Barrier to entry is a natural competitive force. Existing competitors creating a controversy and then lobbying new regulations to make entry prohibitively expensive is an unnatural competitive force.
Anne McElvoy! I had been listening to you in The Economist podcasts for years and had never seen you physically! I'm happy to put a face to that voice that's been educating me for years!
5:08 Was the interviewer's question "How do you reign in on a business that consumers willingly choose?" Correct me if I'm wrong but Ms. Klobuchar didn't answer the question.
Klobuchar is a friend of the country. The gap between rich and poor it is becoming inhumane and Klobuchar knows it. We should all pay close attention to this and support her.
I didn't hear this as criticism, more that she knows she is speaking to a serious outlet when it comes to debate and looking at issues from broad perspective.
@@duncanhw Nope. Not US. Different culture. More individualistic and capitalistic, than Europe. Here, any more anti-trust busting laws, better compensate the companies. Otherwise consumer decision. The best US can do, besides compensating, is funnel more funds into agencies investigating business malpractice. Congressional hearings to inform the public. This wont happen in the current environment. Too much already to deal with, and very expensive. So the only solution, is consumer information by shows like this. Up to the individual. More freedom, more personal responsibility. This is appropriate for the US of course, in my opinion.
Agree 100%! As a consumer, there just ain’t much choices out there in an environment that falsely gives an impression of unending choices. It scares me sometimes when I am gradually realizing this everyday.
breaking up these monopolies won't do anything. There is competition for Google for example, Duckduckgo, Bing, Edge, etc. The only problem is that no one uses them. Tech giants pray on networks; the more user one service has, the better. This means that everyone will go to the same place rather than different plates, meaning that a breakup is not a solution.
Government should somehow lower barriers to entry. This (in theory) should help provide innovation or at least a bit of R&D into how consumers information/data can be kept private and secure.
I think patent laws are one area. Big companies abuse them by patenting way too many unused ideas with countless wordings to attempt to deny entry to smaller, innovative companies that might disrupt the current market. Patent scams do the same thing and also hurt big companies. They consist of lawyers and crooked judges(I read about one in Texas from Austin Meyer) that claim patents for hundreds of vaguely worded ideas for which they do zero work. All their work is suing and collecting settlement checks.
I agree with much what is said, but I think an important issue not addressed are the network effects. Few people want to be on several different platforms that provide the same service, for example, who would like to have a half of their friends on Facebook and the other half on "copy of Facebook" that provide the same service? Next to none. People want to be where the network is the largest because the content is the greatest, leading to monopolies. I have no idea how to solve this conundrum.
No there isn't, almost all companies which made it big were some way or the other in bed with the powerful government figures. Hence they were allowed to use more relaxed laws(for loans, wholesale payments and employment) which are not supposed to be allowed under Chinese law. The alternate companies generally tend to popup when the relaxation of the dominate company becomes public knowledge
I think, being one or two big companies in every field is better and convenient. But there should be strong law enforcement to control them. These companies are more likely to be innovative than others... Agree?
It's those companies' infrastructure. It's their app store or their search engine. If the government wants a hand in it, they should create their own. There are a million search engines out there, you can choose the one you want to use.
I think your videos are amazing, the only thing that puzzles me a little and in a very respectful way would like to ask is the following, are you aware of the fact that "America" is an entire continent and no the name of "The United States of America"'?
Successful companies are broken down by the government, broken companies are attempted to be made successful by decades and decades of government subsidies
I think this pandemic has taught people the importance of multiple streams of income unfortunately having a job doesn’t mean security rather having different investments is the real deal
@Mike Justin I'll recommend my professional Mr Lucas Naved My first investement with him earned me a total profits of $28,300 and ever since then he keeps delivering
The newer companies can't pay the the best talent the wage they deserve. So naturally they will fall behind unless they get investors or government support.
You aren't supposed to copy them. You need to have a business that either does something new. That requires creativity more than anything else. Amazon is very competitive, I would not want to compete with them directly.
Easy. Make laws to punish them for every abuse of power, inequality and leaving things in the dark. They need to let someone from the government check the algorithms for search engines, they are not allowed to sell or use user data without permission, you cannot charge some this and others that, you cannot avoid taxes because your office is officially in Liechtenstein or on the Caymans, they aren’t allowed to have a 2000% profit margin, they have to source their materials sustainably, they hav to make sure everyone in the production chain is paid fairly. I like that a lot of people work on the „best product“ and google‘s services and microsoft and apple are doing amazing things, too. Don’t let them do the grey area or illegal stuff, that’s enough.
The people of Mexico are protesting for your publication of President López Obrador. It’s an offensive image far away from the conception of our government and the minimum ethic of journalism. In the electoral times I respectfully ask who pay for that?
The thing Australia wanted to do (5:40) is the equivalent of telling a 7 year old boy who wants to bring a newspaper to his class for a class project that anyone who looked at would have to pay.
@@freedomlife3623 Science has not always done the best job on being authoritative - they flip flop as bad as some politicians. And again, WHO judges the science? If some science says "x" and some science says "y", WHO determines which is the correct answer?
florida gov. desantis signs law to hold big tech companies accountable for content practices. moderation DeSantis has been critical of what he views as censorship engaged in by the company’s largest technology companies and has accused platforms like RU-vid of attempting to stamp out ideas that go against its "narrative."
A company makes the profit margin a market allows it to make lady...who are you to say what is high or not? do you want to regulate margin by law?crazy...
The last part shows a poor understanding of freedom of speech. It's not about whether Trump is lying or not, it's about how dangerous it is to forbid delete or forbid words. I am German and my grandpa told me about the time when the media and elections were not free anymore. It's a horrible thing because back then, the nazis portrayed all dissidents as "being crazy, liars and criminals". It is different now of course but there are some parralels we should learn from.
Listen I know we keep you busy up here in Minnesota where I am from we got bigger fish to fry right here at home and we're going to do it in the name of Sandra drift
Consumer harm is no longer the only metric by which a monopoly should be measured, it's a very archaic form of playing devil's advocate when it comes to measuring the extreme power disparities present in the market today. The economist surely would have once read Hobbes and Smith, and realize that the entire premise of capitalism and the protection of private property is based on the fact that all actors within a market start out at the level of subsistence and therefore have an equal access to the market. This was never true, especially in England's racist and imperialist history, but even by that measure alone it's obvious that news organizations should grow up and stop trying to thread the needle by using imperialist legal views that were created through the lens of elites protection of other elites.
Guys, 3 things need to be done immediately. 1. Tax super rich and giant tech companies 2. No more monopolies by giant tech companies 3. Provide more welfare and better access to affordable housing to lower income workers
@@yMMahmood0990 change the tax code. see the historical economics of high taxes. We need to tax super rich or else the income inequality will keep increasing
It was ok. However the interviewer did not exploited the contradictions stated by Sen. Klobuchar. I may not like D.T. speeches; however, she is empowering censorship from the same monopolies she is trying to break.
Speaking as a pro-business libertarian (who is generally opposed to the views of Klobuchar), the idea that controls always hinder innovation is not true. Competition itself is not the end goal. Competition is just one facet of an open, viable market. We need to remember why we have a market in the first place. What its role is. The market-distorting effects of big business are profound. They're not really 'free enterprise' at all. Such monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies need to be broken up, and regulated as part of an open, competitive marketplace where innovation really can thrive.
Klobuchar doesn't have a clue. She was unable to suggest one piece of legislation which would reign in big-tech. Just hot air, rhetoric and generalisations. On the other hand, sometimes it's great to have ineffective legislators - at least they can do no harm.
Very balanced, matured and pragmatic view. Unlike the Left which says that Tech companies are evil, Capitalism is evil while using a products of tech & capitalism itself. We need these kind of politicians.
@@duncanhw Exactly my point, using innovation of Tech & Capitalism. And, that Democrat Senator did tell she admires Capitalism. So, she is probably a Centrist unlike the darlings of Left - AOC, Bernie Sanders, etc. We need her kind of sensible people who can bridge the party politics gap.
I like the way she tries to sell the idea as pro capitalist but which in reality is closer to china's system, basically a state run pseudo capitalist system.
Never give up an opportunity to drag China in the picture. Talk about gatekeeper enterprises. The truth is China is actually taking steps to deal with their own big tech companies (e.g. Alibaba, Meituan) which are adversely impacting, among other things, small and medium business viability and fair competition ... fact-check Senator (assuming facts and truth still matters)
I don’t think allowing monopoly is bad. If any companies can do better they shall take the market. Small startups make a fortune selling their companies to the giant. Better services and technology was created because big techs have the money to invest in R&D and productions. And yes stop lobbying and start building something useful. I think Apple and maybe tech giant did their best to advance the world from creating jobs to enhance human lifestyle and activities. And yes, Apple shall win the Epic court and epic please pay the man if you are selling under his roof cuz there ain’t no roof or market if you don’t pay up. This is not a flee market , it’s the “Apple” market, so it has to be premium.
Your opinion on monopolies is irrelevant and factually wrong. Monopolies is one of those subjects where all economists of from the entire political spectrum agree.... monopolies are a cancer to the economic activity
A self-declared 'leader on this issue' but she just regurgitated commonly known descriptions of the problem that's all. Nothing in the way of solutions or even a broad policy...
Bruh reddit be lying to me about Amy Klobuchar, now that I've actually heard her talk she is way smarter than reddit Bernie Bro posts made it seem like
