Blog powered by Typepad

« Why do I keep writing on subjects about which I know nothing? | Main | Hubris to Nemesis in one innings »

Thursday, 29 March 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Even if your view is only shaped by laziness we agree on this subject, David. Imagine my discomfort. The Trump v. Amazon storyline seems to have originated in a short piece in Axios:

There are two great steps forward that the Libertarian, globalization, anti-authoritarian movement needs to boldly go where no-one has been before ...

(1) Splitting of monopolies
(2) Income for life

Both might appear on the surface to be anti-Libertarian, authoritarian actions, coercions in their own right. But they are not. Firstly, "Splitting of monopolies" ...

If I take a tenner out of your wallet, and replace it with ten one pound coins in your purse, I haven't robbed you - I've merely given you change. So if you had one £100 Amazon share, and I took it and replaced it with ten £10 shares, one each in Amazon, Bamazon, Camazon, Damazon, ... Jamazon I haven't robbed you, I've merely given you change.

Now there are moves afoot to do just that to Google: Split it into replicas and let them compete: Google, Hoogle, Ioogle, ... That means splitting all the Intellectual Property so each one of the new offspring has the IP for the search engine, AI, Alexa, G-Suite, etc.

Imagine the benefits to price, innovation, and enterprise by unleashing a fresh generation of propeller heads and entrepreneurs who would otherwise be stuck in the middle management echelons of a tyrannical corporation. Held in place by anti-free market monopoly power, unable to do their funky stuff to their maximum potential because their bosses are just politicians creaming a powerbase of monopoly, rather than innovators and entrepreneurs in a competitive market. Suddenly they are free to innovate and be enterprising like start-ups, but on top of the platforms of the search engine, AI, Alexa, G-Suite etc. One might call them "head-start-ups".

These monopoly tyrants, like google, do to the free market what Putin does to democracy: Destroy it while facading as it. They are fake competitors. They attract global capital not because they offer innovation and enterprise but because they offer a monopoly stitch-up, thereby security, which is attractive to global capital. Lazy global capital can just select the monopolies without having to do any homework, and so the global monopolies entrench ever deeper in licensed domination and destruction of the erstwhile free markets in their sector - all under guise of "capitalism" and its fake connotation to free markets.

And where is this place, who are they, those who will split Google and advance Libertarianism, globalization, anti-authoritarianism into pastures new? No prizes ...


SoD, you really are 'a very naughty boy'! You started to write a really interesting comment which had me intrigued - and then, right at the end, you squirt in your pro-EU, Berlin-Brussel agit-prop! No hot cross buns for you this Easter!


There seems to be an emerging global battle between democracy and what George Orwell described as oligarchic collectives, which have taken the place of governmental central planners. Companies like Google and Facebook can be seen as junior members. They're not as destructive as the fossil fuel companies or Russian Federation, but similar in some respects and not overly concerned with being oligarchic tools. They definitely need to be controlled by the populace at large. There's your paradox of free markets.

The Basic Minimum Income is likely on its way:

The comments to this entry are closed.