and computers (also included in wheeled vehicles, railed vehicles and airplanes for control and communications) a "palpable loss".
That's true if you don't consider the loss of the supply of electricity/water/natural gas in urban areas, cable service, VOIP, cellular service (3G and above) and computers (also included in wheeled vehicles, railed vehicles and airplanes for control and communications) a "palpable loss".
Now we're getting somewhere. Reich's argument is fine, as far as it goes, which isn't actually very far if we're to examine social relations and "production" from a true historical perspective. Even john lafleur's comment here is wanting, positing as it does that human beings must engage in agrarian and industrial activities in order to survive. (Though of course we surely must now that we're this far down those paths.) That would be a rich joke for those who lived and thrived throughout most of human history.
But let's get back to what we call the economy. Aren't we pretty sure that what carries the day is any equivalent of the Dutch tulip craze our vaunted entrepreneurs can dream up? Aren't such "bubbles" what our system so desperately depends on to keep all the balls in the air?
Manufactured needs and desires, fictitious value, speculative wealth, and the devastation left in their wake when the bubble bursts: there is no economy without these. "Given the current state of our economy, the only thing worse than a new bubble would be its absence." - Eric Janszen, 2008
But let's get back to what we call the economy. Aren't we pretty sure that what carries the day is any equivalent of the Dutch tulip craze our vaunted entrepreneurs can dream up? Aren't such "bubbles" what our system so desperately depends on to keep all the balls in the air?
Manufactured needs and desires, fictitious value, speculative wealth, and the devastation left in their wake when the bubble bursts: there is no economy without these. "Given the current state of our economy, the only thing worse than a new bubble would be its absence." - Eric Janszen, 2008
1
While I enjoy hearing him make his pitch, I'm never surprised at how any movie ends that Reich would script for us ... i.e., seize property from those who have been successful.
Here we have a new property type, but the same old urge, as Reich covets another neighbor's success.
Notwithstanding the temptation, it's neither fair nor just to ravage the fruits of an orchard from those who did the planting.
Here we have a new property type, but the same old urge, as Reich covets another neighbor's success.
Notwithstanding the temptation, it's neither fair nor just to ravage the fruits of an orchard from those who did the planting.
11
I think the argument is that there's a difference between "successful" and "out-of-control rapacious."
You're successful if you offer a skill or build a business that people are willing to pay enough that you can live well. You're rapacious if you have all the creature comforts that you can enjoy in a year, but you still want to acquire more and more without really adding further value to society and without rewarding your employees to a commensurate degree. Concentration of resources in too few hands as "property" is always a recipe for social disaster. Such an imbalance always ends in violent change when it goes unchecked for long enough. Most of us would rather live in a broadly prosperous society where individuals are challenged to be productive and enjoy the fruits of their labor, and not in a society where greedy sociopaths rule.
Nobody is after the property of your town's most successful car dealership owner, or the guy who got rich with a power-washing business, or the kind of individual successes that people making such comments seem to have in mind. We're talking about a vast difference of scale, an extremely small elite who control not just wealth, but the actual tech that makes everybody's else work possible. This is not about planting the orchard; it's about a handful of people owning all the land where orchards can be planted, so that you're at their mercy as to whether you get to plant at all.
You're successful if you offer a skill or build a business that people are willing to pay enough that you can live well. You're rapacious if you have all the creature comforts that you can enjoy in a year, but you still want to acquire more and more without really adding further value to society and without rewarding your employees to a commensurate degree. Concentration of resources in too few hands as "property" is always a recipe for social disaster. Such an imbalance always ends in violent change when it goes unchecked for long enough. Most of us would rather live in a broadly prosperous society where individuals are challenged to be productive and enjoy the fruits of their labor, and not in a society where greedy sociopaths rule.
Nobody is after the property of your town's most successful car dealership owner, or the guy who got rich with a power-washing business, or the kind of individual successes that people making such comments seem to have in mind. We're talking about a vast difference of scale, an extremely small elite who control not just wealth, but the actual tech that makes everybody's else work possible. This is not about planting the orchard; it's about a handful of people owning all the land where orchards can be planted, so that you're at their mercy as to whether you get to plant at all.
26
Reich doesn't say a single word in the text about seizing property. Maybe I missed it. He does make a case for breaking up monopoly power, because monopoly power is decidedly anti-free market. Conservatives give a lot of lip service to free market, but what they really advocate for is entrenched business interests which have the power to buy off the government.
33
I think the point was the too few people own all the "orchards" and too many have to pay the piper to eat the fruit. and on top of that,if I buy an apple to use for seeds, I am violating someones "patented" seeds so I can only buy from them and plant their seeds, which are only good one time because the later product is sterile and plants will not produce any fruit so I have to continue to buy seeds if I want more apples. GET IT?
7
Great writing by Robert Reich. I think some of our understanding of the control that tech industries exert on the economy and government is based on an unbridled faith in tech, the belief that it is "America's last hope", and a general lack of understanding of what tech is.
The issue is the new model of industrialization that tech ushers into our modern lives. As you write, Robert, they have an incredible amount of cash. That cash could be used to start ventures that employ people. But much of that employment is outsourced to cheap labor sources that provide the high wage earners here with tech toys, but discourage good wages and employment. Were more people employed with good wages, they could buy more here.
It all does start to feel like the gilded age. Instant billionaires, big inequity in compensation and control of markets. One could say, wryly, that at least in the gilded age, robber barons had to hire a lot of people to make them rich.
In the early tech years here, in the 1970's, nearly every computer startup went for a round of venture capital that included manufacturing. The companies Digital Equipment, Data General, Prime, Computervision, Honeywell, and their startup spinoffs all had factories that employed people with good jobs; some workers got college degrees and ascended in the companies.
Today's tech business model is based too much on consolidation and wealth accumulation for executives and stock holders. We need to restore the dynamic economy.
The issue is the new model of industrialization that tech ushers into our modern lives. As you write, Robert, they have an incredible amount of cash. That cash could be used to start ventures that employ people. But much of that employment is outsourced to cheap labor sources that provide the high wage earners here with tech toys, but discourage good wages and employment. Were more people employed with good wages, they could buy more here.
It all does start to feel like the gilded age. Instant billionaires, big inequity in compensation and control of markets. One could say, wryly, that at least in the gilded age, robber barons had to hire a lot of people to make them rich.
In the early tech years here, in the 1970's, nearly every computer startup went for a round of venture capital that included manufacturing. The companies Digital Equipment, Data General, Prime, Computervision, Honeywell, and their startup spinoffs all had factories that employed people with good jobs; some workers got college degrees and ascended in the companies.
Today's tech business model is based too much on consolidation and wealth accumulation for executives and stock holders. We need to restore the dynamic economy.
57
Institutions and individuals should claim possession of the digital data they create over the Internet and reciprocate its value.
To date, it is all advertising for the initial, dominant entrants.
One of more systems using available technologies for trading, buying and selling originator data would stimulate growth and spur egalitarian wealth creation.
To date, it is all advertising for the initial, dominant entrants.
One of more systems using available technologies for trading, buying and selling originator data would stimulate growth and spur egalitarian wealth creation.
1
The abandonment of meaningful anti-trust action by the government is behind much of this. The limiting idea that the only reason to act is if it can be demonstrated that consumers will pay higher prices ignores all of the other corrosive effects of monopoly. Innovation is stifled, consumers end up with no alternatives to lousy service or lousy products, and regulatory capture becomes inevitable when there's only one game in town. (Too big to fail.)
There's also the problem of consolidation. Every time a merger takes place, people lose jobs because of redundancy; facilities close. The resulting company may be stronger - for the moment - but the economy is that much weaker. And among the newly unemployed, who knows who might have had the next big idea or the knowledge that would keep a company moving forward?
There's also the business model premised on coming up with a killer product - and then cashing out when the company gets bought up. No one is thinking about the long haul any more. Too much short term thinking for immediate gratification can be a trap in the long term.
Ultimately, it comes down to the problem of power. The U.S. government was set up with checks and balances by men of wealth and power. They wanted the advantages of strong but limited government to protect that wealth and power. But what protects the rest of us from them?
Government of, by and for THE PEOPLE is the ideal for which we must continue to fight.
There's also the problem of consolidation. Every time a merger takes place, people lose jobs because of redundancy; facilities close. The resulting company may be stronger - for the moment - but the economy is that much weaker. And among the newly unemployed, who knows who might have had the next big idea or the knowledge that would keep a company moving forward?
There's also the business model premised on coming up with a killer product - and then cashing out when the company gets bought up. No one is thinking about the long haul any more. Too much short term thinking for immediate gratification can be a trap in the long term.
Ultimately, it comes down to the problem of power. The U.S. government was set up with checks and balances by men of wealth and power. They wanted the advantages of strong but limited government to protect that wealth and power. But what protects the rest of us from them?
Government of, by and for THE PEOPLE is the ideal for which we must continue to fight.
83
Wait a few years, these 'monopolies' will change. I've already decided that Google isn't giving me a real range of options....when I Google things it feels like half the world (or way more) just doesn't 'exist' for Google. Which means, I guess half the world isn't paying for ads? So what are my alternatives to Google? I'll have to Google that (LOL). And seriously, I watched when companies struggled with what communications/computer technologies to choose to support and Microsoft became the choice. NOT because it was better but because it was used by 'everyone else'. I don't worry about this much, because what I see is that with information spreading like wildfire (sorry bad image I know) the world is going to move towards freedom and openness. It has to happen. No one can stop it. It will just be messy.
4
the world is going to move towards freedom and openness.
That is why there are almost 2 BILLION sheep attached to facebook ( or facelessbook) depending on how you view it.
That is why there are almost 2 BILLION sheep attached to facebook ( or facelessbook) depending on how you view it.
1
use duck duck go instead.
No, Prof Reich, the sky is not falling. To would-be profits of doom every age is an age of crisis. But let's look at the record. For near a century the A&P was going to crush independent grocers. Now it going through its third (and apparently final) bankruptcy in a decade. A few years ago WalMart was going to crush all other retailers. Now it is hard pressed by Amazon and other innovative retailers.
Again, in the 1980s IBM loomed as a supposed monopolist over American business: the Justice Dept sued. The result? Fat fees for two decades for Wall Street law firms. For new technology like PCs and Microsoft came along, rendering IBM a minor player. So the DOJ took on Microsoft, as the Professor recounts. To little effect, for Apple (and others) had come on the scene.
Ours is a turbulent and exciting economy, welcoming change. If Google is in fact unfairly preferring its sites in search, the FTC can easily remedy that. Let it.
Otherwise, let our economy do what it does best: welcome exciting new ideas. Innovation still thrives here. Potentially, Chinese companies like Alibaba will challenge Amazon and other tech giants. And Japan is still a factor in tech, alone with many European companies. Pace, Professor, the sky is not falling.
Again, in the 1980s IBM loomed as a supposed monopolist over American business: the Justice Dept sued. The result? Fat fees for two decades for Wall Street law firms. For new technology like PCs and Microsoft came along, rendering IBM a minor player. So the DOJ took on Microsoft, as the Professor recounts. To little effect, for Apple (and others) had come on the scene.
Ours is a turbulent and exciting economy, welcoming change. If Google is in fact unfairly preferring its sites in search, the FTC can easily remedy that. Let it.
Otherwise, let our economy do what it does best: welcome exciting new ideas. Innovation still thrives here. Potentially, Chinese companies like Alibaba will challenge Amazon and other tech giants. And Japan is still a factor in tech, alone with many European companies. Pace, Professor, the sky is not falling.
11
Ah, @Winthrop, I think I can counter your argument. You are saying that so long as powerful, controlling entities are replaced by other powerful, controlling entities, we are all okay. I think that Robert Reich's argument is that the political and economic control of these powerful entities has been a problem.
For you it is not a problem, but you have failed to counter Robert Reich's argument.
For you it is not a problem, but you have failed to counter Robert Reich's argument.
44
But A&P did crush small independent grocers and the A&P was crushed by Walmart and others.
As corporations of all stripes increase their hold on our government humans become less and less respected and their needs are jettisoned to make way for free money and corporate welfare for corporations whose CEOs see the result of us as foolish losers who pay our taxes.
As corporations of all stripes increase their hold on our government humans become less and less respected and their needs are jettisoned to make way for free money and corporate welfare for corporations whose CEOs see the result of us as foolish losers who pay our taxes.
32
Ours is a turbulent and exciting economy, welcoming change. If Google is in fact unfairly preferring its sites in search, the FTC can easily remedy that. Let it."
the point was that the rich tech people OWN the FTC and make the laws that are favorable to them. The FTC is simply a PUPPET.
the point was that the rich tech people OWN the FTC and make the laws that are favorable to them. The FTC is simply a PUPPET.
With ideas we face issues that we didn’t exist with commodities such as petroleum products or sugar or steel that saw efforts decades ago to break up monopolies or near-monopolies.
The simple fact is that in an office environment today it’s almost impossible not to employ standards such as MS Word, because everyone else with whom the office worker interacts likely uses them as well, and that interaction demands a high degree of sameness to be efficient. Where the value of steel is in the steel itself and not in who produces it, the value in productive interaction today very much deals with who facilitates it, not so much with how it’s facilitated. Moreover, causing skills related to the facilitation to be universal fosters portability of those skills and enhances the value of the worker’s labor.
It’s not as simple a matter to break up these interests as it was to break up big steel. A new entrant in a mature idea market, in order to have a chance at effective competition, must offer a remarkable and unique value, must remain independent which is unlikely as it’s more likely to be acquired by a major, and must be protected by a government willing to force consumers to buy a product that almost always can’t stand alone.
The time for government to best seek to serve “free” markets is before the monopoly or near-monopoly in an idea-based business has been established, not after. We missed the boat as these giants were forming, and it’s a bit late now to minimize the damage.
The simple fact is that in an office environment today it’s almost impossible not to employ standards such as MS Word, because everyone else with whom the office worker interacts likely uses them as well, and that interaction demands a high degree of sameness to be efficient. Where the value of steel is in the steel itself and not in who produces it, the value in productive interaction today very much deals with who facilitates it, not so much with how it’s facilitated. Moreover, causing skills related to the facilitation to be universal fosters portability of those skills and enhances the value of the worker’s labor.
It’s not as simple a matter to break up these interests as it was to break up big steel. A new entrant in a mature idea market, in order to have a chance at effective competition, must offer a remarkable and unique value, must remain independent which is unlikely as it’s more likely to be acquired by a major, and must be protected by a government willing to force consumers to buy a product that almost always can’t stand alone.
The time for government to best seek to serve “free” markets is before the monopoly or near-monopoly in an idea-based business has been established, not after. We missed the boat as these giants were forming, and it’s a bit late now to minimize the damage.
8
Government is the organizing of civilized existence. Who’s in government makes an enormous difference, whether it is people who are self-serving or who primarily serve moneyed interests, or those who wish to serve the larger democratic society. When government is run democratically for the benefit of all, we all do better, not just the few.
Those on the right who complain that government is too big are the same ones promoting large corporations as “job creators”. It is those same corporations that see the people who work for them as liabilities or expendable cogs. They go to great lengths to either off-shore, down-size, replace by technology ,or contract out every conceivable job. That is the crux of the “sharing economy”, where the only thing shared is the profits, never the true costs or risks.
Something the corporatists know well is that small government will not have the teeth or leverage to break up the monopolies they create. This is the true objective of their demand on lower taxes and how we get horrible deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Ours is a big country full of creative potential, and taxes pay for our civil society. In their never-ending quest for tax evasion, multinational corporations observe no allegiance to country, have no national boundaries to reign them in. This is what makes the corporate-owned government such a scary proposition for average people.
Those on the right who complain that government is too big are the same ones promoting large corporations as “job creators”. It is those same corporations that see the people who work for them as liabilities or expendable cogs. They go to great lengths to either off-shore, down-size, replace by technology ,or contract out every conceivable job. That is the crux of the “sharing economy”, where the only thing shared is the profits, never the true costs or risks.
Something the corporatists know well is that small government will not have the teeth or leverage to break up the monopolies they create. This is the true objective of their demand on lower taxes and how we get horrible deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Ours is a big country full of creative potential, and taxes pay for our civil society. In their never-ending quest for tax evasion, multinational corporations observe no allegiance to country, have no national boundaries to reign them in. This is what makes the corporate-owned government such a scary proposition for average people.
116
So basically your saying we need Bernie Sanders to be our next president.
1
There is no reality, only lawyers for large financial institutions with telling you that there is nothing in the contract that says two and two equals four. Be cynical and you won't be disappointed.
9
Sad but true.
3
Atlas Shrugged continues to make for good reading. Reich makes many excellent points. Couple major issues exist. For the longest time Apple made trouble free products, and offered excellent service with no middle man. There are lots of search engines, Google is now a habit more than anything. Windows is so deeply imbedded in corporations, changing to even a better operating system would cost billions. The only way of course is much like the old AT&T monopoly, big brother would have to mandate Tech giants help or let others use their patents. CAble companies fleeced the public so badly is it any wonder the Tech Giants are breathing down the neck.
15
The real problems are big government, big regulation (EPA, crazy quilt labor laws, etc.), and litigation trolling lawyers (patents, shareholder claims, and especially employee claims, etc.).
And I might add academics and politicians who do not know what they are talking about.