bostonscott

Exactly what Amazon did on "sales tax."

Against it, until their growth created a nexus in most states and required it.

Now they have been one of the most forceful lobbyists advocating for it. They call it, "Main Street Fairness."

Bingo. This is precisely how big companies leverage big government to prevent challenges from threatening their business model. Amazon is investing its money into lobbying for "Main-street Fairness" ... https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-amazon-lobbying-idUSL1N1...

Can you connect the dots for me? Why is the prevalence of two-earner households driving the gravitation towards bigger cities?

Here is one perspective on "why urbanization" - https://graylinegroup.com/urbanization-catalyst-overview/

"I mean you might get a few people who are willing to commute 4 hours a day, but certainly not enough to satisfy SV's needs. I doubt a company would pay their janitorial staff enough to live there without being forced."

Of course they would if they had to --- supply and demand. Do you really think companies would not find a way to solve the "my office is a pig sty" problem?

The central problem is the motive. Low income individuals do not have such a powerful lobby that they're able to compel States to create laws that require affordable housing. It's the real estate/development/construction lobbies. They are very powerful and affordable housing is a big business. Everyone has to get their cut.

"Google was being already investigated/accused of extreme gender pay discrimination"

Being "investigated" implies government intervention. Being "accused" implies lawsuit.

Which is it?

Big companies like Google are likely engaged in litigation over personnel matters on a constant basis, a majority of which are settled privately.

I'd like to coop your "sigh" ... i'll trade you a <headslap>

"but this memo was a mistake and showed poor judgement and more than a little bias"

"openness" and "freedom" are core values of Google. Even in a scenario where someone made effective arguments refuting all of James' key points, a "one strike and you're out" policy seems antithetical to Google's culture. Or any healthy culture for that matter.

If James wrote what you said he did above (I think you mischaracterize him greatly), and if his ideas are as poorly constructed as you suggest they are, surely Google employs someone intelligent enough to go point by point through his memo and really school him. Such a response would do more to build a case for the worldview you appear to espouse than the lazy, generalized retorts being lobbed his way.

"A corporation may not be the best place to bring up these topics, if your goal is to avoid getting fired"

Agree. In fairness to James, however, I believe HR solicited feedback.

"[T]he guy probably had some fantasy that he can have a constructive conversation"

Seriously, what a let down. The "Sergey" and "Larry" who created Google would not have stood for this. Either they have lost control of their company, or they have changed.

Working proactively to address racism/sexism/n'ism: Good, not evil Demanding orthodoxy of thought (or enabling those who do): Bad; EVIL

Your reference to lenders began with: "You are assuming perfect competition in the area of loans to nation-states," and you said "there are only a handful of lenders playing at this level." I disagreed because this is untrue, and suggested your comment may only be accurate in reference to countries representing very high credit risks.

Regarding politics and profit, we disagree here as well. Yes, I referenced political reasons as motives for lending to these very high credit risk countries, but it's not mutually exclusive. I believe if you dig into that political motive you will find a strong profit motive. Maybe the "State" isn't motivated by profit, but often the people who exert power over the State are. What else would they be motivated by? Doing good for humanity? Please...

"Only a handful of lenders playing at this level"

There are many lenders playing at "this level," presuming that by "this level" you're referring to the market for sovereign debt.

The area where there are only a handful of "players" is lending to countries that are very high credit risks. And for good reason. What rational investor would lend money to a party clearly unable to pay it back? None. That's a death wish.

Except of course when governments guarantee that party's credit for political reasons. Usually the arguments for such "support" include precepts that the free market leaves some nations behind, and so intervention is justified.

But the intervention, as we have seen quite often with the IMF itself, can do more harm than good.

And by the way, many "undeveloped" countries have respectable credit ratings (http://www.oecd.org/trade/xcred/cre-crc-current-english.pdf).

Not at all.

Greece is not an "undeveloped" country. Their people simply supported social policies that resulted in more expenses than revenues.

You said:

"but monopolies are also created through natural means and that still doesn't change my general premise"

I'm just looking for an example of a single monopoly that fits your statement.

So what's the moral of the story, practically speaking?

If you drill a hole in the bottom of your boat; Be selective about whom you let save you?

"Predatory" lending is only possible in the presence of coercion.

If Party A is such a bad credit risk that the only loan they can get is from Party B at a high interest rate, and that requires them to dramatically change the behavior that created the cash crisis in the first place, Party B is not a predator.

If Party B is charging too much for the loan, surely another "greedy" party will undercut them and offer better terms to Party A.

If Party A accepts the debt on the same conditions, but then fails to dramatically change their behavior such that they insist the terms of the original deal be modified or else they'll default, Party A is acting like the predator.

Not just banks and corporations, but statists and politicians too. Each require this symbiosis.

How it always starts: "Yay, justice! Let's collect a bunch of money from rich people and distribute it to poor people."

Then it's like: "We need to create a bureaucracy to allocate funds efficiently."

...

How it always ends: Graft.

The only practical way to break up large companies is to create a competitive environment that takes them down.

See: "Fortune 500 firms in 1955 vs. 2014; 88% are gone." If the largest companies were truly monopolies...

http://www.aei.org/publication/fortune-500-firms-in-1955-vs-...

Can you provide an example of such a monopoly, that you contend has been created through "natural means?"

It's a sincere question. I can't think of a single example.

Example?

So a doctor who decides to solve the problem of <x-disease>, and proceeds to raise $500 million over the next 15 years to develop a solution, get it approved, and commercialize it...

is a "rent seeker" ?

1. Half true. Competition drives down prices, but not necessarily profits. For example, you can lower your prices using innovation, by achieving economies of scale, etc.

2. Over long-term, probably true. In short-term, not true. Often monopolies are formed and initially sustained by keeping prices aggressively low.

3. If you said stock investors look to maximize profits, i'd agree. Short-term? Not necessarily. Value investors like Warren Buffet are not motivated by short-term profits.

4. Stock investors offer a premium for profitable companies who can protect themselves against "threats." Government protection is one such way, I guess. Building sustainable competitive advantage is another (merit-based).

5. Your thesis rests on a premise that the government doesn't intervene in the stock market? Really? Have you heard of quantitative easing?

If you don't like the fact that big companies have a lot of power, I suggest you spend time thinking about why they have so much power, before you randomly proscribe solutions.

You doubt people act in their rational self-interest?

Smart, hard-working people who consistently exercise good judgement, prefer merit-based systems.

They do better in merit-based systems than systems that reward those who are born lucky, who have access, or who cheat and lie.

Is a citation really needed?

Disagree. It is our current system, which increasingly empowers opportunists over capitalists, that will create "corporate fascism."

Current system:

1) Big companies pay minimal or negative taxes. Small companies are taxed at the individual rate (and increasing). If Company A pays 0% at top bracket, and Company B pays 50%, Company B is unlikely to out-compete Company A.

Read: our tax system creates "monopolies."

2) Our current system allows big companies to write or shape gov regulations, making compliance only possible for the largest companies. Prohibiting health ins cos from selling across state lines is an example.

Read: overreaching laws and regulations create "monopolies."

3) Our current system provides a safety net to large companies, who have leveraged #1 and #2 above in order to become "systemic." This gives them a greater tolerance for risk, "counterbalancing" regulations notwithstanding.

Read: death spiral

Want to fight "corporate fascism?"

Shrink a "corporate fascist's" source of power.

Their power comes not from creating superior products or services, and delivering these at a superior price. It comes from their ability to manipulate corrupt or dumb politicians, bureaucrats, and voters.

Again, you will find no practical solution to this problem other than starving the beast.

It's not the endgame of all capitalists. Actual capitalists, limited in number as they are, prefer free markets (e.g. no cronyism) because they'll make more money that way over time.

Opportunists are the ones who thrive when things are rigged. They can't survive on their own.

But yes, many capitalists (and non-capitalists alike) "buy" regulatory advantages.

Some leverage their dollars (buying) Some leverage their numbers (voting)

These groups enable eachother. Motives range from "defense" (virtuous) to "offense" (sinister).

You will find no practical solution to this problem other than starving the beast (decentralizing power away from government).

The concept of "crony capitalism" is a misnomer. "Crony" is not a type of capitalism, it's the antithesis of capitalism. It's enabled by giving too much power to government.

For example. When insurance companies jack-up rates or impose customer "unfriendly" terms, they are not acting within the "free market." They are exploiting "crony'esque" rules that limit competition by restricting insurance companies from competing across state-lines.

I agree with the author, and i'd like to add privacy management to the list of things they suck at. The privacy setting experience is convoluted and not intuitive. It seems they've just continued to add new privacy features without thinking through the goals and objectives of various user-segments. Who has 60-minutes of free time to sort through all their options and nuances?

Many bright, independently minded people go through rebellious phases as they ascend into adulthood.

"Why must I adhere to society's unwritten rules? I'm better than that. I'll never join the bourgeoisie!"

Those were my sentiments in my early 20's. But I was being rebellious for the sake of being rebellious. It was a knee-jerk coping mechanism, not the articulation of well-reasoned philosophy.

I was very immature. As if I would commit my life to forgoing and perhaps even scorning the richness borne of productivity in favor of squaller! Why would I want to punish myself in such a way?

I believe the same holds true for many people like the subjects of this article. They are bright people, but the messages they articulate about society and its inequities and injustices are riddled with serious contradictions.

You can be an empathetic, generous, and extraordinarily charitable human being without imposing poverty on yourself.

Seems to me the premise of many comments on this post is that people should have a right to live in San Fran.

"destroying American cities"

Is she arguing SF is or will soon be "destroyed"?

When it came to monetizing search, Google was lucky in that someone else already figured out how to do that (GoTo.com). No comparably effective model exists for monetizing high traffic websites (social media or otherwise), despite many attempts over the past two decades. Not even close.

If Zuck took Facebook public 5 years ago, they would have gotten much less money, and they would have been distracted by investors calling for them to focus on building out that business model rather than attracting users - and Zuck may have lost controlling power in the company (less money + less users = less leverage for Zuck).

This is a plan I could sign on to (for the most part), but as Winestock said, such a plan would never get support.

It is not a coincidence that Presidential elections are as close as they are. Politicians essentially buy votes to get elected, in the form of government programs.

The problem in this country is medical entitlements - not so much Social Security. Social Security in theory funds itself, although Social Security's funds have been raided to fund other programs which now jeopardize its future.

Politicians will not address medical entitlements, because they will lose too many votes in doing so. Ultimately it's these medical entitlements that will bankrupt our country, and in the process, cause the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the U.S. - not from the rich to the poor, but from the young, to the old.

Most people who support medical entitlements do so for "selfish" reasons, in that they want those entitlements to be available for themselves, their family, and/or their friends. They say things like "health care is a right," although it obviously is not a right. Health care is essentially the result of man's labor, and to say you have a right to health care, is to say you have a right to impose your needs on another man. Which of course is silly and inconsistent with the American constitution.

Still - people will assert their right to medical entitlements, and politicians will oblige, which in the long-run will pull money away from business investment (not all businesses are rich with billions in cash). The added financial burden will either stifle entrepreneurship and innovation, or it will send it oversees.

Of course, anyone who stands up against medical entitlements, like Paul Ryan, will be referred to as a villain who wants to murder old people. To quote the President: "throw grandma off the cliff."

That's my long-term prediction, anyway.

In the short-term we will continue to go through up and down cycles. Each down cycle will bring fear. Each up cycle will bring relief. There will be booms and busts in America's near-future, although the booms will be short-lived, and the busts (like our current bust) will be longer-lived.

To the extent innovators, like many of the people on HackerNews, are able to create great innovations, we can postpone the day of reckoning for our country.