PleaseBlitz Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 I did not watch the video. But my overarching philosophy on this subject is that companies should not be "broken up" because of size or reach unless they establish a legitimate monopoly AND then abuse their power as a monopoly. Aside from that, any discussion should be based on ethical practices and societal harm. In other words, sure, big ass companies maybe are not the most efficient way of doing things, but they got that way because they do what they do pretty well and people find them useful enough to give their money to. They are good at what they do and grow because of that fact. On the other side of the coin, big ass innovations come from big ass companies with big ass pockets, that can hire and organize a bunch of smart mother****ers to solve difficult problems. Unless a company is engaged in systematic societal harm (and the ones that come to mind are Facebook, Twitter and McDonalds), I don't see any reason for government to step in and break them up when, at most, simple smart regulation would suffice. Apple is gigantic, but they only have 20% of the new smartphone market (disclaimer, I have an iPhone (but I would switch to android if my company supported Android)). Google is gigantic, but they do a lot of things better than any other company (disclaimer, I use Google Maps like constantly) and, if you look at the chart above, they are involved in a lot of cutting edge stuff like drones and robots and ****. Anyways, this is largely a discussion about corporate finance, and if these entities got split up, the money would still come, it would just come from private equity firms. Then you are back to my question of ethical practices, and now your choice is between Alphabet and Apple, or Goldman Sachs and Black Rock. 3 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said: except they all answer to the names at the top of that box. Unless I am missing something, you are making my point. It's like saying Dove and Axe are two entirely separate entities, despite being owned by Unilever. My original post was not an argument, it was a clarification. Regarding your point, see my above post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 I do worry about Amazon becoming the super monopoly as far as retail goes. Not sure about the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, Burgold said: I do worry about Amazon becoming the super monopoly as far as retail goes. Not sure about the others. Whats funny, is that I hate (despise) Walmart because of their general business practices. I won’t so much as set foot in a Walmart. I buy thousands of dollars of stuff from Amazon every year. I buy pretty much anything from a DVD to shoes to TV’s to furniture from Amazon. They don’t have the best track record as far as business practices go. I am a hypocrite. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) Okay, I watched enough of this video to decide that Mr. Galloway, professor of marketing (not economics), is either misinformed or is being dishonest. I can make that case using one slide. It's this one, which he claims is proof that "the markets are failing." It is critical to note that Amazon, WalMart and the 6 other companies are not the entire market. All 6 of the other companies used to be huge retailers, but all 6 of them have failed to adapt to the new retail environment (towards delivery and away from brick and mortar) which is probably why Galloway cherrypicked them. In their place have stepped in not only Amazon and Walmart, but THOUSANDS of other small companies that sell their **** primarily on the internet. That is an example of THE MARKET WORKING, not failing. This is entirely a question about distribution chain. Macy's and Nordstrom and JC Penneys sell stuff by other people, say Ralph Lauren or whatever. It is not a market failure that people stopped buying there because they have to spend their time, effort and money to get to those places, when they can get the exact same stuff cheaper and with less efffort from Amazon or WalMart. In fact, that is the market WORKING PERFECTLY. In addition, if i want clothes, I (and most people my age and younger) do not get them from those formerly big retailers. I get my clothes directly from the company that sells it, via their website. Edited February 1, 2018 by PleaseBlitz 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Dude, Sears & Roebuck used to be the only national retailer. So in a sense, you can say the monopoly was broken up. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balki1867 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) He makes some interesting points but the real takeaway is that we need to remove the halo we place around these companies and start thinking about them like any other company. The only company I could see being broken up is Amazon but they just aren't destroying markets as far as I can tell (yet)- that day is far away. His only evidence of this is day-to-day stock price movement, which is a horrific indicator of actual value created- just ask the Long Blockchain Company Edited February 1, 2018 by balki1867 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 32 minutes... is there an article or sumthin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balki1867 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 51 minutes ago, Springfield said: Whats funny, is that I hate (despise) Walmart because of their general business practices. I won’t so much as set foot in a Walmart. I buy thousands of dollars of stuff from Amazon every year. I buy pretty much anything from a DVD to shoes to TV’s to furniture from Amazon. They don’t have the best track record as far as business practices go. I am a hypocrite. I'd still argue that Amazon is still better than Wal-Mart at its peak. That said, Amazon is definitely no angel, and it'll be interesting what they have to do to keep their shareholders happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) 36 minutes ago, balki1867 said: He makes some interesting points but the real takeaway is that we need to remove the halo we place around these companies and start thinking about them like any other company. Agree very much with this. Especially Facebook. All of these companies do things, primarily the collecting and selling of my data, that I do not like at all. Facebook, in particular, is pretty close to what I would consider abusive, which is why I am rarely on FB anymore. I think they may have repealed the policy due to backlash, but Facebook TRIED to install a policy that effectively said if you post a picture (which is your property), on Facebook, it becomes Facebook's property for all purposes. None of these companies are angels. To their credit, except for FB, they have largely avoided big controversies like WalMart (employment policies), basically all of the largest financial institutions (especially Wells Fargo's creating new unwanted accounts policies), and Uber (sex in stairwells policies). Edited February 1, 2018 by PleaseBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Everyone should also keep in mind that these 4 companies are only being listed here because people are familiar with them, because they interact directly with them every day. But there are lots of companies that are much larger and arguably more influential behind the scenes that you may not have heard of or only heard of in passing. For a baseline, Apple, which is definitely gigantic, had $375 billion in assets in 2017. BlackRock, the NY based asset management company, has $5.7 TRILLION in assets under management in 2017. Koch Industries is in chemicals, manufacturing and refining, so most people don't interact with them directly. It employs 100,000 people and its owners are actively trying to buy the federal government. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 3 hours ago, Springfield said: Whats funny, is that I hate (despise) Walmart because of their general business practices. I won’t so much as set foot in a Walmart. I buy thousands of dollars of stuff from Amazon every year. I buy pretty much anything from a DVD to shoes to TV’s to furniture from Amazon. They don’t have the best track record as far as business practices go. I am a hypocrite. I have a love/hate thing with Walmart. Lots of junk is sold there and they put a lot of mom and pop stores out of business, BUT they have been progressive in some ways. They have been leaders in using solar, they have other good principles surrounding the environment, and they even pre-ordered Tesla's new big rigs that are a couple years out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Springfield said: Whats funny, is that I hate (despise) Walmart because of their general business practices. I won’t so much as set foot in a Walmart. I buy thousands of dollars of stuff from Amazon every year. I buy pretty much anything from a DVD to shoes to TV’s to furniture from Amazon. They don’t have the best track record as far as business practices go. I am a hypocrite. I hate Walmart because every time I go there the people that work there suck. I love amazon because I don't have that problem, even when I have to go through customer service (which honestly I'm not sure if I ever made past their automated bots to a real person, or not) Also, the products at Walmart may be cheap but they also often times are garbage. Edited February 2, 2018 by tshile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 2 hours ago, balki1867 said: That said, Amazon is definitely no angel, and it'll be interesting what they have to do to keep their shareholders happy. Amazon has had a long history of high revenue low profit. Their business model is to reinvest. Any shareholder not understanding that is an idiot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 8 hours ago, Springfield said: *at work and can’t watch the video ........ I think, along with that, .................. The banks should be split up............ Apparently forcing companies to split is like, socialism or something. I assume you must be really angry with Obama and the Dems on this particular issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar78 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 May not need govt regulation. Blockchain could put them out of business on its own 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Just now, Elessar78 said: May not need govt regulation. Blockchain could put them out of business on its own This was my point essentially. Microsoft used to be THE big bad monopoly. Then smartphones and tablets shrank the PC market. MySpace was getting big once; now it's all but forgotten. Sears and Kmart have been run by idiots for decades. Walmart understood data driven suplly management and left dinosaur retailers in the dust. Whining by libs about retail going the way of the dodo is almost as absurd as Trumpistas wanting to bring back coal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 18 minutes ago, nonniey said: I assume you must be really angry with Obama and the Dems on this particular issue. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: Whining by libs about retail going the way of the dodo is almost as absurd as Trumpistas wanting to bring back coal. Not libs. Progressives/Bernie Bros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momma There Goes That Man Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Can we wait until after I’m getting same day delivery via drone before we tear it down? I’d like to experience that Jetsons luxury at least once 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 So I watched the whole thing, but I still don't understand the point of breaking them up other then making sure individual companies don't dominant multiple segments of our economy. I don't think breaking them up is going to stop the growth of any of them in there individual sectors. Some of the splits on the last graphic made sense, like separating Amazon and AWS then Youtube and GoogleAdsense from Alphabet. We did it to Bell Systems, but we still ended up with Verizon, so this is something we'll have to constantly monitor, US has historically. Have these companies already gotten to the point of setting monopoly prices for advertising that anti-trust laws haven't been able to stop? Google makes up 30% of online advertising in the world, highest share in the world. That feels like taking a huge out of alphabet's revenue, I don't know how I feel about that. Bell Systems from what I'm reading completely dominated telephone service in the US prior to being broken up, that's not where alphabet is yet with online advertising. The situation in Chicago with with trying to get Amazon HQ2 is just sad, but that's not Amazon's fault, that's the local government for selling out to them. The fact our government officials accept an uncanny amount of money to be influenced by these companies is more of a problem then how much money they are making, especially if we can find some kind of middle ground with how much taxes they pay by working to close tax loop holes and offshore tax havens. I'd need to see more on how he would break them up and why specifically for each before I sign off on any more examples that I already listed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 I love Amazon. Love it. ~Bang 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Springfield said: How so? I'm referring to Dodd-Frank. It severely reduced small banks - which ironically indirectly rewarded the big bank culprits of the financial melt-down. Small banks didn't have the resources to manage/work through the regulations which drove about 20% of them out of business and reduced the services of the others - while the big banks did have the resources manage the new regulations and of course profited from the reduced competition (particularly is services that small banks could no longer provide) and as a result grew even bigger. Edited February 2, 2018 by nonniey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 8 hours ago, nonniey said: I'm referring to Dodd-Frank. It severely reduced small banks - which ironically indirectly rewarded the big bank culprits of the financial melt-down. Small banks didn't have the resources to manage/work through the regulations which drove about 20% of them out of business and reduced the services of the others - while the big banks did have the resources manage the new regulations and of course profited from the reduced competition (particularly is services that small banks could no longer provide) and as a result grew even bigger. Do you have any proof that regulations SPECIFICALLY and CONCLUSIVELY drove these small banks out of business? How does a small bank, especially the local credit unions, manage to stay in business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, nonniey said: I'm referring to Dodd-Frank. It severely reduced small banks - which ironically indirectly rewarded the big bank culprits of the financial melt-down. Small banks didn't have the resources to manage/work through the regulations which drove about 20% of them out of business and reduced the services of the others - while the big banks did have the resources manage the new regulations and of course profited from the reduced competition (particularly is services that small banks could no longer provide) and as a result grew even bigger. Small banks have been in decline since the 1980s. It isn't at all clear that Dodd-Frank affected the rate at which small banks are declining or not. 16 minutes ago, Springfield said: Do you have any proof that regulations SPECIFICALLY and CONCLUSIVELY drove these small banks out of business? How does a small bank, especially the local credit unions, manage to stay in business? There isn't even good circumstantial evidence. It isn't even like the number of small banks had been pretty much constant before Dodd-Frank, and then after Dodd-Frank they started to go down. If that was the case, at least that would a correlation (where correlations are weak evidence for cause). (As I stated, they've been in decline since the 1980s.) Edited February 2, 2018 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Didnt watch the video...but a few thoughts At the dawn of any new economic era there is ALWAYS one company that is able to run away from the pack and dominate the entire industry in such a way others cant compete. Carnegies with steel, rockefeller with oil, vanderbilt with trains... none of these companies could ever have grown and dominated in such a way at any other time than the very dawn of their era. I think amazon is much the same. The real problem i have with amazons rise is that they never did it on a level playing field. While other companies were held to absurd standards like actually turning a profit for investors, amazon was able to hemorage cash and capital for decades while the investment community propped them up. I also think their cloud services is threatening too, with almost 50 percent market share. Again, they were able to come in on the ground floor Ask yourself this. If amazon and Bezos truly are exceptional... could they be as successful today starting right now. The answer is no. No way they could ever raise the capital needed. No way investors would ever have as much patience. No way they could enter the online retail market. So maybe they arent as exceptional. Maybe the timing was just right Now excuse me while i go order some **** off prime. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now