There is some shit worth derailing a thread over. This is how I make my living. Some newb coming on the forum claiming that we need to regulate the SERPs and advertising agencies that cut my check, is going to piss me off.
Now anyone can sign up, and they can post almost anything. But it is really fucking dumb, on a forum full of floggers, berry slingers and BHs to start talking about government involvement in the net.
erect has it 100% right. Barrier to entry low, anyone can get in, which is the best way to help the little guy. You don't protect the little guy from producers, you allow the little guy to become the producer. That is the internet. And that is how most of us make our money.
As far as monopoly, all monopoly in our mixed economies are the results of privilege (license, regulation). A monopoly in a free market (which doesn't really exist except perhaps online) can only occur where a firm offers the best product, at the best price with the best service, and thus no one can compete with them and profit.
Google has largely managed to do this with search and PPC. However, if we go deeper into organization theory, and look at agency costs, the larger Google gets in the (relatively) free internet market, the less responsive they will be, and their size (overheads, unproductive ventures) will undermine their ability to be cost competitive.
This is synonymous with the natural weeding out process known as creative destruction. Why did Facebook emerge? Because MySpace wasn't innovating. Why did Excite die? They failed to innovate. When Google stops innovating, they too will fail. As long as they keep innovating, they will provide a positive benefit to their consumers, who are NOT us. They are the surfers.
Google understands what Yahoo and MSN do not. It is about the surfers, not the advertisers. This is why the newspaper industry is failing. They stopped catering to readers, and oriented their business models around government and advertisers. Same problem with Yahoo and MSN. Not enough eyeballs, and hence, they cannot be competitive.
Freddy Bastiat, one of my favorite 19th century economists once made an analogy about how government could help the candlemakers by regulating the sun (see below). Any attempt to undermine Google will reward its less competitive and innovative competitors (see bailouts, moral hazard), which means we all take a net loss (more bad companies, less good companies) because someone had a misguided sense of justice and failure to understand basic market economics.
Now anyone can sign up, and they can post almost anything. But it is really fucking dumb, on a forum full of floggers, berry slingers and BHs to start talking about government involvement in the net.
erect has it 100% right. Barrier to entry low, anyone can get in, which is the best way to help the little guy. You don't protect the little guy from producers, you allow the little guy to become the producer. That is the internet. And that is how most of us make our money.
As far as monopoly, all monopoly in our mixed economies are the results of privilege (license, regulation). A monopoly in a free market (which doesn't really exist except perhaps online) can only occur where a firm offers the best product, at the best price with the best service, and thus no one can compete with them and profit.
Google has largely managed to do this with search and PPC. However, if we go deeper into organization theory, and look at agency costs, the larger Google gets in the (relatively) free internet market, the less responsive they will be, and their size (overheads, unproductive ventures) will undermine their ability to be cost competitive.
This is synonymous with the natural weeding out process known as creative destruction. Why did Facebook emerge? Because MySpace wasn't innovating. Why did Excite die? They failed to innovate. When Google stops innovating, they too will fail. As long as they keep innovating, they will provide a positive benefit to their consumers, who are NOT us. They are the surfers.
Google understands what Yahoo and MSN do not. It is about the surfers, not the advertisers. This is why the newspaper industry is failing. They stopped catering to readers, and oriented their business models around government and advertisers. Same problem with Yahoo and MSN. Not enough eyeballs, and hence, they cannot be competitive.
Freddy Bastiat, one of my favorite 19th century economists once made an analogy about how government could help the candlemakers by regulating the sun (see below). Any attempt to undermine Google will reward its less competitive and innovative competitors (see bailouts, moral hazard), which means we all take a net loss (more bad companies, less good companies) because someone had a misguided sense of justice and failure to understand basic market economics.
