←back to thread

Google can keep its Chrome browser but will be barred from exclusive contracts

(www.cnbc.com)
858 points colesantiago | 5 comments | 02 Sep 25 20:26 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
stefan_ ◴[02 Sep 25 20:49 UTC] No.45108847[source]▶
When the stock pops 10% on the announcement you got your antitrust enforcement wrong.
replies(5): >>45108915 #>>45108934 #>>45109305 #>>45109323 #>>45109401 #
xyzzy9563 ◴[02 Sep 25 20:56 UTC] No.45108934[source]▶
Do you think it's better if all companies with competitive moats have a collapse in share price? I'm not really understanding what you're implying here.
replies(1): >>45109001 #
stefan_ ◴[02 Sep 25 21:02 UTC] No.45109001[source]▶
I don't understand. The court has ruled this already a year ago:

> Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly

What should be the effect of antitrust enforcement to a monopolists share price? We are looking at something structural after all.

replies(1): >>45109067 #
xyzzy9563 ◴[02 Sep 25 21:07 UTC] No.45109067[source]▶
Why should shareholders have to suffer just because the Google engineers were good at their job?
replies(4): >>45109108 #>>45109127 #>>45109279 #>>45109843 #
solardev ◴[02 Sep 25 21:10 UTC] No.45109108[source]▶
Because the overall well-being of a society is supposedly more important than a few shareholders' wealth?
replies(2): >>45109239 #>>45109430 #
1. xyzzy9563 ◴[02 Sep 25 21:23 UTC] No.45109239[source]▶
Do you know of any societies in the world that have a high quality of life but don’t have wealthy shareholders?
replies(2): >>45109387 #>>45109635 #
2. neoromantique ◴[02 Sep 25 21:36 UTC] No.45109387[source]▶
I know plenty with very low quality of life and very wealthy shareholders.
replies(1): >>45109810 #
3. solardev ◴[02 Sep 25 21:56 UTC] No.45109635[source]▶
They're not mutually exclusive? Especially with antitrust, where the whole point is to enable a healthier marketplace such that all shareholders of Google's competitors can also benefit (not to mention users).

It's not that high-QoL societies cannot have shareholders, it's that the stock market shouldn't take precedence over laws and regulations and anti-trust enforcement.

4. Ray20 ◴[02 Sep 25 22:14 UTC] No.45109810[source]▶
This is disgusting.

But I think this problem should be solved at the level of countries, not individuals.

Because individuals are always looking for a way to avoid taxes, they can disappear as a class, and there is not that much money if it is fairly redistributed among everyone.

In fairness, EVERY American should be taxed an additional 80-90% in favor of poorer countries. How can a country with a minimum wage of $10-20 an hour not share with other countries when billions of people make less than a dollar an hour?

replies(1): >>45110205 #
5. neoromantique ◴[02 Sep 25 22:57 UTC] No.45110205{3}[source]▶
There has never been any fairness in the world :shrug: