Like all dominant companies, Google will eventually fall via strangulation by its internal bureaucracy. There's no reason to hand the market over to another country.
> Microsoft in the year ended June 2016 had $20.1 billion in foreign income and a domestic loss of $300 million. Microsoft’s income tax expense was $3.3 billion, for an effective rate of 16.5%. Alphabet, the parent company of Google, posted a $4.7 billion tax expense, or 19%. Such “avoision” will continue as long as foreign income is subject to lower rates than domestic.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2017/04/18/wh...
> There's no reason to hand the market over to another country.
Who's to say that the other country's Google-killer won't prove to be a greater boon to American consumers? Let the global market decide.
If you do it by hobbling American businesses, they aren't a greater boon.
And I care about every single business since I know that the more competition there is - the better and cheaper the products and services will be.
The end result will be even less competition and more monopolies - inviting additional government intervention in a vicious cycle that ends up with only large, incumbent, too-big-to-fail corporations on an overregulated market. Like how it's in the EU for example. Or the aerospace industry in the US.
Politicians are quite happy with this state of things since their role is expanding and everyone is asking for their help. The ones suffering are, of course, the consumers having fewer and crappier choices...
Debatable. Microsoft falling prey to antitrust only led to a new generation of even bigger tech companies, including its old rival Apple.
> The ones suffering are, of course, the consumers having fewer and crappier choices...
Going back to the original thread, that’s where foreign competitors come in for customer choice.
It's only debatable among people who never built a business in their life, not not among entrepreneurs.
> Microsoft falling prey to antitrust only led to a new generation
The slap on the wrist Microsoft received with the antitrust action was completely inconsequential on the subject matter (browser bundling) but managed to discourage the company and thus reduced competition exactly when we needed it the most: at the onset of the mobile wars which were fought and won by companies already founded at the time of the lawsuit - instead of startups. Because regulation favors the incumbents. Always.
And you can't count the unfounded startups but I am not happy with the state of competition in today's high-tech scene. I remember when there were dozens of compiler, word-processor, spreadsheet, OS and microcomputer companies competing in the 80s and 90s. I blame it squarely on government regulation: the Microsoft lawsuit and Sarbanes-Oxley. Their chilling effect on startup creation was clearly visible in the 00's.
Too bad. Entrepreneurs serve the customers. If you won't build it, we won't go. We shall simply patronize other businesses.
> at the onset of the mobile wars which were fought and won by companies already founded at the time of the lawsuit
Microsoft was already stumbling in the Ballmer years long before mobile - they failed to capitalize on the internet itself, they couldn't build a compelling search engine, for starters. They couldn't even get the Zune to be a lasting brand. None of this is due to antitrust, but to their own organizational dysfunctions and inability to execute.
> I remember when there were dozens of compiler, word-processor, spreadsheet, OS and microcomputer companies competing in the 80s and 90s.
Ah yes, the demise of BeOS and OS/2 was caused by government regulation, and not Wintel dominance.
Which won’t be any new business, since you know, no startups. So we’ll patronize whatever state-granted too-big-to-fail monopolist is left and then whine for more regulations when their planes fall from the sky.
Incumbents by definition. Besides, crushing your local businesses in favor of foreign competition is not a very smart strategy.
> boutiques and lifestyle businesses
Which are also obeying startups laws and thus are simply not started under an onerous regulatory regime.
> Besides, crushing your local businesses in favor of foreign competition is not a very smart strategy.
Customers don’t care.
They do, through second order effects. Read up on them.
> Customers don’t care.
Of course we care. We get attached to the brands we buy and value the services and products they provide. And most of all we care about reduced competition.
Why do we care about "competition" when it's ultimately all about the user experience? The streaming market has a surfeit competition right now and customers loathe having to juggle between half a dozen different services just to get the content they want to watch. In that space, some are even yearning for a return to monopoly, or cable.
Ever heard of second order effects and chilling effect of regulation?
Which no startups have. So, antitrust favors incumbents, of course.
> money they've made operating in the competitive space cleared out
Again, not startups. It’s incumbents that take advantage of opportunities like that.
Haha, you’ve never built a startup have you? Try it and let me know how easy it is to become incumbent. :)
Besides, a vicious cycle in which antitrust creates monopolies to only take them down later is a nightmare for consumers.
For the same reason Google is dominant today. Hobbling American business creates opportunities for other countries to take the top dog position.