Google owns the agencies tasked with regulating it

[Balog]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/04/google_ftc_wtf/

Last March, Google learned that the Wall Street Journal was about to publish details of how the Federal Trade Commission shut down an investigation into Google – contradicting some of the recommendations of its own investigators. The information had arrived by accident: a confidential report had been mistakenly included in a huge bundle of documents passed to the Journal, with every other page redacted.

The half-readable report nevertheless showed that staff had conducted an investigation of Google’s behaviour, similar to the one conducted by the EU*, which began in 2010. The report concluded Google was anti-competitive and recommended the FTC pressed charges.

Amazingly, according to the documents, FTC chair Edith Ramirez, an Obama appointee, then shared a draft speech she was due to make in Germany that month with Google’s general counsel Kent Walker and Google’s European director of competition, Julia Holtz, before she made the speech.

Key former Googlers in the Obama administration include Megan Smith – “Chief Technology Officer” and Assistant to the President (Google 2003-2014), her deputy Alex MacGillivray (Google 2003-2009), Michelle Lee, head of the patents office (Google 2003-2012), and the top two antitrust officers. Antitrust chief and her deputy Renata Hesse and David Gelfand had key roles working for Google at external firms.

[Perd Hapley]

Don't be evil.

[brimic]

If you think of Google as an arm of the CIA/NSA it will all make sense.

[Balog]

All that matters in .gov is incentives. Companies are heavily incentivized to help expand the .gov and regulatory agencies, as long as they are big enough to control what those regulations are. The Republicans are "the party of Business." The Republicans grow the size and scope of .gov and regulatory agencies. People are surprised. Eat at Arby's.

[makattak]

One big business provides far more opportunities for graft than hundreds of smaller businesses.

(On a less nefarious track, it's also easier to regulate one company rather than hundreds.)

Is it any surprise big government loves big business?

[Balog]

One big business provides far more opportunities for graft than hundreds of smaller businesses.

(On a less nefarious track, it's also easier to regulate one company rather than hundreds.)

Is it any surprise big government loves big business?

Given the perpetual outrage and accusations of being a socialist associated with criticizing Big Business in "conservative" circles, apparently yes. Conservatives have done to socialist what liberals have done to racist.

[Perd Hapley]

All that matters in .gov is incentives. Companies are heavily incentivized to help expand the .gov and regulatory agencies, as long as they are big enough to control what those regulations are.

And the greater the amount of regulation, the greater incentive for business to influence the regulators. The greater the risk if they fail to do so.

Given the perpetual outrage and accusations of being a socialist associated with criticizing Big Business in "conservative" circles, apparently yes.

Aside from .gov, everyone seems to love to hate so-called Big Business. Along with "corporate welfare," which everyone laments, and no one ever does anything to oppose. Like a great many other things.

[Balog]

And the greater the amount of regulation, the greater incentive for business to influence the regulators. The greater the risk if they fail to do so.



Aside from .gov, everyone seems to love to hate so-called Big Business. Along with "corporate welfare," which everyone laments, and no one ever does anything to oppose. Like a great many other things.

Democracy is one big Tragedy of the Commons / Prisoner's Dilemma in slow motion.