The government filed an antitrust case to break up Google, and the Senate held a brutal hearing on Ticketmaster's monopoly. Wall Street opinion leader Jim Cramer is officially freaking out.
What's interesting about 2005 is that at Google, at least their recruiters had the story that the big competitor was Microsoft, or at least that's what I was told unofficially on a call. I flew out, but subsequently didn't get that job. So this internal transition might not have been the line given to tech workers at the time, even though it represented a complete remake of the company.
Great explanatory read and thanks for educating me on the Google stuff, as usual. It was curious to be covering a four-plus hour planning here in Pittsburgh over a $110 million development including a new Live Nation concert facility around the same time that Ticketmaster/Live Nation was getting raked over the coals by a bunch of senators in Washington. I now find myself wondering if all the scrutiny the company is now facing could somehow delay, disrupt financing of or otherwise jeopardize the company’s project here. I tend to doubt it. But who knows?
"Wall Street is nervous at all the activity," Why is Wall Street nervous? Shouldnt Wall Street welcome an economy where there is more competition and more opportunities for clever "investment"?
Most of my exercise nowadays consists of going through the multiple steps necessary to indicate that an ad I am seeing on the Internet is "irrelevant."
The Republican party has traditionally been the party of rural America, the Democratic party, the cities. There's a lot of business done in the flyover states that no one notices but without it the country grinds to a halt. So it gets the reputation of being pro-business, at least since the 1970s.
Fact is, Progressive ideology is better suited to cities, which require a lot of planning and coordination to function, while the conservative ideology of self determination fits better in rural areas where help might be hours away, if at all.
Most large business leaders want progressive political leaders and central planning because it reduces competition for workers and heavy regulation weeds out low cost competitors. Smaller businesses want conservative leaders because they tend to maintain the status quo, so the framework underwhich business is done tends to be stable.
The rapid rise in inflation was no mystery. There is no one outside of the market demand for products to regulate price increases in our representative democracy.
I think it is rather telling that GOP leadership has spent more time and effort fighting populists than they have Democrats.
What's interesting about 2005 is that at Google, at least their recruiters had the story that the big competitor was Microsoft, or at least that's what I was told unofficially on a call. I flew out, but subsequently didn't get that job. So this internal transition might not have been the line given to tech workers at the time, even though it represented a complete remake of the company.
Great explanatory read and thanks for educating me on the Google stuff, as usual. It was curious to be covering a four-plus hour planning here in Pittsburgh over a $110 million development including a new Live Nation concert facility around the same time that Ticketmaster/Live Nation was getting raked over the coals by a bunch of senators in Washington. I now find myself wondering if all the scrutiny the company is now facing could somehow delay, disrupt financing of or otherwise jeopardize the company’s project here. I tend to doubt it. But who knows?
"Wall Street is nervous at all the activity," Why is Wall Street nervous? Shouldnt Wall Street welcome an economy where there is more competition and more opportunities for clever "investment"?
And speaking of monopolies, we perhaps need to revisit the patent system as implemented:
How a Drug Company Made $114 Billion by Gaming the U.S. Patent System
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/28/business/humira-abbvie-monopoly.html
I’m a fan of Thomas massie. So don’t throw the white flag yet
Has "Bucked" been added to the urban dictionary yet?
Most of my exercise nowadays consists of going through the multiple steps necessary to indicate that an ad I am seeing on the Internet is "irrelevant."
The Republican party has traditionally been the party of rural America, the Democratic party, the cities. There's a lot of business done in the flyover states that no one notices but without it the country grinds to a halt. So it gets the reputation of being pro-business, at least since the 1970s.
Fact is, Progressive ideology is better suited to cities, which require a lot of planning and coordination to function, while the conservative ideology of self determination fits better in rural areas where help might be hours away, if at all.
Most large business leaders want progressive political leaders and central planning because it reduces competition for workers and heavy regulation weeds out low cost competitors. Smaller businesses want conservative leaders because they tend to maintain the status quo, so the framework underwhich business is done tends to be stable.
It’s heartening to see widespread push back against monopolies
Great post
If no one has mentioned it yet (or I'm missing that you've already looked at this), I'd suggest Luxotica for a monopoly review.
The rapid rise in inflation was no mystery. There is no one outside of the market demand for products to regulate price increases in our representative democracy.