bostonscott's comments

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.