Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren Wants to Make Your Life More Annoying and More Expensive

The Massachusetts Democrat is running for president, but sometimes it seems like she's running for America's super-CEO.

|

Sam Simmonds/Polaris/Newscom

To understand the ramifications of Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) new plan to break up big tech, consider AmazonBasics. It's an in-house brand under which Amazon sells many things, from bath towels to sheets to batteries. The label is probably best known for its electronics cables, which typically cost quite a bit less than their brand name counterparts and are more reliable than most cheap generic brands.

The New York Times has praised AmazonBasics cables for their general reliability. And Wirecutter, a consumer reviews site owned by the Times, chose AmazonBasics HDMI cables, an essential cord for connecting supporting devices to home theaters and flat-screen televisions, as their best all-around pick. Two years ago, a Times Smarter Living columnist recommended AmazonBasics' affordably priced 6 foot long iPhone charging cable as a cheap way to change your life for the better, calling the longer-than-average cable "magic" and writing, "the happiness of lying on my couch while charging far outweighed the cable's $7.99 price tag." It's a surprisingly affordable form of bliss.

The point is: These cables are good. They're inexpensive, reliable, and, thanks to Amazon's ubiquity, easy to come by.

Elizabeth Warren wants Amazon to stop selling them.

That's because Warren's proposal would prohibit large companies from selling products in marketplaces they own and operate, meaning that Apple, for example, could not sell software through the App Store it runs. "Apple, you've got to break it apart from their App Store. It's got to be one or the other. Either they run the platform or they play in the store," she told The Verge over the weekend. "They don't get to do both at the same time."

As an Amazon house brand selling products within Amazon's platform, AmazonBasics would go away. It would have to be shut down or spun off, and would thus no longer benefit from being backed by Amazon's considerable resources. The same would be true of numerous other AmazonBrands, from GoodThreads, which offers quality, inexpensive clothing basics, to Stone & Beam, the company's label for modestly priced furniture and home goods.

Warren has billed her plan as a way to promote competition and provide consumers more choices, but the most immediate and obvious effect is that consumers would lose inexpensive, reliable options.

Amazon's house brands are not the only products and services that would be affected. Warren also wants to appoint regulators to unwind some high-profile mergers. Whole Foods would be unwound from Amazon. Mapping service Waze and thermostat maker Nest would be forced apart from Google, whose search and ad business would be affected too. These are useful services, and part of their usefulness comes from their integration with a larger corporate infrastructure, from Google's expertise in artificial intelligence to Amazon's comparative advantage with logistics. Warren wants to make these useful services less useful.

Also, she wants to break up Facebook and Instagram.

And she wouldn't stop with today's tech giants. All companies with more than $25 billion in global revenue that offer an "online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties would be designated as 'platform utilities.'" Large, public-facing companies of the future would be subject to the same treatment. Essentially, they would become quasi-governmental operations, their plans and practices overseen by the likes of, well, Elizabeth Warren. Warren may be running for president, but her plans for large corporations often make it sound like she's running for something more like national CEO.

There is something hubristic about Warren's proposal, which would use the force of law to remake one of the most productive economic sectors of the last four decades. She claims to be doing this in the name of boosting competition and consumer choice, but consumers have already made their choices. All of the companies in her crosshairs grew as large as they did in large part because they provided products and services that consumers wanted. Yes, some have benefited from unwarranted government handouts, but if those are the problem, then Warren should attack them directly. Instead, Warren is focused on a blunt effort to cut them down to size.

Yet for all its scale and scope, there is also something tellingly small and petty about the way her plan would position regulators and lawmakers in between so many minor transactions. Warren, going back to her ideas for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was premised largely on the notion that most people are too dim to understand the contracts they sign, seems to believe that it's government's job to negotiate these transactions for you. She wants to be capitalism's ever-present middleman, the busybody between you and the stuff you want to sell and buy, from houses to HDMI cables.

Warren doesn't frame it that way, of course. She says she wants to regulate big tech because selling on an in-house platform gives a company too much power and leverage, which doesn't serve the interests of consumers.

Instead, she wants to give more power to herself and others in government.

Granted, as a campaign rallying cry, "let's rein in powerful technology companies" sounds a lot more appealing than, "let's get rid of the good, cheap charging cables." But the latter is closer to the truth.

*Disclosure: My wife, Megan McArdle, works for The Washington Post, which is owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

185 responses to “Elizabeth Warren Wants to Make Your Life More Annoying and More Expensive

  1. She can propose whatever she wants, but if it affects Kirkland products at Costco there is going to be a problem.

    1. There will be unintended consequences….so….get ready.

      1. Road to hell…paved with.

        1. progressive potholes

          1. On sunday my check was 1500$ just do work on this website few hour and Earn Easily at home on laptop online .This is enough for me and my family.

            >>=====>>>> http://www.Theprocoin.com

        2. the bodies of Kulaks and wreckers.

        3. Tariff enhanced steel

      2. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

        click here ======?? http://www.Aprocoin.com

        1. Enjoy it while you can, Midogad! Elizabeth Warren is coming for your sweet, sweet Google money!

      3. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out whaat i do…..

        click here ======?? http://www.Theprocoin.com

    2. I love Amazon, but AmazonBasics cables suck ass. I bought them twice, and both times the cable didn’t work. The cheap price means the quality control is lacking.

      1. It really depends on the cable. I buy a lot of cables at work, and I’ll shoot for low cost, but typically reliability is the chief criterion. For some (e.g. Ethernet), Monoprice is the clear winner, for some things (GPIB) going with an established name brand is the way to go, but I won’t hesitate to buy AmazonBasics for, say, HDMI.

      2. It really depends on the cable. I buy a lot of cables at work, and I’ll shoot for low cost, but typically reliability is the chief criterion. For some (e.g. Ethernet), Monoprice is the clear winner, for some things (GPIB) going with an established name brand is the way to go, but I won’t hesitate to buy AmazonBasics for, say, HDMI.

    3. This. From Amazon Basics (Amazon) to Craftsman (Sears, RIP), Saint John’s Bay (Penneys) and on and on, large department stores, grocery stores, etc, all have their store brand.

      Will Ford be able to sell AND manufacture cars under Warren’s plan?

      1. Umm… Ford hasn’t been able to sell cars for a long, long time. Read about Tesla and the fight against the dealer model.

        1. they’ve been doing well in high margin truck/suv sales as have others

          this pisses off the control freak left

          demand meet supply. the market in motion

          1. No, he means that car manufacturers are not allowed to own car dealerships, that’s why they franchise them.

      2. Wel, Ford will already be out of business from the GND before any anti-trust fundementalsm gets sicced on them.

    4. I’m already getting too much Kirkland product when I come here. And it’s the same repetitive shit every time.

      1. know the feeling

        seldom leave Costco for under $200 – $300

        the good side of this is great liquor and meat at good price

        to say nothing of the $1.50 hot dog not great but fills belly and has some flavor

    5. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

      +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+…………….. http://www.Just4Work.com

  2. Y’all better pick Apache of land and hunker down. The Democrats are coming!!!

  3. OK, maybe I have a slight disagreement with Warren on this issue. She’s still far better than Drumpf or any Republican.

    1. So the alt-right persona behind OBL wants to break up the tech giants?

    2. How.

  4. It’s the same idea behind net neutrality – that consumers can’t be trusted just to walk out of their local Whole Foods or Costco if the stores overpromote their house brands.

    Since we are already living in the nightmarish hellscape caused by the removal of net neutrality, I’m surprised more people don’t see the danger of stores selling house brands.

  5. Squaw say “No more wampum for you, paleface!”

  6. What qualifies Warren to dictate to every corporation exactly how they run their business?

    1. Democracy, duh.

      1. Some asshole SCOTUS justice wrote majorities are entitled to govern in most things simply because they are majorities. If the voters want government to run private companies I guess they will get that, good and hard.

      1. New Jersey State

      1. If so it’s from lack of use.

      2. Crusty, this is a bridge too far, even for you.

    2. She has the spirit of the buffalo running thru her?

    3. Her own say so?

    4. Her expertise in finger-wagging?

    5. She’s very smart. Probably smarter than you.

      1. Being smarter than me is not much of an achievement, and it certainly does’t equip her to run even one Fortune 500 company, let alone all of them at once.

        1. This new troll does not know how to play this game.

      2. I know people twice as smart as me that can cause a kitchen fire trying to softboil an egg.

        And she pretends to drink michalob, i mean if your going to pretend that you drink a beer, wouldnt you pretend to drink a better beer?

        1. I’ve always wanted to pretend to be an architect.

        2. I’ve always wanted to pretend to be an architect.

    6. the general welfare claus

      its always the silly SCOTUS rulings on the general welfare claus that lets the feds walk all over us

  7. Breaking product offerings off from marketplaces is a solution to a problem nobody (well, no consumer, at least) has. My general assumption is that, if someone’s going out of their way to push something like that, it’s because they’re looking to solve somebody else’s problem without being too upfront about it. Who would benefit from such a forced breakup?

    1. she’s not looking to solve anyones problems she looking to get these corporations to lobby her with more gifts. they did the same thing to Microsoft which before they threatened to break it up had only two part time lobbiest, they now have over forty full time lobbiest.

      1. They should send her some glass beads.

      2. see history of so called telephone monopolies and anti break up then forced breakup then trying to stop them when they decided to break up

        the government shall have it’s way!

    2. “Who would benefit from such a forced breakup?”

      Sevo’s law:
      Any time a third party sticks its nose in a free transaction between two people, at least one of them and likely both lose.

  8. Warren manages to be more unpleasent than even Hillary. Hillary as craven and evil as she is wants to steal more than anything. Warren is a true believer in controlling other people’s life in a way someone as cynical and narcasistic as Hillary never could be.

    1. If you were to merge Hillary and Warren what would you get?

      1. Doloros Umbridge?

        1. Sandwich wins the internetz.

        2. You mean like Goldfinger merged Mr. Solo and a Lincoln Continental? I’d say you’d get a great day.

      2. Something more powerful than you can possibly imagine?

        1. And I certainly wouldn’t touch it, even with a lightsaber.

        2. If Warren, Bernie, AOC, Kamala Harris and Klobuchar combine their rings, they summon Captain Plan It.

          1. And it would be most cunty.

      3. Warllary?

      4. The Plains Buffalo Snuke?

      5. just no.

      6. The Beast with Two Snatches?

        1. Each with fork-ed tongues?

      7. AOC

    2. And what is it with the pantsuits?

      1. It easy for them to whip their dicks out.

  9. She’s an inauthentic pain in the ass.

    1. As a PITA she is very authentic.

    2. Can you imagine combining Hillary’s shrill voice, with the irritating whiny note from Warren, and then adding in AOC’s ‘like’s and ‘you know’s.

      The creature would have to be hunted down and killed. Bring in General Thunderbolt Ross and the Hulkbusters to take it down.

  10. NAILED IT: THATS WHATS WRONG WITH THE INTERNET!

  11. She’s merely outlining publicly how she plans to extort them into making massive “campaign contributions” in order to be left alone.

    1. should have read your first but agreed

    2. It’s a new age of political transparency!

  12. Also, she wants to break up Facebook and Instagram. And she wouldn’t stop with today’s tech giants. All companies with more than $25 billion in global revenue that offer an “online marketplace, an exchange, or a platform for connecting third parties would be designated as ‘platform utilities.'” Large, public-facing companies of the future would be subject to the same treatment.

    So, look on the bright side. Obviously she’s gearing up for breaking apart the large, public-facing government of the future.

    1. So she is really running as the black flag candidate who would, amazingly, break up govt. Wow. But then OTOH, her govt would have no public face other than the late night calls from gentleman dressed in black.

  13. I started ordering all my groceries from Whole Foods via Amazon, and except for the fact that I can’t get certain brand staples like Heinz ketchup, it suits my lifestlye. I think they also made Whole Foods cheaper (?). This is an idea that might make sense in theory but in practice would seem to make me drive back to Wal-Mart, and what benefit is accomplished by that?

    1. “…and what benefit is accomplished by that?”

      You might learn that your tribe is full of nasty thugs.

      1. Who appear to have an affinity for pant suits.

      2. Unlike your tribe who puts children in cages for the crime of being born in the wrong race.

        1. Ugh, so dishonest it isn’t even worth correcting. You’d literally have to be about 50% more correct to get to “untruth” in the Pants on Fire lie scale.

        2. You’re still on that despite evidence to the contrary?

          For the love of God, Tony.

          1. There’s evidence to the contrary that refugees aren’t being put in cages?

            1. “There’s evidence to the contrary that refugees aren’t being put in cages?”

              Just once, you steaming pile of shit, post something that isn’t an outright lie.
              Fuck off, slaver

            2. That it’s not just specific to this administration.

              1. That it’s not just specific to this administration.

                I would say Tony is well aware of that, but we *are* talking about the “science believing” guy who thinks that global warming will heat the Earth to 800 degrees F, killing off every form of life in the process.

                So, yeah, he probably thinks those pictures started with Trump. Or, as he prefers, “worst President ever”, because he did something other Presidents also did.

                1. Two wrongs make a right. Both sidesism. Whataboutism.

                  These are your fallacies.

                  1. *You* are the OP who was insisting that only libertarians (because that’s *my* tribe) put children in cages. *You* brought it up, not us. *You’re* the one engaging in whataboutism.

                    Idiot scores another own-goal.

            3. There are about, what, 12 million free range illegal border crossers loose in the country.
              So as a general rule, they aren’t put in cages.

              Now, since it goes without saying, I probably need to remind you that criminal border crossers are not refugees.
              Nor are they immigrants.
              They are criminals.

              1. Laws do not engender rights, and collective rights are nothing more than the amalgamation of individual rights.

                Moreover, your laws infringe upon my property rights as well as my right to free association, and they are therefore not capable of creating
                criminality in their breach.

                Criminals, my ass. Besides, you’re the useful idiot of crypto-communist collectivism, which makes you way worse.

        3. “Unlike your tribe who puts children in cages for the crime of being born in the wrong race.”

          Just once, you steaming pile of shit, post something that isn’t an outright lie.
          Fuck off, slaver

          1. I think he was referring to FDR.

            1. Damn, you beat me to it!

            2. tents aren’t cages you know

              besides it was for their own good

            3. tents aren’t cages you know

              besides it was for their own good

          2. “Unlike your tribe who puts children in cages for the crime of being born in the wrong race.”

            No, that was also your tribe

      3. Tony will have that look on his face that Useful Idiots have, when the Socialists at the top put them against the wall.

        1. No leftist ever lined people up against the wall for being gay, right?

        2. the same one Zuck and other tech titans are now wearing as they come to realize that their former two left footed dance partners can turn on them like a cur dog

      4. “…and what benefit is accomplished by that?”

        You might learn that your tribe is full of nasty thugs.

        I think I see a problem with what you wrote….

    2. This is an idea that might make sense in theory

      This, you slaver, is the ends you come to when you let you preciousssss governmentses run industry:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakhty_Trial

    3. This is an idea that might make sense in theory but in practice would seem to make me drive back to Wal-Mart

      So: You’re cool with destroying the lifetime’s work of company owners, eradicating hundreds of billions of dollars of shareholder value, probably eventually putting tens of thousands of people out of work (those companies sold out because they couldn’t compete on their own) and basically wiping your ass with the Bill of Rights (re: taking of property without compensation), but…since you still have to get your ketchup at Wal-Mart, it’s not really worth it in this instance.

      You’re a towering intellectual and a paragon of virtue.

    4. Gee Tony, I thought you proggy fags were too hip for Walmart.

  14. I’ve used Amazon Basics products; I found them to be of good quality and value, just as Suderman reports.

    I think Warren’s problem is that anything of any consequence [size and money] just “needs” to be controlled managed by the government; there is no expected benefit to the consumer because someone has the economy of scale to provide better and more affordable products. It’s about the socialism.

    1. And besides knowing that government control is always better, progressives know that people need to be protected, including from themselves.

  15. Comrade Fakeahontus loves to tax, regulate, and control.

    It turns her on !

    1. at least something does

      that dour bitch

  16. Huh. So that bitch can go ahead and fuck right off.

  17. I like the principle. Why should Starbucks be able to push their own brand of coffee; let ’em sell Maxwell House. Trader Joe’s can make do with the same brands as Safeway (not including, of course, the to-be-banned Safeway house brands). There’s no reason for a Texaco station to sell only Texaco brand gas. All those brew pubs can darn well serve Bud Lite instead of steering the consumer to their in house brands. Viva consumer choice!

    Don’t even get me going about car dealers. I went to the Ford dealer to try and buy a new Toyota, and they kept pushing Fords instead – they didn’t have a single new Toyota to test drive!

    1. Tony will be forced to bring at least one broad along for his glory hole.

  18. This reminds me of something… Help me out here…

    What’s the name of that form of government that allows private ownership of business, but dictates social and economic control of its citizens, and allows no expression of political disagreement? If I remember right, those smart and classy Europeans were totally into this stuff back in the 1920s…

    1. The person credited with its invention described it as follows:

      Everything for the State.
      Nothing against the State.
      Nothing outside the State.

      1. The anti-fascists will start protesting Mx. Warren any day now.

        1. They are not anti that kind of fascist.

      2. please translate into Italian

  19. Liberals, for all their talk about democracy they have no understanding of voting with their dollars.

    1. Dollars belong to the government, silly.

      1. Michael Moore was gibnerong about how wealth doesn’t belong to people a few years ago. He said it’s not theirs, and that it’s a national resource. Except his of course. That fat fuck would never part with a dime of his own money.

    2. Wait, you can’t pay dead men to vote anymore?

    3. only Republicans do that

  20. >>>”They don’t get to do both at the same time.”

    yeah well you don’t get to be president either so …

  21. IIRC from my marketing classes the rather large supermarket chain, Krogers, is the best profit making chain there is. That is largely because they own their own farms and dairies which produce much of their private label goods for the customers.

    Yes, that gives them a financial advantage over everyone else. Yes, Warren’s plan would take this away from Kroger.

    What a good slogan for 2020.

    “Warren… making you all pay more for your food.”

    1. Kroger or anyone else being a successful profit making chain will stop when she implements her “United States Corporation” nonsense and takes over the boards of said corporations.

      1. Nah, just revolt and overthrow her and her friends. Which should already be happening.

        You can’t have socialism if there are no more socialists.

      2. throw in some women and other protected class nonesense along with the rainbow crowd with her on all these boards just as “fairness” and im sure well have nirvana

    2. That must be an old case study, Kroger stock is in the crapper. They were able to scale tho.

    3. My bil says the same thing about his dairy farms. would have never survived if they didn’t grow their own feed on farm

  22. Who is she pandering to here? Most progressives/millennials love Amazon and Facebook. I don’t see how making these companies out to be the bad guys helps her election chances. I personally love watching these progressive politicians turn on their own base but am I missing something here? Surely there are better targets for this progressive/socialist arms race to the bottom.

  23. Christ, what a cunt.

    1. That sums her up all right.

  24. I await the Washington Post’s attacks on Ms. Warren, since she’s decided to try and kick over Jeff Bezos’ rice bowl.

    1. If the 2020 election comes down to Trump running against Elizabeth Warren on a ‘destroy Amazon’ platform, the Washington Post’s endorsement of Trump will create a black hole that will wipe D.C. off the face of the Earth.

      And there was great rejoicing.

      1. It would make it easier to round up and dispose of the rest of America’s progtard infestation.

  25. How DARE consumers make choices I don’t approve of!

    1. In order to fit on a bumper sticker;

      “How dare consumers make choices”

      1. “Nobody needs 16 different kinds of deodorant to choose from.”

    2. we know what you need

  26. Instead of piddling around with Amazon Liz, how about you break up a couple of organizations that actively and blatantly stifle all competition and control way more money than those little piss-ant companies. I’m talking about the Republican and Democrat parties, of course. If you want to get the biggest fish, there she blows.

    1. whales arent fush

      fish don’t blow

  27. She’s a walking, breathing version of Jimmy Carter’s “Malaise” speech.

  28. She’s a walking, breathing version of Jimmy Carter’s “Malaise” speech.

  29. All you have to know about Liz is that her pride and joy is the CFPB, a truly independent government agency in that it is accountable to no one and is a law unto itself. For as much as these people claim to love Democracy, they sure as hell don’t like the little people being able to stick their noses in the business of the experts and the technocrats. And what is the free market if not the idea that the little people want what they want and think they should get it despite Leftists stamping their feet and demanding people should want what they’re told they should want?

  30. Amazon Basics?
    Perhaps this is the one good idea she has had recently.
    It certainly has a precedent in when the Feds forced the Hollywood studios to dispose of their owned and operated theaters back in the Late-40’s – Early-50’s.

    1. Any time a third party sticks its nose into a free exchange between two parties, one or both of those parties suffer.
      Screw the government saying who can own what.

  31. She’s a petty authoritarian, a fascist for the 21st century…

  32. Good for her. I couldn’t care less who sells Amazon’s rebranded crap, since someone is making it and it WILL be sold anyway – and probably for about what it is going for now, and on the same platform.

    All big corps, utilities (which shouldn’t be private anyway), suppliers, pig farms, agribusiness, etc should be shattered down to sizes that allow proper competition, innovation, etc and create more jobs. Is that efficient? No. Is it good for the economy and quality of products? Yes.

    1. “All big corps, utilities (which shouldn’t be private anyway), suppliers, pig farms, agribusiness, etc should be shattered down to sizes that allow proper competition, innovation, etc and create more jobs. Is that efficient? No. Is it good for the economy and quality of products? Yes.”

      It is none of that; you’re full of shit.
      Fuck off, slaver.

    2. Is it good for the economy and quality of products? Yes.

      I guess it’s free Internet time at the retard school today. So having a bunch of little, cash-poor Amazon wanna-bes is good for innovation and creates more jobs? a) How the fuck does a tiny company compete with the R&D opportunities available to Amazon? b) If breaking up Amazon to create a bunch of little Amazons creates more jobs, where does the money come from? (Hint, since you’re a retard: Google “economies of scale”.) c) Why the fuck would any of those little Amazons innovate *anything* when they know they’ll just get their figurative heads chopped off if they become too successful (again, retard hint: listen to Rush’s The Trees). d) Show me where the Constitution allows for that kind of action (hint: look for the “takings” clause in the BoR) e) How do you plan to compensate all the shareholders (which is basically anyone with a 401-k) when you destroy the businesses whose stock they hold? (See “d”.)

      e) Fuck off, slaver. Go back to Slate, Huffington Post or whatever slaver retard hellhole you crawled from.

    3. Inefficiencies are good for the economy and good for product quality? Are you high?

    4. Is that efficient? No. Is it good for the economy and quality of products? Yes.

      How is inefficiency good for the economy?

      1. Volume.

  33. Or, how I learned to stop worrying and love monopolies.

    I mean, isn’t it fantastic? Amazon has so much market power that they can provide their own branded products at low-low-low prices on their own online marketplace! Does this push other vendors out of the Amazon platform or represent unfair competition with brick-and-mortar retailers? Don’t know, don’t care! Gimme my cheap cables!

    These networked services provide easy and convenient compatibility between all of my Google-affiliated devices and software! So cool and modern! Does this mean that it’s very unlikely that I’ll ever try out other services or products? Who cares? I like my load-out!

    I am, right now, more or less 100% locked into Apple products and software. I have an Apple laptop, Apple mobile devices, Apple accessories, and so on. I probably won’t ever try non-Apple programs to manage my music library or non-Apple phones, and it may be another several years before I buy a non-Apple laptop. Is this because I love Apple? No, it irritates the fuck out of me. But it’s cornered just enough of my life that it’s easier to just go with the Apple-flow than it is to migrate, wholesale or piecemeal, to the few alternatives that are actually available.

    That’s monopoly power.

    1. No that’s your personal problem, you fucking moron. And fuck off while you are at it, statist bootlicker.

    2. Apple. LOL

      Yeah, you could always go with the Windows PC and Android phone combo… You’d have spent half the money for better products. But who am I to judge!

  34. you will if she has her way

  35. Kroger would like a word with you, Fauxcahontas.

    She clearly does not want to be President. No retailer will support her. There are entire COMPANIES based around selling their own brands on their own platforms.

  36. I’ll tell you the biggest reason Warren is such an idiot: because in 10 years most of the companies that she is trying to break-up will be also rans or deunct.

    Look at the companies that the Trustbusters went after the last 40-50 years, and then what happened:

    ATT – long distance became too cheap to meter, they became a mere shell and someone bought there trademark for peanuts.

    IBM- got their lunch eaten by Microsoft, Dell, and Intel.

    Microsoft – Google smacked them around in the browser wars, now they get by on xboxes, the cloud, and desktop and server operating systems, but they have plenty of competetion with linux, Apple, and chromebook.

  37. The arrogance of this fraudster knows no bounds. Many companies offering similar products and many consumers free to make their choices. But no she/government will decide. All reduced to public utilities were competing price/service and innovation goes to die.

  38. I honestly don’t much care about product companies at all. I just don’t see where it ever rises to the point of being a problem, even if they have near monopoly levels of power. They’re either providing a better service, or a competitor will come in soon enough.

    I DO find the media/control of information companies troubling though. The mere fact that Google skews their search results against political views they don’t like… Censors ONLY non left wing content on YouTube… That Facebook and Twitter do the same… That WaPo, NYTs, and almost every other mainstream media outfit somehow ALL push left wing agendas, AND seem to have very cozy relationships with all the other big lefty corporations…

    This kind of stuff worries me.

    Because here’s the thing: Even if we assume that Google is having its 30 years of being big pimpin’, and eventually be a 2nd rate multibillion dollar business… If they literally manipulate election results and swing several elections in favor of leftists… That has REAL consequences FAR worse than any of the economic harms that might be brought about by pretty much any action.

    1. I don’t like the idea of any form of regulation on principle… And I don’t think breaking them up makes any sense.

      Personally, I think some tweaking of requiring speech/search platforms being neutral or whatever is all that is needed. That doesn’t really interfere with the market, but fixes the censorship issue if one can find a reasonable way of wording the law. This doesn’t fix the traditional media, but that shit is going the way of the dinosaur anyway, and without censorship alternative media can actually function without being impeded as the market demands.

      The devil would surely be in the details, but I think some sort of neutrality/free speech doctrine could be done within reason. A law like “Any website that allows users commentary cannot limit legal speech on its platform, unless it is specifically billed as a platform supporting a particular ideology or viewpoint.” Then if somebody wants to have a Communist only website, they can do so, but they have to at least admit that they’re censoring shit.

      I dunno. All that I know is the current situation is VERY dangerous. Trump is no savior, but consider this: If all the social media companies were censoring their websites as heavily in 2016 as they are now, Trump almost certainly would have lost.

      1. Purist libertarians may be saying “So what, he sucks!” now… But what if 6 years from now an ACTUAL awesome libertarian REALLY had a shot at winning… Until they get knee capped too? I don’t know that there is a libertarian way to clean out the leftists infestation we have honestly… So it may be a matter of simply allowing yourself to be violated, or making a small violation of principle to achieve a far greater end result. Are you willing to be principled to the point of suicide?

  39. Apparently the Amazon Basics batteries in her vibrator cut out at an inopportune moment. They’ll pay for that.

  40. I have listen to Elizabeth Warren’s case, and noted that Pete Buttigieg has also mentioned the problem. Do these large sales platforms take advantage of small businesses. They assist them in the short run by providing a sales platform but then undercut them if they are successful by competing against them. The store brand argument is valid to a point, but store brands typically are cheaper versions of common products. The argument made by Warren and Butigieg is the attack on innovation. I develop a new app and Apple lets me sell the app. If the app does well, Apple hires (not me) but another firm to write a similar app and then sell it as their own. In doing so under cutting all my work to develop the app. Again this strikes me as a problem with big data and companies that can collect and go over that data for an advantage. If we don’t want government regulation then how do we maintain a competitive open market?

  41. The Russians don’t want any of the Democrats to win. So you’re going to see a lot of smearing of all the Democratic candidates in the hopes people will be stupid enough to not even bother voting in November because the Democrat isn’t perfect. That happened in 2016 and people really are that stupid. These people would stay in a burning building because it’s not a nice day outside.

  42. This sort of breakup happened to Viacom and we got Star Trek: Discovery, have we learned nothing?

  43. just before I looked at the paycheck four $6755, I accept that my friend could realey making money in there spare time online.. there friend brother haz done this less than 22 months and resently cleard the morgage on their appartment and purchased a great new Acura. I went here,

  44. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+…………….. http://www.Just4Work.com

  45. Reed College has an annual tuition of around $50,000

  46. I earned $9000 last month by working online just for 7 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. GBd If You too want to earn such a big money then come?2019 news
    Try it, you won’t regret it!?..

    SEE HERE http://xurl.es/Justwork

  47. I earned $9000 last month by working online just for 7 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. GBd If You too want to earn such a big money then come?2019 news
    Try it, you won’t regret it!?..

    SEE HERE http://xurl.es/Justwork

  48. my buddy’s mother-in-law makes $72/hr on the . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her paycheck was $21863 just working on the for a few hours. Read more on this site

  49. Oh heck, every Democrat does that already. As well as the Repubs.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.