Elizabeth Warren would break up big tech companies

Dec 2018
1,376
480
New England
The key here to NatMorton's argument is to arbitrarily create a definition and then claim that the social media companies are not "monopolies" (per the NM definition). Microsoft was never a monopoly per NM's definition, but still was successfully litigated.

The issue is that the businesses do not have to have "exclusive" control. That is your arbitrary standard, NatMorton.
Now you're making stuff up. I never said Microsoft wasn't a monopoly. Their hold on the desktop operating system and office application markets are approach (and perhaps go past in some markets) monopoly status.

Stop inferring so much, Biff. It makes you sound foolish.
 
Dec 2018
1,376
480
New England
If I was in the same room with you, Nat, by now I'd need HIP BOOTS.
Here's the problem, my friend. You are so so so so busy defining monopoly you've made assumptions.
Assumption #1) Clara and friends support Lizzy Warren and her wild and crazy ideas...TOTALLY. #2) Our DTT discussion will have a major impact on what Lizzy does/says and what the courts say #3) I need to "MUSTER" AND ARGUMENT (as if).
#4) I have a personal dislike for these companies, when IN FACT---I ❤️these companies. LOVE them!
You may not support her overall buy you are buying her argument about these companies, which is is my point and the topic of this thread.
 
Dec 2018
1,376
480
New England
According to NatMorton, it isn't a monopoly unless he says it is...
No, I've cited for you the correct criterion: exclusive control of a market and have demonstrated that none of these companies have that level of control in any of their principal, money-making markets. You're just t0o closed minded to even consider a viewpoint that differs from your own.
 
Nov 2018
2,596
1,212
Montana
The assertion these companies do not face competition -- and I would even say fierce competition -- is nuts. Spend some time reading about their markets, strategies, and competitors. There's no way one can make an honest attempt at this and come away thinking they're monopolies or oligarchies. The tech sector just doesn't work that way.
Yes, let's talk about Facebook as it betrays the fundamental silliness of Warren's argument.

For starters, Facebook's social media services are offered to the public for free. This is not Standard Oil rigging prices. Second, too few realize that Facebook users are not Facebook's customers. End-users are closer to being the product, or rather the raw material Facebook uses to create its products. Facebook's customers are those who pay for its data and for its online advertising. The same goes for Google's web search service.

I think Warren understands this but doesn't care. She's too busy trying to use the Big Corporate Bogeyman to scare up votes.
Let's just say I have professional interest in keeping tabs on them. They are not monopolies.
Again, you have confirmed you do not know what a monopoly is. Every market has a "#1." Let's get back to the basics (emphasis added):

mo·nop·o·ly
/məˈnäpəlē/
noun
  1. the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
    "his likely motive was to protect his regional monopoly on furs"

You have to do more than prove Facebook is #1 in a market. You must cite why their hold on a market is exclusive, and you have not done that (and come to think of it, you haven't even attempted to say what you think the market is, which I suspect is another point on which you're confused).
Oh that's easy. You're building a straw-man. This issue isn't about privacy; it's about market-share.
Now you're making stuff up. I never said Microsoft wasn't a monopoly. Their hold on the desktop operating system and office application markets are approach (and perhaps go past in some markets) monopoly status.

Stop inferring so much, Biff. It makes you sound foolish.
You have repeatedly rejected the concept of "monopoly" by asserting that some company exists as a competitor. I presented the Microsoft case as an example of a Internet age company that had an anti-trust claim and, yet, had competition. Perhaps you should specify exactly "how much" competition must exist to fulfill your unique idea of "monopoly" because, the FTC does not consider a specific percentage to be "pathognomonic" for a market controlling monopoly.
 
Dec 2015
14,628
13,533
Arizona
You may not support her overall buy you are buying her argument about these companies, which is is my point and the topic of this thread.

AND you're wrong again, Nat. You seem to be batting a thousand.
From my very first post:
I am not a Warren supporter, but I see nothing wrong with her message--her reminder.
We the people need to pay attention.

I'm not buying anything but you are so addicted to argument--to proving you're always RIGHT-- you missed the message.
So again.......
I see nothing wrong with Warren's message. Pay attention to what she is saying.

Find out more. About big tech companies. Ask questions. Does she have a point or not?
It's my job to find out. It's NOT YOUR JOB to tell me WHAT to think or what I MEANT or what I might think.
Here's what I used to tell my 2nd graders: You've got a big enough job taking care of yourself.
Stop managing everyone else and stop assuming you are always right. You aren't.
 
Nov 2018
2,596
1,212
Montana
No, I've cited for you the correct criterion: exclusive control of a market and have demonstrated that none of these companies have that level of control in any of their principal, money-making markets. You're just t0o closed minded to even consider a viewpoint that differs from your own.
"Exclusive control" is a clever phrase. To most people that would probably mean "100%" of market.
Does that mean "no competition", "99%", "51% of market" or some other metric to you? You continually disparage clear evidence that less than "exclusive control" is still sufficient to influence interstate commerce to the disadvantage of other companies (Microsoft, ATT, Standard Oil all had competitors).