Technology

Google CEO Sundar Pichai Is Right: Companies That Dominate Today May Be Gone Tomorrow

Today's antitrust activists forget that big companies with significant market share come and go.

|

In a recent interview with the BBC, Google/Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai reacted to the recent wave of antitrust sentiment leveled at today's largest tech companies:

I think about are we innovating enough? So that we are relevant 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years from now. And I know the work that goes into to earn that every year, we have to re-earn it and you know if we miss a single trend.

You know, you can go back 10 years ago or 15 years ago and look at the top market cap companies. I'm sure their CEOs were in discussions like this. Some of those companies are not the top companies today.

It's always been true when you look back. So, if anything you're making a case somehow this time will be different. That there are these companies which will somehow always be the most successful companies.

Pichai is right that companies are regularly displaced from their position at the top. The Cato Institute's Ryan Bourne has studied this, using the example of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P), which he calls "the Amazon of its day":

The company revolutionized retail, disrupting the grocery sector into the chainstore model that evolved into the modern supermarket. In doing so, it was accused of all the charges currently leveled at Jeff Bezos's tech company. This included accusations it was harming local economies by usurping sole-proprietor retailers, engaging in predatory price cutting, giving preference to its own products over those of rivals within its marketplace, and exacting "unfair" monopsony pressure on wholesalers and suppliers.

Instead of buying from specialty shops, customers could buy from a standardized chain store that consolidated baker shops, butcher shops, and the like under one roof, while buying the rest of the goods in bulk, therefore cutting prices significantly. In the 1920s, A&P had "more stores than its next four chain-store competitors combined." Instead of being celebrated for revolutionizing grocery shopping and delivering cheaper goods to customers than ever before, critics scorned A&P for creating a monopoly through its ability to outperform the competition. Regulators came after the company in the '40s, and competition from other warehouse-like huge grocers, plus a failure to continuously innovate, hobbled the company. From 1915 to 1975, A&P was the largest grocery retailer in the whole country. It went out of business in 2015, and plenty of people alive today have never heard of it, let alone shopped at one of its stores.

Today's Big Tech critics forget that companies with significant market share come and go. "The first big case antitrust enforcers filed against a computing company came in 1969, when the DOJ sued IBM for allegedly monopolizing the 'general-purpose digital computers' market in an anti-competitive way," writes Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown. The federal government ended up spending almost $17 million dollars on the case, but "by the time the case was dismissed, technology and market changes had already made the whole thing obsolete. IBM's market power dwindled on its own as conditions evolved and new competitors emerged—no regulatory intervention needed."

The great antitrust push of the 2020s rests on the strange assumption that this sort of creative destruction won't happen, despite the fact that the historical record indicates the opposite.

Woolworth fell, unseated by the world's new suburban Walmarts and Targets. PanAm's routes were taken over by Delta. Nobody gives a shit about AOL anymore. Physical DVD rental at Blockbuster was destroyed first by Netflix's DVD-by-mail operation, then by streaming. Today, Netflix is challenged by Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, HBO Max, and Disney+. Vine didn't have a particularly successful run with millennials, but TikTok has succeeded with Gen Z. Eastman Kodak was crippled by the rise of digital cameras before being obliterated by the advent of the technologically advanced cameras found in iPhones. Companies that were once hard to topple have cratered in the face of fierce competition.

When people have assumed the existing top players will dominate forever, they've been repeatedly proven wrong. This was true in the 20th century, and it's true in the 21st. But today's antitrust crusaders have found a large number of boosters on the left and the right who seem to think this time is different; free marketers who want companies to succeed or fail on their own merit, beware: The regulators are coming.

NEXT: More Mask Mandates Could Be Coming Even Though Vaccination Is Key to Curbing COVID-19

Technology Google Capitalism Free Markets Business and Industry Creative Destruction Antitrust

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.

Please to post comments

83 responses to “Google CEO Sundar Pichai Is Right: Companies That Dominate Today May Be Gone Tomorrow

  1. Don’t forget the Sears Roebuck catalog.

    1. What is “Sears?” What’s a “catalog?”

      1. It’s a printout of Amazon. Com

        1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid in the range of 7,000-14,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

          See….. Visit Here

      2. Think paper version of Amazon.

    2. Terrible example.

      Sears committed suicide. The internet was it’s perfect medium and it could’ve ruled the world. Insane business decisions are what killed it.
      It didn’t just simply become obsolete.

      Besides, Sears still ruled for a century, and it didn’t have the anticompetitive regulations in place to help it kill the competition like Amazon and Google do.

      1. In the early 2000s (the Doule-Oughts or the Uh-Ohs,) I seen first-hand and then researched what Sears did to itself that made it fall. It eliminated whole departments and section of the store that offered products people wanted, needed, and loved.

        First it eliminated it’s housing business. They once sold entire houses that they shiped by rail all over the nation and which were so solid and strong, some are still standing and in use today! Then, the next line they eliminated was sporting goods, especially fishing boats and guns! Then, they eliminated toys and their famous Wish Book that came out a few months before the Holidays!

        They tried getting into the online world with Prodigy, but that was remembered even less than AOL and CompuServe, so obviously that was a flop!

        I was there when my store eliminated sewing machines and bolts of cloth that were so popular with women in our community!

        To sum up, Sears evieently thought that they could offer less and go mediocre and high-priced on their remaining items and still turn a profit. It just doesn’t work that way in retail. So now Sears is in the elephant graveyard of retail. No surprises here.

    3. I mean Hitler was destined to die at some time. Why bother. These companies are using anti market principles now to stifle competition, violating normal contract laws with consumers etc. Why ignore the bad today because eventually the sun will turn into a dwarf star?

      What a simpleton.

      1. Hitler would’ve been 132 this year. Well past his possible lifespan.

        I’m sure if left alone a kinder, gentler Führer und Reichskanzler would eventually replace him. Kind of like the USSR after Stalin, or China after Mao.

        Eventually these companies will no longer abuse regulations to go scorched earth on small upstarts, so we shouldn’t turf those anti-competitive regulations.

        1. Holy Godwin- Honecker was so much kinder and gentler that he fled to South America!

      2. So you are comparing the provision of goods and services with plunder and extermination? How does that work?

      3. So you are comparing the provision of goods and services with plunder and extermination??? How does that work?

    4. Do you think it would be harsh to point out that Liz picked a really stupid example to start her article?

      “At its peak in the 1940s, A&P captured 10% of total US grocery spending…” Levinson, Marc. The Great A&P and the Struggle for Small Business in America. p. 7.

      Compare that to Walmarts’s current 25% share.

      1. Yes.

    5. If you grew up with one how could you? It was like PG-Rated porn if you didn’t have real porn in the house.

  2. “IBM’s market power dwindled on its own as conditions evolved and new competitors emerged—no regulatory intervention needed.”

    They may have been hamstrung by the case itself.

    ” Netflix is challenged by Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, HBO Max, and Disney+”

    Netflix was a distribution company. It turns out that content might be important, too.

    1. Also Netflix didn’t start streaming until after Hulu came around

      1. Yeah, Netflix started as a company that you could rent these things called “DVD’s” through the mail.

  3. Counter Argument:
    Regulatory Capture / Influence Buying and Too Big To Fail.

    We have seen a few instances over the last few months where DNS, Amazon AWS, Cloudflare CDN problems have created world wide internet outages affecting millions of people and businesses.

    1. If every manufacturer and supplier and service provider ran their own infrastructure in their own “glass house” with their own cross site networking arrangements, would the “average person hours of consumer disruption” have been less or just spread around more randomly? I suspect not – in part because the individual outages would have lasted longer — when Sam’s Shoe Shop site is down, Sam usually doesn’t have a tech team on speed dial to diagnose and fix the problem in minutes or hours.

      None of the problems of the ones you refer to, as far as I recall, caused what I would consider “world wide” internet outages — they interfered with access by some users in some areas when accessing some sites but not all internet users in any area, let alone worldwide.

      There have been a few instances over the years of what I might consider “worldwide” internet outages for some geographic regions preventing virtually everyone in one geographic region from accessing the internet in general or sites hosted in certain other geographical regions. However, these were caused by failures in networking infrastructure provided by ISPs and/or Tier 1 providers.

      Should we break up the Tier 1 providers also? Every business or entity that wants to access the internet or provide such access to customers would then just runs their own twisted pairs across the landscape between each customer and their data center?

      1. “Sam usually doesn’t have a tech team on speed dial to diagnose and fix the problem in minutes or hours.”

        I’m part owner in a small business. We have a contract with a tech support company that does, in fact, fix any problems we have in minutes or hours.

      2. Still, given the way telco is regulated (to include internet), we aren’t likely to see Ford / GM / Chrysler or IBM / Compaq / HP or even Intel / AMD / ARM big but competing IN THE SAME segments. Sure we have Amazon / Google / Oracle / Apple. Which try their best to NOT compete (see also fixing market place for workers).

        Sundar is arguing for the maintaining the status quo his company has won. Wow. So brave.

  4. If we can just force Microsoft to uninstall IE4.0, their domination of the Internet will be halted.

    1. ^

  5. So his defense is don’t regulate us because we might be gone someday. Wow that is a lame argument. But the damage is being done now, through social corrosion. Amoral billionaires.

    1. Stop calling for natural gas and gun regulations, those businesses will eventually go bankrupt of their own accord.

    2. Google has lost market share and antitrust is coming their way. They see the writing on the wall.

      I hope after civil war 2.0 ends, the burning hulks that used to be google buildings and data centers are put to good use.

      1. Yeah but then you will have to go back to mimeographing your newsletter and handing it out on street corners.

        1. We have never stopped

  6. The seminal work on modern anti-trust theory: https://youtu.be/I7hhqX1PANU

    1. Was that the movie where he scrapes his arm with a fork and pours Chinese food on it?

    2. Aww, if Bill Gates had only found that One Genius Programmer…

  7. Apart from security concerns (and maybe even despite them) I do not support the president being able to ban companies in the United States and force them to sell their U.S. operations to a U.S. owned company. When you see the government reorganize entrepreneurial companies, the system will end up in a very bad way.

    However, I once saw a drunk hit an 18 at the blackjack table and win (the dealer was showing a 6), and while I would never approve of what Trump was doing to TikTok in principle, there was a legitimate chance that the entity that emerged from the acquisition of TikTok by Oracle and Walmart might have been a serious competitor to Amazon.

    The barriers to competing with Amazon have to do with 1) the massive scale of their distribution network (both their ability to source products in places like China and deliver them inexpensively to places like Peoria), 2) the amount of data they can collect about both consumers and their customers for targeted advertising through services like Amazon Prime Video and on their website, and 3) the massive software and IT infrastructure they use to do things like cloud computing and AI.

    Google competes with Amazon on some of those fronts. Walmart competes with them on others. If the Oracle-Walmart partnership had acquired TikTok, it would have brought all three of those facets of Amazon’s dominance together under a competing roof–and they would have competed with Amazon directly in distribution, data collection for advertising–at the scale Amazon has achieved. So why don’t they do it themselves anyway now that Biden killed the deal?

    Emperor Xi has declared war on American influence in China’s technology industry, and Trump’s TikTok deal may have set that off. TikTok’s ownership has heavy ties to the CCP and the Chinese military. Emperor Xi won’t even let Chinese companies go public in the U.S., and has scuttled some of the biggest IPOs of the last year for fear of subjecting Chinese companies to American regulation. He killed Jack Ma’s Ant IPO and the IPO for Didi (China’s answer to Uber). That window of opportunity has closed.

    1. So, why don’t Walmart and Oracle get together and create a hit video sharing service or social media network of their own?

      If they could, I’m sure they would. The apps high school girls and college kids suddenly get hip to isn’t exactly a hard science. The recording industry stays up late every night trying to sell them what they hope will be the next big thing–only to have it fail miserably. If Oracle and Walmart were trying to make a hit app, it would probably go over like the Nickelback or Christian metal. Hip is organic, and it comes up from the street.

      As phones and the software that runs them and runs on them become a commodity product, as the smartphone market matures, I could see Google losing their dominant position. Amazon is a retailer of commodity products.

      Amazon can deliver fresh blackberries to my door in two hours for less than it costs be to buy them from the nearest grocery store–that specializes in produce–and the blackberries I get from Amazon are of higher quality than I can find anywhere else.

      How does that advantage go away?

      If energy were extremely expensive, that might change, but Amazon is on top of being energy efficient. They’re buying whole fleets of electric delivery trucks. Maybe automated delivery could unseat them, but aren’t they likely to be on top of that, too?

      1. Walmart entered into a non-compete agreement with Netflix that they wouldn’t start a streaming service

        1. TikTok and YouTube (proper, not YouTube TV) aren’t streaming services per se. Vimeo and Rumble aren’t streaming services either. Rumble calls itself a video hosting service. Twitch isn’t a really a streaming service either–so much as they do live broadcasting. And guess who bought Twitch?

          Hint: The new owner of Twitch rhymes with Glamazon.

    2. There are technical issues that run so deep, it’s hard to get a handle on where the dangers may be.

      To operate legitimately in China, you’re not allowed to encrypt certain things, or use an encryption for which you provide the keys the Chinese Government etc. These rules run wide and deep.

      So when you have an American company that’s “following the rules” and/or cooperating with the Chinese government, it’s hard to know how secure they’re keeping your personal information.

      1. I’m looking at this purely from the perspective of a competitor to Amazon’s retail operations emerging.

        Walmart’s online offerings have improved dramatically over the last few years as Amazon sucks so many of their customers away, but in order to compete with Amazon, they also need to source all kinds of consumer data for targeted advertising. They need to pay to do that, and they need to do it on someone else’s TikTok, YouTube, Google search, or Facebook social media advertising platform–and those platforms aren’t just selling Walmarts’ advertising. They’re selling that data and their advertising space to Walmart’s competitors, too.

        Amazon’s retail dominance is in large part fueled by the quality data they generate internally–from their own website, from what you watch on Firewire and Amazon Prime Video, from what you say to your Echo smart speakers. That’s why Walmart wanted to buy TikTok in a consortium with Oracle and house TikTok’s U.S. sourced data on Oracle’s servers. In order to compete with Amazon, they need to be able to internally generate their own consumer data from exclusive services like Amazon does.

        Amazon knows what you’re looking for. Facebook knows what their users are looking for. Google knows what their users are looking for. TikTok knows a lot about their users, too. The two top bidders for TikTok’s American assets were a 1) a consortium between Oracle and Walmart and 2) a consortium between Microsoft and Walmart. If the FTC forced Facebook to divest itself of Instagram and WhatsApp, Walmart would almost certainly be the highest bidder for one of those assets.

        It is unlikely that those assets would be sold privately. They could make much more spinning them off in an IPO. It’s unlikely that Walmart and a technology partner like Oracle or Microsoft could afford to pay the kind of multiple on earnings that Instagram and WhatsApp would command in an IPO. So, we’re back to square one.

        Set the security concerns aside. How does a commodity retailer build a distribution network that stretches from Xinjiang to Peoria and emerge as a long term viable competitor to Amazon–on a cost basis–under these conditions?

        If there were a war between the U.S. and China or a violent revolution in China, that would create a big disruption and a lot of serious problems for both Amazon and Walmart, but Amazon’s data advantage would still favor them over Walmart. If energy costs skyrocketed, Amazon could probably deliver to customers via electric vehicles for less than customers could drive to Walmart. Because dominant retailers like A&P and Sears have stumbled and fallen in the past, doesn’t mean Amazon will in the future.

    3. When you see the government reorganize entrepreneurial companies, the system will end up in a very bad way.

      Google stopped being an entrepreneurial company more than a decade ago. Ditto for Amazon.

      1. They’re privately owned companies with the management chosen by shareholders and the profits either invested or distributed to the owners. They compete for customers. They are not a government owned entity, and they seek profits. You make not like them, but they’re entrepreneurial companies.

        1. First of all, you’re confusing “private company” with “entrepreneurial company”. Entrepreneurial companies develop new ideas and create new markets; neither Amazon nor Google have done that in more than a decade. That is what I was referring to. At best, at this point, Google and Amazon are mature, aging, dull behemoths.

          But it’s questionable whether those companies can even be called “private” anymore. Google and Amazon have the government as major customers, they provide massive surveillance and private info to the government, they are beneficiaries of regulatory capture, and they are subject to massive government pressures. If Google or Amazon don’t do what government regulators or politicians want, much of their wealth and value can be destroyed quickly.

  8. Google CEO Sundar Pichai Is Right: Companies That Dominate Today May Be Gone Tomorrow

    True, but what’s interesting and important is what they’re doing while they’re still here.

    1. “Don’t look into big tech fascism now because maybe it won’t be as bad tomorrow”

    2. So what are they doing right now that’s so evil? Other than just being big, that is. And what, specifically, does anti-trust have to do with fixing those evils?

      Google has an atrocious view of privacy. I think they honestly don’t understand why some of us value it. But those evils should be fixed with better privacy laws, not by the blunt instrument of anti-trust.

      1. So what are they doing right now that’s so evil?

        Spying on users. Colluding with the government on censorship. Manipulating elections in favor of one party over another.

        But those evils should be fixed with better privacy laws, not by the blunt instrument of anti-trust.

        No, they can’t be fixed with better privacy laws because Washington likes all the private and personal data Google, Amazon, etc. amass, data that is at the fingertips of Washington.

        You need to stop viewing companies like Google as private companies; they have become intermingled with the government.

        1. re: “No, they can’t be fixed with better privacy laws because Washington likes all the private and personal data …”

          That’s a very cynical thing to say – and quite likely to be true. Nevertheless, that also undercuts the argument that anti-trust will be any use. If the government won’t enforce privacy law against Google, et al, it won’t enforce antitrust against them either.

          1. The US government responds to the demands of voters. Many voters don’t see the threat from privacy violations. But voters are p*ssed off over the actions of monopolies, poor customer service, deliberate incompatibily, and lack of choice. And half of the voters hate the massive wealth the founders and CEOs of those companies have accumulated, more than half if you include conservatives who don’t have a problem with wealth per se but with crony capitalism.

            All of that means that there is a better chance to do something about Google and Amazon on monopoly grounds than on privacy grounds.

      2. They worked with the CCP to develop a social credit score. assisting in genocide is pretty bad in my opinion

      3. Google has an atrocious view of privacy. I think they honestly don’t understand why some of us value it. But those evils should be fixed with better privacy laws, not by the blunt instrument of anti-trust.

        Fucking up privacy and property ownership laws not enouth for you? Gotta invent some new ones, wait for them to fuck them up too and then pretend like they aren’t doing anything wrong?

        1. Maybe read the comment and answer the actual question? What are they doing that anti-trust will fix?

      4. Contract violations, buy and kills, collusion to shut down competitors…

    3. Don’t worry Google will be replaced by another entity that will censor you on behalf of the government.
      Does anyone seriously think the government’s going to let Big Tech fail?

      1. Liz Wolfe apparently.

  9. Google CEO Sundar Pichai Is Right: Companies That Dominate Today May Be Gone Tomorrow

    Great! So he won’t object if we speed up the process a little in the case of Google. It’s just punishment for the shareholders for the company’s malfeasance and corruption.

    I mean, murderers die of old age eventually, but we still execute them.

    1. Google gained its foothold in the antitrust suit against Microsoft that unbundled Explorer from Windows.

      I don’t see why it should be whining now.

  10. While it is true that big companies today might not be around tomorrow, I can think of a few companies that were broken up by anti-trust cases.

    ‘Ma Bell’ is still technically around, but it seems they dominated telephone communications for just about 100 years.

    So even if Google gets broken up into a dozen smaller companies, Google will still exist just like AT&T still exists.

  11. Sure, you can adopt a Panglossian worldview of capitalism and say that everything that exists is only temporary, so enjoy your servitude–your great-grandchildren might be free, if we or our successors permit it.

    But Google is making global privacy rights policy under our noses without our input as citizens of the country and planet that permit Google to exist and make money. They are free to do that absent regulation, and people who are dogmatically against all regulation are certainly of no help.

    1. Would you prefer Ranch or Italian for your word salad?

      1. I suppose the fact that I keep a bottle of real balsamic vinegar and some decent olive oil is another reason my culture is so inferior to that of the Nascar set, who presumably would understand what the hell you’re talking about.

        Remember when they got worked up into a near-genocidal frenzy because a guy in an ad wore flannel pajamas once?

        Keep batting for that team, why don’t you?

        1. He was wearing a onesie. Babies wear onesies. Footie pajamas are for babies that aren’t allowed blankets in their beds with them. Not adults.

          1. That’s just an arbitrary cultural norm. Real men used to wear literal gowns to bed.

            Does your peerless quest for a world that values individual freedom actually extend to anyone who’s not exactly like you?

        2. “Remember when they got worked up into a near-genocidal frenzy because a guy in an ad wore flannel pajamas once?”

          I don’t. I remember people having a laugh at his expense. Then again I don’t think words are violence like you lefties.

          1. I bet you go to the opera and laugh at the lady for being fat, too.

            I’m not saying flannel pajamas are the height of cultural sophistication, I’m asking you to think about what you wear to bed, and why I’m supposed to think that’s emblematic of a better culture.

            1. Find something to worry about other than pajama boy getting too rough a treatment.

    2. But Google is making global privacy rights policy under our noses without our input as citizens of the country and planet that permit Google to exist and make money.

      Google is getting in bed with socialists both domestically and abroad. Domestically, Google provided massive supports to Democrats, and abroad it colludes with China and other socialist regimes.

      That means they are getting “our input as citizens of the country and planet”, the same way citizens always given input in a socialist country, namely not at all. You should love it.

      Sure, you can adopt a Panglossian worldview of capitalism

      You are adopting a “Panglossian worldview of” socialism.

      Capitalists object to Google precisely because it is in bed with the government, to the point that there is little difference between the two.

      1. There is never as big a distinction between private and public as you’d like to think there is. I’m personally rather over even bringing it up, because these categories are given far too much import in political and economic discussions, in my view. Even talking that way is a concession to people whose entire lives have been molded by the words “government is not the solution, it’s the problem” spoken by that moron on a horse.

        I don’t call myself a socialist. I don’t consider myself a socialist. I think the idea that there are distinct categories here is stupid as well. Not only is there some big bright line between capitalism and socialism, there really are only 2 or 3 ways of doing an economy? That sounds off.

        Never mind that every community on the planet has some combination of a system of trade mediated by a system of government. I don’t like “isms.” I prefer to take a look at how the world is working, and suggest tweaks whenever we can increase individual human freedom.

        It’s all just run by people. Government workers are just people. They aren’t smarter or dumber than private-sector workers. Their incentives may be different, but if the world could be run by greed alone, we’d have paradise already.

        1. “There is never as big a distinction between private and public as you’d like to think there is. I’m personally rather over even bringing it up, because these categories are given far too much import in political and economic discussions, in my view.”

          Yes, we know you’re a fascist.

        2. There is never as big a distinction between private and public as you’d like to think there is.

          I’m not making a distinction between “private” and “public”, I’m making a distinction between “private” and “government”. And how big that distinction depends entirely on how much power government has.

          It’s all just run by people. Government workers are just people. They aren’t smarter or dumber than private-sector workers. Their incentives may be different,

          Their base incentives are the same: greed and power. The difference is that individuals motivated by greed and power in a free market generally operate for the benefit of society, while individual greed and power in government result in oppression and economic decline.

          I don’t call myself a socialist. I don’t consider myself a socialist. I think the idea that there are distinct categories here is stupid as well.

          You are right to the degree that for your world view, categories don’t matter much: fascists, socialists, communists, and progressives all ultimately bring about totalitarian government and poverty. I just use “socialist” as the collective term for your ilk; “fascist” might be a better approximation.

          1. You’ve just said that “government = bad” but you haven’t explained it. Then an -ism salad that offers no explanation for the similar claim “for-profit interests = good.” Maybe try more -isms?

            1. You’ve just said that “government = bad”

              Nowhere did I say “government = bad”

              but you haven’t explained it.

              I said that “individual greed and power in government result in oppression and economic decline”. If you don’t understand why, I suggest you read up on public choice theory.

              offers no explanation for the similar claim “for-profit interests = good.”

              Again, nowhere did I say “for-profit interests = good”. I said that “individuals motivated by greed and power in a free market generally operate for the benefit of society”. The reference for that is Adam Smith, or, again, modern public choice theory.

              Then an -ism salad that offers no explanation

              You’re absolutely right: I gave an -ism salad that provides no explanation for the previous two statements. It wasn’t offered by way of explanation, and it is people like you who are creating this terminological confusion to hide your ideology behind. As I pointed out, there is little difference between those isms: they amount to the same thing: left wing totalitarianism. That’s what you are.

              1. Adam Smith proposed something still considered “modern”? If it’s so modern, surely it has ample rigorous evidence in its favor, like any good theory.

                I do not support the installation of a totalitarian dictator. Thus, I cannot be a totalitarian. Glad to clear that up.

                1. Adam Smith proposed something still considered “modern”? If it’s so modern, surely it has ample rigorous evidence in its favor, like any good theory.

                  Adam Smith explained the principles of how self-interested actors participating in a free market lead to collectively beneficial outcomes. Indeed, there is ample rigorous evidence in favor of this; you should look it up sometime.

                  I do not support the installation of a totalitarian dictator. Thus, I cannot be a totalitarian.

                  Totalitarianism just means that you believe in the principle that government can legitimately determine every aspect of public, economic, or private life. Totalitarianism does not require an individual dictator; some totalitarian countries have been democratic and have been run by elected committees.

  12. I think the biggest reason for pushback is that things like grocers and Amazon seem to protect the mediocre from competition, eventually destroying the consumer’s choice.

    The more a consumer feels trapped into relying solely on one provider, I think the more antagonistic they get towards that provider. Especially as high market consolidation tends to go hand in hand with lowered quality.

  13. Good article, Liz Wolfe. Concise and informative.

  14. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 5 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ag0 and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h… http://bucks2.com/

  15. I just bought a brand new BMW after having made $6375 this past one month and just over 12k last 5 week. This is the best and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started this few Weeks ag0 and almost immediately started to bring home minimum 74BUCKS p/h…❥❥❥ http://bucks2.com/

  16. The world is changing rapidly. Every day new companies arise and nobody knows who will be the next unicorn or who will withdraw from a market. The thing is that all companies must adapt to changes and onboard new technologies. Personally, for me, I have employed a workflow automation tool https://fluix.io/solutions-workflow-automation to my company in order to cut costs and working hours related to routine tasks and that enables us to keep abreast of our competitors. And it is only the beginning of our digital transformation.

  17. And underneath that public *appearance* is a whole staff of business lobbyists (code-name lawyers) who compulsively lobbies for MORE “crony socialist” regulation.

    As-if Big Tech’s massive censorship of free-market, conservative, and smaller government principles wasn’t a BIG FAT clue…

    And where is Facebook #2???? Citizens have desired a decent alternative for years; There’s money in Facebook right? So what is stopping Facebook #2 from being offered? Gov Regulation of constantly extending Copyright and Patient??

  18. He’s probably right. There’s so much innovation going on in Startup space that everyone is coming up with an idea that’s exciting every now and then and lot of them are getting successful with their ideas too. So this dominance by big companies is not going to last forever.

  19. Evolve or die, behemoth.

  20. That Google guy reminds me of Niander Wallace, the cruel blind freak in the ghawdawful refake of Blade Runner. Apple, Google and Paypal keep demanding users CONSTANTLY regurgitate un-memorizable passwords then pounce when one is mis-typed–typically when the victim that user is traveling. They then make it impossible to communicate or use money. Small wonder these sadistic octopi are in turn targeted by bigger parasites.

  21. very useful information !! another company dominating the jeweller industry in india is https://www.cheapnbest.com/

  22. Bell Telephone, Commodore 64, Gateway computer and eMachines.
    AMC (American Motors company. okay AMC never dominated), Eastern Air Lines, Pan AM, Eckerd Drugstore, AOL as a Internet Provider, KB Toys, Borders Bookstores, Blockbuster Video Store.

    See if you can add some?

Comments are closed.