Jersey Girl wrote:How do you think EW is going to break up big tech?
The idea that medical research would suffer if Facebook faces antitrust regulation is ridiculous, but Warren does plan of using her appt. powers to have much more active antitrust actions aimed at tech companies.
So how would smaller tech companies invest billions of dollars in quantum computing research? With too much competition you won't have billions of dollars to invest for the far future. The answer is regulation, not breaking up big tech.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jersey Girl wrote:How do you think EW is going to break up big tech?
I asked you a question DT and everyone else answered it but you. What is your answer?
I don't know, but I hope she doesn't do it. Too much competition will discourage tech companies from investing billions of dollars in quantum computing research for the far future.
Jersey Girl wrote: I asked you a question DT and everyone else answered it but you. What is your answer?
I don't know, but I hope she doesn't do it. Too much competition will discourage tech companies from investing billions of dollars in quantum computing research for the far future.
Come here, DT. I want to smack you. You made an assertion in the OP and the thread title and now you say you don't know. You're not afraid to take a stand are you? Seriously, I'm not that smart. Don't worry about me at least. You're talking to someone who doesn't know how to switch the television over to regular programming. Sheesh.
I think that breaking up a monopoly situation is probably a good way to induce healthy competition and that we, the collective consumer, will be better off for it. And you're talking to someone who wishes Ma Bell still had a monopoly on the phone systems but only because I couldn't choose a phone plan these days to save my life.
I think quite the contrary is true. That more competition will encourage tech companies to throw more bucks into research in order to compete.
But don't go by me.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jersey Girl wrote:I think that breaking up a monopoly situation is probably a good way to induce healthy competition and that we, the collective consumer, will be better off for it. And you're talking to someone who wishes Ma Bell still had a monopoly on the phone systems but only because I couldn't choose a phone plan these days to save my life.
You make a good point, but competition is not good for expensive projects that will only be profitable in the far future. Imagine if SpaceX had competition, it would have failed long ago. With a lot of competition companies can only invest in short-term research projects.
EAllusion wrote:The whole idea of SpaceX is to introduce market competition into space exploration. It's a direct competitor of what previously was a monopoly.
For the future. SpaceX needs to prove that space exploration can be done.
So how can a company with a lot of competition invest billions of dollars in projects that will only be profitable in the far future?
EAllusion wrote:The whole idea of SpaceX is to introduce market competition into space exploration. It's a direct competitor of what previously was a monopoly.
I wouldn't have a problem voting for Warren in the General Election if you can answer my question. Really!
1. So how can a company with a lot of competition invest billions of dollars in projects that will only be profitable in the far future? 2. Can the Aurora Station be profitable in the 2020s if it gets competition? 3. Is competition always a good thing?