Elizabeth Warren confirms Apple is on her big tech breakup list

1234579

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 172
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 952member
    Kuyangkoh said:
    What a stupid idea from a dumb so called Senator who claims an Indian. They should break up her DNA and see if they can find Indians on it....Good grip, if you don’t want Ios theres Android or Tizen
    This is a political attacking that has nothing to do with the Senator’s proposal.
  • Reply 122 of 172
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 952member
    ABurro said:
    Same old Democrat drivel: LOVE Jobs. HATE employers.
    Political attack and not a word on the subject at hand.
  • Reply 123 of 172
    tyler82tyler82 Posts: 994member
    Tax Apple Google and Facebook at 99.9%. Make Apple earn their inflated iPhone prices. 
    davgreg
  • Reply 124 of 172
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 952member
    lkrupp said:
    The rage against Capitalism has been going on for decades now in education, revisionist history, and media propaganda. Young people are attracted to the siren call of Socialism because it promises them the moon. No more student loans to pay off, free healthcare, free college, guaranteed employment, the list goes on. Who wouldn’t be supportive of stuff like that until you sit down and think how it would be implemented? Warren wants the government to have absolute, total control over the economy, the society, the way we think. And the thing about that kind of mentality is that, once entrenched, there is no tolerance for dissent. We’ve seen what happens over and over again in history when governments control everything.
    This is just a political rant without cited proof against the boogie man of “socialism” that does not address the proposal any part of it.

    FYI- all countries have some elements of socialism in a mixed economy. You drive on public roads, many of us attended a public university, fire departments, levee and hospital districts, the universal service fund and many other ongoing things are socialism. Ms Warren is a Socialist like Apple is a  tire company.
    tyler82
  • Reply 125 of 172
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 952member
    maestro64 said:
    spice-boy said:

    While I agree with Elizabeth Warren in principle, this for me is a “bridge too far”. If you break these tech companies up, there is a fragmentation of data as well as a loss of control over quality and responsibility. This for the benefit of what?
    Like it never happened before and it will spell doom for just about everything we hold dear....

    (United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001),[1] is a U.S. antitrust law case, settled by the Department of Justice (DOJ), in which the technology company Microsoft was accused of holding a monopoly and engaging in anti-competitive practices contrary to sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
    You know that case was about Microsoft blocking other internet browsers from being installed on Windows machine, then they integrated internet explorer into the OS even if a user did install a third-party web browser all web Traffic would be router too internet explorer. But the government did not break up Microsoft over this.
    Apple does not allow other browsers excepting ones built upon WebKit. Chrome on iOS has little in common with Chrome on other platforms.
  • Reply 126 of 172
    She really doesn't want to be president, does she?

    Voters like Amazon, they like Google, they appreciate Facebook, and they like Apple.  On the other hand, voters aren't that thrilled with the federal government and politicians.
    sarthosSpamSandwich
  • Reply 127 of 172
    I think the concept has merits, the problem is where do you stop? But the bigger question is, "Are you going to be make bigger problems by doing this?". Breaking up Google sounds dreamy to me, but at least being whole it is still a USA company that can be "controlled" with USA laws. Break these companies up and you risk having these fragments either lose out to now bigger foreign companies in competition, or having the little bite-lets now take-over-able in hostile or "friendly" mergers. Then you risk really losing control…
  • Reply 128 of 172
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 952member
    cs38 said:
    Who is John Galt?

    Cannot answer that, but can tell you Ayn Rand died drawing Social Security and using Medicare. I guess that makes her a taker.
    (yes I know the quote function is messed up- I am using the AI app.)

    tyler82
  • Reply 129 of 172
    kimberlykimberly Posts: 400member
    If Senator Warren's plan came to pass, does that mean FB's Z will lose no time in getting up to his usual mischief with bunko apps?
  • Reply 130 of 172
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,685member
    When they start talking like leninist/marxist we should stop calling them simply "socialists".  There are many paths to controlling the means of production - hers being one of the more popular.
    They aren’t talking like Leninist or Marxists. Her ideas are stupid but well within the historical economic norm in US politics. 
  • Reply 131 of 172
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,685member
    She really doesn't want to be president, does she?

    Voters like Amazon, they like Google, they appreciate Facebook, and they like Apple.  On the other hand, voters aren't that thrilled with the federal government and politicians.
    There’s been some hostility regarding FB etc. on the far left since the rise of Trump. As an outside observer I see TDS as very real. I don’t believe that FB won the election for Trump, for instance. 

    Some do, and journalists in particular are hostile to new technology as it undermines their livelihoods. 
    patchythepirate
  • Reply 132 of 172
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,092member
    Like the last one on this topic, we're going to start with this open, as we have the last few. As of late, we've had a problem with forum-goer behavior towards each other, and in general, ad hominem attacks which has led to the closure of a few threads that I'd have rather kept open.

    Keep it civil like the other post has mostly remained so far, and it stays open. You know the rules.

    Getting bold these Lefties. 

    Only took one minute for the thread to go off the rails.


  • Reply 133 of 172
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,092member
    Much ado about nothing because this proposal will go nowhere.

    The fact that a company is large does not make it a monopoly, and any attempt to broaden antitrust laws to the extent Warren is suggesting would be unconstitutional and likely be reversed by the Supreme Court. 

    The comparisons to AT&T and Standard Oil are illogical.  Both were gigantic horizontal monopolies, whereas the big tech companies are not. Moreover, both monopolies controlled consumer goods that almost every American relied on, and were gigantic in breadth and scope, with AT&T controlling almost 100% of the phone service market and Standard Oil over 90% of the oil and gas market.  They literally dictated price, terms, and availability, and you had zero choice. 

    Amazon, Google, and Apple do not even own 50% of their respective markets, and both have plenty of competition.  About all you could say is they are big and that some of their policies suck. Bottom line is if you do not want to deal with Amazon, Google, Apple, and FaceBook, you can simply do business elsewhere. 

    I'm also not sure what restraint of trade you could allege with respect to FaceBook and Google since their services are free to consumers. 
    edited March 2019 sarthos
  • Reply 134 of 172
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,450member
    asdasd said:
    Ah, socialism raising it's head in the US now.  Remember that although its never worked, the reason is that everyone else "just didn't do it right yet".

    My favourite quote about socialism came from Margaret Thatcher. 

    "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
    That’s the problem with financialised capitalism too. Although to be fair the banks never do run out of tax payers money. 

    Breaking up successful companies isn’t a socialist idea, in fact it’s not common at all outside the US, and originates with the republicans in the late 19C in the US. Most countries with government interference outside the US; Europe, Japan, Korea, India, China ( especially) try to build up government backed companies, to play in the international market. And obviously the USSR created large state companies during its era. 

    This is a particularly American form of free market fundamentalism which fetishes small business - the ordinary guy of American mythology, George Bailey vs Potter. 

    Its a pretty stupid love though when other governments are creating national industrial champions, a us candidate wants to destroy them. 
    So misinformed I don't know where to begin. Small businesses give a nation (any nation) economic stability with a decent percentage of a population owning their own businesses. Think of what it cost taxpayers when the big banks and industries needed bailing out during the great recession. When a small business fails nobody comes to it's rescue, the government or taxpayers. Small business give communities deep roots. Families stay in towns in cities when they are invested in that place unlike bigger corporations which shut down and leave town leaving many people unemployed and misery in its wake. Walmart mastered this slash in burn technique, get big tax incentives to open a store, drain all the money from smaller businesses which cannot compete with their prices then pack up when those incentives end. 

    Unlike big companies small self owned businesses give people some control over their lives and a sense of self worth and pride. I live in NYC and people were literally cheering in the streets when Bezos took his ball and bat and went home. Amazon is the killer of small businesses and it has already contributed to the death of retail in our city. My neighborhood alone has 200 empty storefronts, recycling days have mountains of Amazon boxes outside of most buildings on my block, each box representing a lost sale for a local business. 
  • Reply 135 of 172
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,156member
    flydog said:

    any attempt to broaden antitrust laws to the extent Warren is suggesting would be unconstitutional
    On what basis?  If the Sherman Act could pass under the Commerce Clause, why wouldn't this?
  • Reply 136 of 172
    jmc54jmc54 Posts: 207member
    alandail said:
    patentcad said:
    As a life-long Democrat, it always amazes me how they manage to shoot themselves in the foot. Amazing.
    They have the easiest to win election ever, and they are trying to hand the presidency back to Trump.
    They had the easiest election ever! Managed to run the only person on the planet Trump could beat!
    edited March 2019
  • Reply 137 of 172
    vvswarupvvswarup Posts: 334member
    jblank said:
    Screw her, AOC, who thinks the country is barely above garbage, and the rest of these collectivist leftists that want to destroy our economic system and many great companies, Apple included.

    The Democrat Party has turned into a race towards Communism. They are radical and have the gas pedal planted to the firewall to see who can go furthest left. I'm surprised they haven't called for gulags and re-education camps for white males yet, I guess that's coming soon though.
    I don't agree with Warren one bit and if she makes the ticket, the Democrats will lose my vote but let's face the facts. Republicans are just as capable of government overreach as Democrats. Let's not forget that Donald Trump and many Republicans called for regulating tech and social media companies like Google or Facebook because they allegedly favored left-leaning content. Donald Trump claimed without a lick of proof that Google intentionally engineered its search algorithm to make posts critical of him appear at the top of results and called for an investigation in response. Trump also repeatedly said Amazon would have a lot of problems if he became President during his campaign. I think I've made my point.

    The real problem is populism. Left-wing or right-wing, populism has unintended consequences. People like Warren are the result. 
    sarthos
  • Reply 138 of 172
    davgreg said:
    cs38 said:
    Who is John Galt?

    Cannot answer that, but can tell you Ayn Rand died drawing Social Security and using Medicare. I guess that makes her a taker.
    (yes I know the quote function is messed up- I am using the AI app.)

    Of course she did.  After all, she paid into those systems, why should she not get some of her money back?

    Like most politicians who automatically associate "profitable" with "consumer hostile", Warren is wrong on this one.  There is absolutely nothing anti-competitive about a company owning a store and stocking it with their own products in addition to other vendors' products, even in the store owner's products are less expensive than the others.

    As has been pointed out, if it's "bad" (and it isn't) for Apple to do this, then it's also bad for Walmart, Meijer, Target, Best Buy, and every other large retailer with a "house brand" in the U.S.
    sarthossteven n.
  • Reply 139 of 172
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,685member
    spice-boy said:
    asdasd said:
    Ah, socialism raising it's head in the US now.  Remember that although its never worked, the reason is that everyone else "just didn't do it right yet".

    My favourite quote about socialism came from Margaret Thatcher. 

    "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
    That’s the problem with financialised capitalism too. Although to be fair the banks never do run out of tax payers money. 

    Breaking up successful companies isn’t a socialist idea, in fact it’s not common at all outside the US, and originates with the republicans in the late 19C in the US. Most countries with government interference outside the US; Europe, Japan, Korea, India, China ( especially) try to build up government backed companies, to play in the international market. And obviously the USSR created large state companies during its era. 

    This is a particularly American form of free market fundamentalism which fetishes small business - the ordinary guy of American mythology, George Bailey vs Potter. 

    Its a pretty stupid love though when other governments are creating national industrial champions, a us candidate wants to destroy them. 
    So misinformed I don't know where to begin. Small businesses give a nation (any nation) economic stability with a decent percentage of a population owning their own businesses. Think of what it cost taxpayers when the big banks and industries needed bailing out during the great recession. When a small business fails nobody comes to it's rescue, the government or taxpayers. Small business give communities deep roots. Families stay in towns in cities when they are invested in that place unlike bigger corporations which shut down and leave town leaving many people unemployed and misery in its wake. Walmart mastered this slash in burn technique, get big tax incentives to open a store, drain all the money from smaller businesses which cannot compete with their prices then pack up when those incentives end. 

    Unlike big companies small self owned businesses give people some control over their lives and a sense of self worth and pride. I live in NYC and people were literally cheering in the streets when Bezos took his ball and bat and went home. Amazon is the killer of small businesses and it has already contributed to the death of retail in our city. My neighborhood alone has 200 empty storefronts, recycling days have mountains of Amazon boxes outside of most buildings on my block, each box representing a lost sale for a local business. 
    I probably worded some of that incorrectly, I shouldn't have called the support of small businesses a "fetish". 

     I am saying however, that the policy of breaking up big companies is 1) not socialist and b) quite American. I have no real opposition to the idea, in fact I am not a huge fan of big monopoly or monopsony businesses, if they don't work. These things are human tools, we are not -- or should not be -- the tools of them.

    In this case Apple is no kind of monopoly, Google is a monopoly in Search. 

    edited March 2019
  • Reply 140 of 172
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,226member
    davgreg said:
    lkrupp said:
    The rage against Capitalism has been going on for decades now in education, revisionist history, and media propaganda. Young people are attracted to the siren call of Socialism because it promises them the moon. No more student loans to pay off, free healthcare, free college, guaranteed employment, the list goes on. Who wouldn’t be supportive of stuff like that until you sit down and think how it would be implemented? Warren wants the government to have absolute, total control over the economy, the society, the way we think. And the thing about that kind of mentality is that, once entrenched, there is no tolerance for dissent. We’ve seen what happens over and over again in history when governments control everything.
    This is just a political rant without cited proof against the boogie man of “socialism” that does not address the proposal any part of it.

    FYI- all countries have some elements of socialism in a mixed economy. You drive on public roads, many of us attended a public university, fire departments, levee and hospital districts, the universal service fund and many other ongoing things are socialism. Ms Warren is a Socialist like Apple is a  tire company.
    You are going off on people trying to shut them down with a simple "political rant" call while you rant yourself:

    "You drive on public roads, many of us attended a public university, fire departments, levee and hospital districts, the universal service fund and many other ongoing things are socialism."

    These are not "socialism" and you know it. Trying to claim "roads" as "socialism" is simply an straw man argument made from not understanding the definitions of words and concepts.

    There is no doubt what lkrupp wrote really is true. All you have to do is watch The Colbert Report interviewing OAC to see there is a strong desire for free education, free housing, free food, free health care as well as free money. She does not believe achieving success is moral if you profit from it and I have heard many 18-30 year olds express this sentiment. The strong push to UBI among the regressive left cheered on by the media and liberal entertainers is a perfect example of the collective sickness in the left and it has driven me away fully. They are centered on the narrative of "oppressor/oppressed", "victim/victimizer" all drawn around specific various physical/emotional identities stripping away the individual. It's scarier than the spray tan in the can man in the Oval Office.

    For example, Andrew's Yang's (who talks very persuasively) free money hand out would cost about $3,000,000,000,000/year and this does not include anything except his UBI concept.
    patchythepirateSpamSandwichjblank
Sign In or Register to comment.