Elizabeth Warren calls for breakup of Amazon, Google, and FBMar 8
Maybe in the future smart Americans will be immigrating to East Asia to work at the leading technology companies rather than the current situation where people from Asia come to the US.
- It’s just a different capitalist viewpoint. The idea for them is that concentrations like these naturally create business environments that favor them (like Amazon being able to get retailers to accept certain conditions etc) and this is bad for business competition and innovation.
Take the Wal-mart example. Liberals say that big box stores hurt small business and it’s unfair that they pay so little that workers also get welfare (so it’s like taxes are indirectly subsidizing the company). Socialists, however, say Wal-mart workers should organize for decent wages and conditions and build their own power in the process.
It’s just liberalism. Warren’s own words are “compassionate capitalism” WhateverTF that is.
- PayPal da anomalyBe interesting to see how the lefties that work at these companies react when it finally hits them that the move to socialism significantly reduces their meal ticket. Or are they that committed to everyone being poor and hungry?
- Democracy doesn’t work because the majority of “citizens” are unqualified to make any political decisions.
- Well at some point the large amount of people here falling into poverty anyway will decide that it’s worth the risk trying to run things themselves than continue with a status quo that’s doing them no favors.
Personally, I think they’d run things much better. Democracy, unlike rule by bureaucrats or business, has no interest in impoverishing or repressing the majority.
- IBM, controlling/directing wealth is not the same as producing it. How much wealth would Jeff Bezos produce if all logistics drivers walked off the job? How much code could he do in a day?
Why don’t we cut out the middle-man and have workers direct the use of the wealth they produce?
Let’s do away with these elitist myths of our feudal past. Crops are not harvested because God has graced our feudal Lord.
- This is, again, marxist nonsense. Why aren’t the drivers walking away and starting their own co-op? Because it takes genius to run a successful business and if execs don’t perform, they are fired by the shareholders.
The problem with democracy is everyone is a shareholder but only a minority have real skin in the game. How about we make your vote proportional to the amount of taxes you pay?
- Lol, when you are living paycheck to paycheck, you can’t go start your own business or a co-op. That’s a tale from middle class fantasyland.
The majority have no “skin in the game”? Well they just have the quality of their life and that of their families and communities on the line... but yeah, they don’t have investment capital to worry about.
- Cmon it’s actually a lot better out there than you think.
Wage growth highest since 2009: https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/E8F91FDA-41BA-11E9-8DB1-A5C1CA56392A
Poverty Rate lowest since 2007; https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states
Inequality by state: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient
- Lol... “since the recession” is your timeline. Lol.
From the second paragraph of the inequality Wikipedia link: “U.S. income inequality was at its highest level since the United States Census Bureau began tracking household income in 1967.”
And the poverty rate article shows a drop from the 50s to 70s which it attributes to “war on poverty” social programs (though the disintegration of Jim Crow and migration of poor southern black and white farmers as well as record-high unionization rates in that period probably also has to do with it). As one might expect, those numbers have crept up again in the neoliberal era even though GDP has increased.
- Yeah since the recession is a good measure because it is basically a full business cycle. Actually you’d expect a lot of these measures to do best right after a recession, not a decade later.
Income inequality is high - that’s why there’s a huge exodus from places like CA an NY to places like TX and the sun belt.
Poverty rate is creeping up despite ever increasing spending on poverty programs. What was rightfully intended as a safety net has trapped people in a cycle of dependency.
- And when a few business cycles in a row are looked at, we see 40 years of stagnant wages and increased inequality.
And when we look at social welfare, you’ll need to cite something. Clinton drastically reduced the numbers of people eligible (10 mil to less than 2 mil families today for TANF,) cash assistance has been ended and “liberals” like Gavin Newsom felt with increased homelessness with sit-lie laws and the like. The federal government doesn’t even require that federal aid goes directly to the poor, states have discretion on how to spend it.
- Lol, socialism? Anti-trust efforts are just capitalist liberalism and fairly common at points in US history.
Funny how anything that didn’t treat major companies like the sun king Louis the XIV is called “socialism” these days.
But keep it up, such attitudes are convincing a whole generation that they should look into socialism.
- New FCFFGoogle, Facebook, and Twitter, are fundamentally different from other firms because they control information flow rather than tangible products or services. As such, one can argue that they should be regulated as public utilities.
I'm a conservative and would never vote for Warren, however.
- Facebook AuoN35In all seriousness, even in capitalism monopoly is never good. It’s unfortunate that there is no competition for Google in search or FB in social media. At least in commerce, there are still brick and mortar and some competition on selected categories. Not totally supporting this thought. but It is worthwhile to debate on.