monopoly   3423

« earlier    

Commentary: How We Can Stop the Tech Monopoly Takeover | Fortune
The size and scale of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft threaten American democracy. Is it too late to stop them?
data  privacy  monopoly  facebook  google  apple  amazon  2018  fortune  anti-trust 
3 days ago by wmaceyka
The paradox of markups, part 2
t refers to the fact that the weights in the weighted average of markups change over time. Recall that holding markups constant, if you push more resources into high-markup firms, this raises productivity because the output of those firms is very valuable. The yellow line shows that productivity was rising over time due to this effect, and that in turn implies that more and more resources were getting pushed into high markup firms.
productivity  monopoly  housing  markups  bubble  economics 
9 days ago by yorksranter
Giant Outdoor for my son's 10th birthday party. Incl. special surprise event cards... 😬
Monopoly  from twitter_favs
11 days ago by grzbielok
Spotify's 'Got You by the Balls' — And Now They're Testing Out a Price Increase
An interesting point. The unicorns are big but they are still VC startups. At some point they have to transition to positive FCF. Is this the moment we realise how much concentration has increased?
spotify  music  inflation  monopoly  ovum 
23 days ago by yorksranter
The tech titans must have their monopoly broken – and this is how we do it
First, we must revive the trust-busting spirit of previous generations. Competition authorities should be primarily concerned with takeovers which stifle innovation or involve the acquisition of large quantities of valuable data.

More radically, companies should be broken up when their size becomes economically detrimental.
2018  opinion  monopoly  capitalism  regulation 
4 weeks ago by bignose
In blockchain we trust - MIT Technology Review

These costs are rarely acknowledged or analyzed by the economics profession, perhaps because practices such as account reconciliation are assumed to be an integral, unavoidable feature of business (much as pre-internet businesses assumed they had no option but to pay large postal expenses to mail out monthly bills). Might this blind spot explain why some prominent economists are quick to dismiss blockchain technology? Many say they can’t see the justification for its costs. Yet their analyses typically don’t weigh those costs against the far-reaching societal cost of trust that the new models seek to overcome.

The need for trust, the cost of it, and the dependence on middlemen to provide it is one reason why behemoths such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon turn economies of scale and network-effect advantages into de facto monopolies. These giants are, in effect, centralized ledger keepers, building vast records of “transactions” in what is, arguably, the most important “currency” in the world: our digital data. In controlling those records, they control us.

The crypto bubble, like the dot-com bubble, is creating the infrastructure that will enable the technologies of the future to be built. But there’s also a key difference. This time, the money being raised isn’t underwriting physical infrastructure but social infrastructure. It’s creating incentives to form global networks of collaborating developers, hive minds whose supply of interacting, iterative ideas is codified into lines of open-source software. That freely accessible code will enable the execution of countless as-yet-unimagined ideas. It is the foundation upon which the decentralized economy of the future will be built.
blockchain  economics  finance  banks  history  google  facebook  linkedin  walledgarden  monopoly  opensource  future  2018  mustread 
5 weeks ago by WimLeers

« earlier    

related tags

2018-04  2018-05-24  2018  academics  adwords  ai  airlines  alcohol  alphabet  amazon  anti-trust  anticompetitive  antitrust  api  apple  baidu  banks  barnes&noble  berkshirehatthaway  bezos  big-data  bill  billgates  blockchain  board  book  books  breakup  broadband  bubble  buffaloeveningnews  business  cannes  capitalism  china  choice  cinema  claytonhomes  clippings  community  companies  competition  competitiveness  computing  conformity  conservatism  consumers  contemporary_culture  control  convenience  corporate  corporation  corporations  corruption  culture  data-regulation  data  daviddao  daviddayen  deanbaker  democracy  despair  developingmarkets  domains  economic_geography  economics  economies_of_scale  economy  efficiency  emma  employment  eu  evil  facebook  fake-news  february  film  finance  finances  financialcrisis  financialization  fortune  ftc  future  future_of_work  gafa  game  games  gates  generic_drugs  google  greed  healthcare  history  housing  icann  income  indie  inequality  inflation  institutionalcorruption  insurance  internet  investing  japan  jeffbezos  jobs  jonnevett  journalism  jpmorganchase  labor-unions  labor  labor_market  legislation  linkedin  long-read  louisbrandeis  market  market_failures  market_power  marketanalysis  marketing  markets  markups  marx  media  microsoft  mining  mobile  modernity  monopsony  moodys  morningstar  municipal  music  mustread  neoliberalism  netflix  news  newspapers  nudotco  nytimes  obama  oligopoly  openmarkets  opensource  opinion  ovum  parecon  personal-data  pharmaceutical_industry  piketty  platform  platform_economics  platforms  policy  political-economy  political  politics  power  prime  print  privacy  productivity  propaganda  psychology  radar  read  regulation  reich  repair  report  research  retail  review  right  righttobeforgotten  robertreich  robinharding  ruralism  silicon-valley  social-media  socialmedia  society  spotify  stacks  streaming  surveillancecapitalism  tech  technology-effects  technology  thenation  thinktanks  tim+wu  tim.wu  toddcombs  toread  trade  truth  tv  unitedairlines  us  utility  value  verisign  viaswampers  wages  walledgarden  warrenbuffet  wealth  web  wellsfargo  work 

Copy this bookmark: