Zardnaar
Deity
It's often easier for the right to have first female leader than the left.
They're good at over looking stuff when it's convenient.
They're good at over looking stuff when it's convenient.
And what does this mean?It's often easier for the right to have first female leader than the left.
They're good at over looking stuff when it's convenient.
It's too bad that the more "progressive" democrats have to combine pretty reasonable policies with what seems like an almost pathological disliking (and basic misunderstanding) of businesses and how they work.
I mean, I'm a more of a right-winger myself, but even I believe in the US the rich pay too little taxes and there should be far more social protections. I mean Canada and Australia manage to have rather robust social systems while remaining strong free market economies; why can't the US?
But then candidates like Warren and Sanders extrapolate this to shoot-in-the-foot policies such as breaking up tech firms, which will only lead to deterioration of American economic clout and competitiveness. It's not like China will break up Baidu or Ali (and for that matter Europe will never touch its champions either). This comes from the fact that people like sanders and Warren never had real jobs their entire lives and have no idea how companies actually work.
Yeah I'm go take a wild guess here and say you have no idea what you're taking about.Hmmm, turns out monopolies are good, actually. I am extremely intelligent.
Amazon is great for consumers, I dont think anyone can argue with it.Yeah I'm go take a wild guess here and say you have no idea what you're taking about.
How has the "monopoly" Amazon (which BTW controls only a tiny fraction of retail sales in the US) drove up prices for consumers? In fact what negative effect has it had over consumers at all?
Yeah Amazon might have had an impact on brick and mortar in general, but small businesses were already screwed by Walmart and the rise of the shopping mall, which happened long before Amazon. If anything, Amazon is having a negative impact over shopping malls and hypermarkets, not small businesses.Amazon is great for consumers, I dont think anyone can argue with it.
Local small businesses not so much.
But whatever, brick and mortar retail is a waste of space anyway. I'm happy when buy-stuff spaces close down and yoga studios, gyms and experiential businesses (like make some clay thing while you drink wine) open up.
Warren worked as a public school teacher, and then became a nationally respected expert on bankruptcy, personal finance, commercial codes, and consumer debt - becoming tenured at Harvard law.But then candidates like Warren and Sanders extrapolate this to shot-in-the-foot policies such as breaking up tech firms, which will only lead to deterioration of American economic clout and competitiveness. It's not like China will break up Baidu or Ali (and for that matter Europe will never touch its champions either). This comes from the fact that people like sanders and Warren never had real jobs their entire lives and have no idea how companies actually work.
It is my understanding that many European countries have adopted to some degree corporatist policies for their 'flagship industries' and will undertake state intervention to protect them. Protecting domestic industries to ensure they remain internationally competitive is one thing, doing nothing as an industry hollows out the domestic economy and concentrates an unhealthy level of power in an unaccountable company with overwhelming market influence is quite another. That European countries are fighting tooth and nail to protect their domestic companies should be read as an indicator they don't want an Amazon or Google style behemoth exercising a comparable level of influence in their country as those companies do in America.American "" progressives""" like to claim they only want to adopt tried and tested policies of countries like Denmark or Sweden. Do you see Denmark or Sweden trying to break up their big companies? No, they protect them tooth and nail. The issue of course is that people like Sanders, Warren or you not only don't know how companies work, you also don't have the slightest clue how the Danish economy works either. You just assume it's some left-wing utopia - but the fact is that despite their very robust social systems, in many ways they are more "right-wing" than the US.
I actually meant never had real private sector jobs. Being a senator is also a real job, IMO.Warren worked as a public school teacher, and then became a nationally respected expert on bankruptcy, personal finance, commercial codes, and consumer debt - becoming tenured at Harvard law.
If that doesn't count as a 'real job' then I don't know what is a 'real job'.
Your understanding is wrong. Asian and European countries already have companies with comparable clout to Amazon or Google (Ali has higher revenue than Amazon). Do you hear about China trying to break up Ali? No, because unlike some American progressives, the Chinese are not idiots.It is my understanding that many European countries have adopted to some degree corporatist policies for their 'flagship industries' and will undertake state intervention to protect them. Protecting domestic industries to ensure they remain internationally competitive is one thing, doing nothing as an industry hollows out the domestic economy and concentrates an unhealthy level of power in an unaccountable company with overwhelming market influence is quite another. That European countries are fighting tooth and nail to protect their domestic companies should be read as an indicator they don't want an Amazon or Google style behemoth exercising a comparable level of influence in their country as those companies do in America.
Harvard is a private university, not public. Try again?I actually meant never had real private sector jobs. Being a senator is also a real job, IMO.
Saying "China does it this way" at a time when the Chinese government is looking at cyberpunk dystopias and saying 'Hold my beer' does not seem like a particularly compelling reason to do something.Your understanding is wrong. Asian and European countries already have companies with comparable clout to Amazon or Google (Ali has higher revenue than Amazon). Do you hear about China trying to break up Ali? No, because unlike some American progressives, the Chinese are not idiots.
I'm perfectly fine with introducing a corporatist policy over large and systemically important companies in exchange for not breaking them up.Now, both China and Europe do regulate firms more, and exert some degree of state control over large firms. That's one thing. Breaking up their national large firms and thus handing over the edge to foreign companies is a fully different thing that does not even cross their minds.
Harvard might be private in some sense, but working there is not the same as working in a private company, which as far as I know Warren never did.Harvard is a private university, not public. Try again?
Richard Painter* has spent his entire life either teaching at public universities, working in government, or in non-profit advocacy groups. Has he never had a 'real job'?
*I'm citing him as he is regarded as a national authority on ethics laws and worked in the Bush White House as an ethics lawyer.
Well China is the country which is overtaking yours, or perhaps already did, as the leading economy on earth. We might have a thing or two to learn from them. Which doesn't mean we should copy everything they do, just like how they didn't copy everything American.Saying "China does it this way" at a time when the Chinese government is looking at cyberpunk dystopias and saying 'Hold my beer' does not seem like a particularly compelling reason to do something.
That's a much smarter approach, yes. And also serves national interest far better. Of course, it has to be smartly done.I'm perfectly fine with introducing a corporatist policy over large and systemically important companies in exchange for not breaking them up.
You might be shocked to hear I actually support far greater regulation of American tech groups. But that doesn't mean I'd put them under direct "public control", because state-owned companies are hardly examples of innovation and good management. More regulation and government oversight would be far preferable, which incidentally is how they do it in China, Japan and Europe.It's funny to me because I also disagree with the idea of "breaking up" these large companies, but on the grounds that it is an insufficiently radical policy. It doesn't accomplish much. The breakup of national monopolies just results in local monopolies, as we've seen with the telecommunications industry and ISPs. Natural monopolies need to be brought under public control, not "broken up".
Seems like you are trying to make a distinction without importance. Why is being a nationally known tenured Harvard law professor not a 'real job'?Harvard might be private in some sense, but working there is not the same as working in a private company, which as far as I know Warren never did.
Immense tech companies with near total market dominance is probably not something we should be emulating. Isn't multiple relatively balanced companies competing for a choosy customer base supposed to be the ideal capitalist system anyhow?Well China is the country which is overtaking yours, or perhaps already did, as the leading economy on earth. We might have a thing or two to learn from them. Which doesn't mean we should copy everything they do, just like how they didn't copy everything American.
Any policy or approach has to be smartly done. Even supporters of privatization (like I assume you are) would agree that the post-Soviet privatization/ shock therapy was not smartly done.That's a much smarter approach, yes. And also serves national interest far better. Of course, it has to be smartly done.
I meant real private sector job, and mispoke. She certainly has had real academic and government jobs. But she lacks private sector experience.Seems like you are trying to make a distinction without importance. Why is being a nationally known tenured Harvard law professor not a 'real job'?
Tech companies are permanently held in check in a way that old industrial companies were not. Just think of IBM or Yahoo, both or which were entirely dominant at some point. Breaking them up would have been quite stupid, and unnecessary as history showed.Immense tech companies with near total market dominance is probably not something we should be emulating. Isn't multiple relatively balanced companies competing for a choosy customer base supposed to be the ideal capitalist system anyhow?
Indeed and indeed.Any policy or approach has to be smartly done. Even supporters of privatization (like I assume you are) would agree that the post-Soviet privatization/ shock therapy was not smartly done.
Immense tech companies with near total market dominance is probably not something we should be emulating. Isn't multiple relatively balanced companies competing for a choosy customer base supposed to be the ideal capitalist system anyhow?
That's a common misconception...The efficiency of free markets under neoclassical theory depends on the assumption that *none* of the participants (buyers or sellers) has any market power (the ability to unilaterally effect prices with their actions).
That's a common misconception...
Why is private sector experience important? Her focus of study is bankruptcy law, personal finance, commercial codes, and consumer debt - seems pretty real world to me.I meant real private sector job, and mispoke. She certainly has had real academic and government jobs. But she lacks private sector experience.
Google or Amazon have far more power than Union Carbide, US Steel, or Anglo-American ever had.Tech companies are permanently held in check in a way that old industrial companies were not. Just think of IBM or Yahoo, both or which were entirely dominant at some point.