Break them up because in the future they may wield unbelievable power over humans, society, and life, power that could absolutely dwarf the system of laws and rights that we've developed.
Well the democrates in cali never liked enforcing the laws, like when they made it so you can deduct your states taxes from your fed taxes so cali could greedily hoard all the money to themselves, oh yeah that's what trump got rid of but we can never say the because the democrates will kill you on the internet, you guys are the internet KKK
it's because they are mad they cannot control talk radio. They used to phone in crap on call in days but since they werre blocked and exposed they resort to being Naziesque mods.
@@paullelyukh2422 The law that allowed the deduction of state taxes from federal is a federal law, not a state law. You say that the "democrates never liked enforcing laws, like when made it so you can deduct your state taxes." But this must mean that the democrats passed a law. If you aren't saying that, then you have not even the barest understanding of how the state or federal government works. State legislatures don't alter tax law by fiat. You have no idea what you're talking about. Your post doesn't make sense. You aren't even spelling "democrat" correctly.
@@globnomulous sorry it's demorat, yea if it wasn't federal Trump wouldnt do anything about it, so you're the dumb one and I'm the one with my name on 2 patents, on 4 research papers, 2 of which published in ACSnano, recognized by NSF, worked at a Korean national lab at KAIST, oh and I have 110 citations on Google scholar, my brain cells aren't measured in microns their measured in meters!
Pr. Scott Galloway's accusation that Google and Facebook claim not to be 'media companies', is similar to Pr. Richard Wolff's accusation of Uber's claim that it is not a 'taxi company': it's just a way for them to rip the benefits without dealing with regulation under the pretext that they are 'tech companies'.
Which is reasonable and acceptable argument insofar as Uber isn't the only folks giving people rides, and the market is still functioning. But if that's no longer the case, it's no longer an acceptable abdication.
Again, this useless argument. Fine. Facebook and Google are media companies. What happens now? Should the US force these companies to curate every single post by users of these platforms? Is Twitter a media company as well? Snapchat? Just compare the % of people working on tech in this company Vs people working on editorial content. It's probably 10000 to 1
Much of the content and news of traditional news orgs isn't produced by them either, it's bought from news agencies and then distributed via their channels. Similar platform procedure but regulated by what the organisation wants on its agenda. We shouldn't be trying to handle the problem with terms that worked in a world that's about to vanish. Truth is, those tech companies heavily influence what people perceive as reality and they should handle this responsibility with a LOT of care. Also we, as individuals, should participate in this discussion instead of surrendering to the fact that the output volume is massive. We can design platforms that really do better! So thanks for raising the point, @Juib Morrowind!
Matt Whitmire very few of my friends use Facebook anymore. It's become a noisy aggregator - news, sales, stuff I might be interested rather than human connections and family updates. Instant messaging has moved in (eg WhatsApp). I haven't logged in to FB in over 2 years. Moving on
Facebook has really become a literal shit fest of opinions and fake bullshit. FB is like toxic youtube comments but with a more organized news feed and reactions.
That crowd sucked ass. That was an amazing speech! Especially the part about Facebook, Google and Twitter not being the front lines of a nation. As a veteran, I couldn't help but take offense to that.
communist, your problem is people, because they are corrupt, you authoritarian, and your solution is killing them. The beauty of capitalism is it allows corrupt people to create real and tremendous value in the world by giving them incentives to do so!
Because Google's algorithms know Amazon is mentioned in the video, and Amazon pays for relational ("targeted") placements. They are so big that they don't even care what content they advertise on, because everyone uses them. Get TH-cam Red. No ads. While my subscription feeds the devil, at least it prevents me watching a 3 minute ad before a 1 minute video.
fg gf ad blockers are wonderful, but don't work on Android or iOS. Also, TH-cam is one of the very few sites I disable my blocker on, because the content creators I enjoy deserve to make a living too.
fg gf yeah, and what makes it worse is that they feed you more/longer ads if you have ever watched a longer ad all the way through (like a movie trailer that hooked you.)
With my previous comment notwithstanding, this dude certainly gets it: capitalism can't work when companies can completely overrun the market. There's always going to be some "quirk" (political or otherwise) that will allow some companies to grow much larger than is healthy for a functioning market. Galloway is right: it's not evil on either side (government or business) to "cool the heat" of a too-strong conglomerate. We just need a political establishment (and a voting public) that is aware of the dangers of these new kinds of monopolies...it's not as concrete as the telephone and railroad monopolies of yesteryear.
Andre yes, I have! If you're interested in business and/or technology then I recommend it. It's a good book to me, as he pairs the four (amazon, apple, facebook, and google) with appealing to a human emotion and tendency, so as to have success. These four are close to having a Trillion dollar evaluation. The funny thing is that when I finished reading the chapter on apple, they had reached a 900 billion dollar evaluation. It's a nice read, but if you're familiar with his TH-cam channel, some stuff he talked about on his channel are in the book, but it's a cool read though.
We should add microsoft to that list, and break them up again once and for all so they go bankrupt this time, and burn down the economy and send drones to kill all of the people who would be corrupt in a capitalist society and then run away from the drones because everyone is corrupt, cuz Jesus wasn't lying
breaking up a company like Google or Amazon is definitely an interesting perspective and I've heard decent arguments on both sides. One side that says hey that company has build up what they have and there are other websites like them and anybody could build a website and do what they do. I've heard arguments on the other side that said these companies are basically a monopoly and are so big that the free market really can't compete because of its size nobody could make another one and be able to get off the ground. I kind of lean a lot more for the former since I am a Libertarian so I believe heavily in the free market but I do understand the argument of them being monopolies.
The markets are working how they're supposed to. This is what eventually happens in Capitalist "free markets"; monopolies or duopolies or oligopolies eventually form. What was once a diverse market becomes dominated by 1-5 corporations flat-out and the only way to stop this natural way Capitalism will progress would be to use regulations where you're essentially interfering with the natural progression of those competitive markets, not somehow protecting them. Needless to say, as much as I like how well-intentioned this guy is, he's also wasting his time talking about how people have elected officials who don't do much against these companies while calling these countries _democracies._ Apologies but *not a single country in the West (or on this planet) is a democracy.* Certainly not the US, these countries are usually *Republics* (slyly often labeled "Representative-Democracies") which means you're meant to elect people _who represent you;_ as in, people who get to make decisions on your behalf as they see fit. It's essentially just an oligarchical system where the common folk get to choose who sits at the top of the oligarchy who still often tend to be wealthy and famous people who can actually muster the support and campaign donations to reach such high echelons of power. Worse yet, you have the Republican system of governance existing alongside Capitalism which obviously will lead to only a few people holding the majority of wealth in the world relative to the overall population. So I ask you... In this setting where there are people with net worths in excess of 1 billion US dollars and people who essentially have no net worth beyond what's in their pockets; who do you think these representative officials, who tend to really need things like campaign donations, will respond to? I write this quite sadly when I tell you that you're deluding yourself if you think the majority of them will ever respond more to the latter demographic. And finally, a democracy actually involves everyday people having a part in the decisions that effect them. It is self-governance and is *nothing* like what republics are. Humorously, the founders of Scott Galloway's current _home country_ (the USofA) were well aware of this which is why the word _democracy_ *never appears in the United States constitution* because they were all, to speak overly simplistically, snooty wine snobs who held nothing but contempt for the idea of common people ruling themselves and bought into this silly (and unfounded) ancient Greco-Roman belief that this would only lead to utter chaos. They did this whilst taking steps to ensure that only men of privilege such as themselves would have much of a chance of rising up to the highest positions of the republican system they'd chosen and all you're seeing today is that already elitist system making love with Capitalism, a system, at a base level, even more elitist than it is. You're not going to make any sort of great difference by _fighting within the system_ like this man suggests. All you'll accomplish, *if you're lucky,* is establish a decent Social-Democratic sort of state of affairs like with Iceland or Norway or what have you where everything is still republican and capitalist but at least somewhat more humane for the common person with a robust welfare system, higher and more responsible taxation on the wealthy and so on. But this is doomed not to last and someday your country will end up with a Reagan or a Thatcher or a Shinzo Abe blabbering about something that sounds an awful lot like _trickle down economics_ while working very very hard to gut your country's welfare programs over the span of decades in conjunction with winning the rich more and more tax-cuts whilst they already dodge taxes with overseas tax havens and you'll be right back at square one; chattering about fixing the system from within. Newsflash, the systems themselves are corrupt *and always were.* You want change? Break it all down and replace it with something new and truly democratic or good luck with your reforms, lol.
Not only that but that 100,00$ tax revenue is now 50,00$ so to make up for it you all demand more taxes on the 2 remaining companies that struggled but held on. Now those 2 have decided they cannot afford it as there is no benefit since they aren't rewarded for improving. They either fire everyone or downgrade their products to crap to make up for sudden lost of revenue. Now those 2 companies may bolt.
Great video! As a cynicist seeing absolutely no action towards breaking up or even controlling the companies, this makes me consider adding amazon to my stock portfolio haha
High Price to EBITDA a sign that they will start charging monopoly prices? And measuring market concentration by share of market GROWTH? This guy is off the wall.
I don't think it should be broken up but rather taxed a lot. Hey why not write most of it off by using it to expand even more as business expenses. The power structure should also be regulated. As in more board members... As in hundreds of thousands of them which shareholders can elect. Be a intangible country if it helps. Bezos shouldn't be allowed to keep so much of the share.
Why shouldn't he be allowed to keep the shares that he was allotted in the company that he envisioned and still leads? I don't agree with his policies but I do think he should be able to reap the benefits of his work.
KNO you mean the laborers who volunteered to work there? At the same Amazon that he himself work 12hrs/day 7 days a week? I can assure you he put the work in to get where he's at. And those people who were at his side are probably doing ok also. If these people didn't want to work at Amazon pulling orders maybe they should have been Valedictorian in high school. Graduated from Princeton worked on Wall Street then opened their own business where they could work even harder.
HighFlyer By that logic why even have worker protections and minimum wage. Remove every humane regulations and import people from other countries and make them work for free for food. If they protest just deport them and import more volunteer workers.
KNO I'm not defending the way he treats his employees. I just pointed out they were volunteers not actual slaves. I am defending his right to a fairly large chunk of the wealth he created. You claimed that he shouldn't get his shares, which technically aren't money yet. And their value depends on his continued hard work.
thats way they get money for blocking youre accaunt and you to pay for it 50 times and the get payd for blocking unhelthy comments person data then you get duplo google banks and food dont have any persons all automatic than all youre live is an lie 1/3 of poppulation pay taxes its bracking point that 1/3 is giving up
This professors and academics always coming up with business solutions to industries that they have never even put the effort to run and manage it or even simply putting up a start up and even paying wages to workers. They sit pretty in the comfort of their university offices read books and develop theories and boom just like that they have solutions for the real world of commerce. The days when academics and so called intellectual educators sitting at the top of the revered people hierarchy is long gone! This century people respect people who start small businesses and grow them into giants. That is true education in progress showing "fruits" in real time not theories in books that haven't been tested yet!
Basically redefine the antitrust laws so that these tech giants can be defined as monopolies or oligopolies. Then their major business divisions will need to go their separate ways or be sold off into independent companies, which will not thence be allowed to merge or acquire one another anymore. For example Alphabet will have to let go of TH-cam if it wants to retain Google. Its essentially what happened to Rockefeller's Standard Oil in 1911. Originally an oil monopoly dominating the US economy, it was broken up into 34 different companies. Which become the modern oil companies Chevron, Exxonmobil, etc.
In a Communist country, government owns the businesses. In a Capitalist country, businesses own the government. You’re either getting screwed from the front or the back, but you’re still getting screwed if you aren’t a business tycoon or a political tyrant. The problem is we want it that way because we’ve figured out the more they own, the happier we are. If Facebook bought Google, we’d be excited because then we’d have one less tab to open. Galloway is appalled that Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple got away with it and rightly so. But it’s no surprise we got here. We saw what they were doing and we wanted them to do it; that’s why we did nothing to stop it. However, we didn’t give them so much power without getting something in return. Think about it, we did this knowingly, willingly. We voluntarily gave them this power in exchange for the cheapest high on the market - the pleasure you feel from somebody liking your post. Look at the internet usage Galloway cites - it’s insane! That much usage can only indicate one thing: a world addicted to the internet. And somebody is always profiting from addiction. Zuckerberg is nothing more than the modern day Pablo Escobar who sells the virtual equivalent of cocaine. It’s cheap, just as fleeting, and keeps you coming back for more. What Galloway noticed is not a lapse in the Capitalist system working properly. And it’s not going to get solved by applying Capitalist measures either (i.e. “ break these guy’s up because we are Capitalist”). Why? Because again, if we were true Capitalist’s we would have done something about it by now. But it’s not going to happen because underneath every Capitalist, Communist, and Socialist is a miserable human being that just wants to get high enough to escape pain and stay sober enough to enjoy pleasure. There is no way you’re going to take away my virtually induced high. Zuck is my dealer and Facebook is my snuff. I want it that way. Don’t bother me. Like this comment if you agree.
I hope they breakem up soon before they do more damage. Facebook, google and Amazon. Can someone also stop these Kardashians! Worse thing that happened to young girls after IG
Got 2 Amazon ads on this video lol my guess is it's purposeful 🙄 (Yeah I know how TH-cam ads are targeted, you could still Target Galloway's videos through keyword targeting) *Sidenote* : I have never gotten an Amazon ad before today
My Alexa went off when he said at 15:41 "Alexa, is that a good thing?" and she's like "I don't know about that"... BET YOU DON'T, ALEXA AND YOUR TAX AVOIDIN' A**
I wish he'd give more specific examples on how restructuring would help the end user in a given market. Like, he knows that having fewer available choices improves customer satisfaction in a product class. He's stated as much. BUT... he should definately still talk about the benefit in diversity of first (trend) choices. This is a scenario where diverseity in *platform* *choice* allows different high level players to succeed in their own specified domain (see: Josh Peck on Vine) Honestly tho, idk if Galloway will get anywhere with his petition to reorganize the big 5; he gets so cought up in the party politics that idk if he ever steps past the base question of "should we break them up?" and moves on to 'how do I implement and leverage my assets in order to break them up'. Scott is no hero, like, I think it's possible someone might come along with a really great story and be the face of the fight against Amazon, but rn there's no meme for people to get behind except for for Galloway's giant wig. 🐥🐥🐥
After watching the video on my APPLE device... I got on ... AMAZON.COM, bought his book, KINDLE edition, and downloaded it to my KINDLE DEVICE... then proceeded to share this TH-cam video link on FACEBOOK
What do you think of a new logistics innovator who will exploit time and labor scheems tied to employee dividend reinvestment similar to how tech gamed investment expedecency that created market demand with employees optioning for fat paybacks in the early 2000's to undercut global logistic delivery pervayors?
15:42 "Alexa, is this a good thing?" Lol...kinda odd to promote breaking up Amazon when you're relying on their products to move your presentation along. This is the problem: these "successful companies" have such a broad reach (honestly...we're almost always on one of those platforms, or some other large social media network, like Reddit/Snapchat/Instagram), it's almost impossible to have far-reaching conversations online without touching them. It's...complex.
They should have been broken up years ago as they do have way too much power over the Internet. Plus there is a big danger to the economy when a company holds too much of the GNP see the collapse of Daewoo in South Korea and Petrobras in Brazil.
I'd say Microsoft is the exception to that analogy because they dominate corporate IT, and are still pulling in revenue off the back of their meteoric success in the early IT years. They're trying to move in the direction of Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon by being more consumer-focused but they don't have the brand image that the "big four" do to push their technology down people's throats. That, and they have to remain loyal to their corporate customers. I mean they've tried and failed multiple times to get into the consumer space with Windows Phone, Zune and Bing to name a few.
Jamie A I agree, but what if "their regression" is only positioning in a less visible place (corporate IT), as well as their work. It is interesting that they are relatively easy to get out of criticism compared with Аpple. Аnd yet they are large .
you guys are so freakin dumb microsoft was already broken up, and you are talking about doing it again!!!! Like they just making a come back after being crushed by the democrates
This is exactly why I’m so hell-bent on blockchain technology, because it can mitigate the centralization of technology that has made the big 4 so powerful.
He misses the fact Amazon doesn’t actually sell or take a position on most of the products. They are sold by 3P sellers who Amazon abuses. Amazon gets money from both ends
not sure breaking up the phone company made long distance bills go down back in the day, they will call you liberal. ooh! but I sure like your analogies & making consumers think about stuff although cheap prices seem the only thing we the consumer like. thanks for making us think. :)
This guy is arguing for these companies to "take responsibility" for whats posted on the platform in other words he's arguing for Censorship, fuck off. But I agree with everything else he said. Particularly about tax.
Facebook and Google are free. Not too many examples of monopolies who's product costs nothing. Yes, the make money from advertisers but there are plenty of other ways to advertise. Is My Space a monopoly? It's not Facebook's fault that people choose it over others.
Funniest thing.....I wear a few different Swatch watches and without fail, someone compliments my watch choice and LOVES the fact it is a swatch. With so many fake watches out there you can really standout just by just being original :)
![ตีสิบเดย์ [FULL] | นางเอกหมอลำเงินล้าน "อุ๋งอิ๋ง เพชรบ้านแพง" & ไฮโซสาวสุดฮอต "ลิลลี่ เหงียน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jPxQS_EgrJ4/mqdefault.jpg)
He'll never be invited back and this video probably wont be here long. LMAO! Prof. Galloway is the truth.
Dr0pkidd you can bet your ass this video is demonized.
probably demonetized aswell.
Should anything ever happen to Ryan Reynolds this guy could fill in for him as Deadpool. He really got the character down.
Break them up because in the future they may wield unbelievable power over humans, society, and life, power that could absolutely dwarf the system of laws and rights that we've developed.
Your comment should be 10 years old. ;)
He makes a tremendous point about tax avoidance and competitive markets. We truly live ina plutocray.
O Tax evasion = Self defense
Well the democrates in cali never liked enforcing the laws, like when they made it so you can deduct your states taxes from your fed taxes so cali could greedily hoard all the money to themselves, oh yeah that's what trump got rid of but we can never say the because the democrates will kill you on the internet, you guys are the internet KKK
it's because they are mad they cannot control talk radio. They used to phone in crap on call in days but since they werre blocked and exposed they resort to being Naziesque mods.
@@paullelyukh2422 The law that allowed the deduction of state taxes from federal is a federal law, not a state law. You say that the "democrates never liked enforcing laws, like when made it so you can deduct your state taxes." But this must mean that the democrats passed a law. If you aren't saying that, then you have not even the barest understanding of how the state or federal government works. State legislatures don't alter tax law by fiat. You have no idea what you're talking about. Your post doesn't make sense. You aren't even spelling "democrat" correctly.
@@globnomulous sorry it's demorat, yea if it wasn't federal Trump wouldnt do anything about it, so you're the dumb one and I'm the one with my name on 2 patents, on 4 research papers, 2 of which published in ACSnano, recognized by NSF, worked at a Korean national lab at KAIST, oh and I have 110 citations on Google scholar, my brain cells aren't measured in microns their measured in meters!
It's simple, these companies have become monopolies.
Pr. Scott Galloway's accusation that Google and Facebook claim not to be 'media companies', is similar to Pr. Richard Wolff's accusation of Uber's claim that it is not a 'taxi company': it's just a way for them to rip the benefits without dealing with regulation under the pretext that they are 'tech companies'.
Which is reasonable and acceptable argument insofar as Uber isn't the only folks giving people rides, and the market is still functioning. But if that's no longer the case, it's no longer an acceptable abdication.
Again, this useless argument.
Fine. Facebook and Google are media companies. What happens now? Should the US force these companies to curate every single post by users of these platforms? Is Twitter a media company as well? Snapchat?
Just compare the % of people working on tech in this company Vs people working on editorial content. It's probably 10000 to 1
Much of the content and news of traditional news orgs isn't produced by them either, it's bought from news agencies and then distributed via their channels. Similar platform procedure but regulated by what the organisation wants on its agenda.
We shouldn't be trying to handle the problem with terms that worked in a world that's about to vanish. Truth is, those tech companies heavily influence what people perceive as reality and they should handle this responsibility with a LOT of care.
Also we, as individuals, should participate in this discussion instead of surrendering to the fact that the output volume is massive. We can design platforms that really do better!
So thanks for raising the point, @Juib Morrowind!
Facebook seems so old. I'm surprised it's lasted this long. Online socialising seems like an oxymoron. Google is the one we're fully dependent on.
I try to use alternatives to Google when I can.
really, surprised it lasted this long? What did you see taking it over?
Matt Whitmire very few of my friends use Facebook anymore. It's become a noisy aggregator - news, sales, stuff I might be interested rather than human connections and family updates. Instant messaging has moved in (eg WhatsApp). I haven't logged in to FB in over 2 years. Moving on
Facebook has really become a literal shit fest of opinions and fake bullshit. FB is like toxic youtube comments but with a more organized news feed and reactions.
Matt, the kids like Snapchat.
That crowd sucked ass. That was an amazing speech! Especially the part about Facebook, Google and Twitter not being the front lines of a nation. As a veteran, I couldn't help but take offense to that.
You know ppl don't like being told they're corrupt and the solution is to destroy everything they love, like youtube stupid!
Break Them Up
Hmm I don't know, I can't name 15 things government did well.
communist, your problem is people, because they are corrupt, you authoritarian, and your solution is killing them. The beauty of capitalism is it allows corrupt people to create real and tremendous value in the world by giving them incentives to do so!
+ Paul Lelyukh - no authoritarianism in monopoly capitalism? Yeah, right.
Breaking them up helps competition and innovation.
And we are all watching this video on the largest platform owned by google...
They just keep getting worse....people need to keep talking about this....LOUDLY
Prof G at its finest.
Scott, you hit this out of the park.
All of these companies are a stain on humanity. They all need to be taken out of business.
One of the most witty keynote speakers I've ever seen, love him
I literally got two ads from Amazon just watching this.
There is a thing called adblockers. But i appreciate the irony.
Because Google's algorithms know Amazon is mentioned in the video, and Amazon pays for relational ("targeted") placements. They are so big that they don't even care what content they advertise on, because everyone uses them.
Get TH-cam Red. No ads. While my subscription feeds the devil, at least it prevents me watching a 3 minute ad before a 1 minute video.
fg gf ad blockers are wonderful, but don't work on Android or iOS. Also, TH-cam is one of the very few sites I disable my blocker on, because the content creators I enjoy deserve to make a living too.
OK, fair point havent thought about mobiles.
fg gf yeah, and what makes it worse is that they feed you more/longer ads if you have ever watched a longer ad all the way through (like a movie trailer that hooked you.)
scott went in. good shit scott. pretty convincing argument.
I agree with this man, they have grown more powerful than the government.
With my previous comment notwithstanding, this dude certainly gets it: capitalism can't work when companies can completely overrun the market. There's always going to be some "quirk" (political or otherwise) that will allow some companies to grow much larger than is healthy for a functioning market. Galloway is right: it's not evil on either side (government or business) to "cool the heat" of a too-strong conglomerate. We just need a political establishment (and a voting public) that is aware of the dangers of these new kinds of monopolies...it's not as concrete as the telephone and railroad monopolies of yesteryear.
The "isms" are Not the answer
And then a Professor comes along to spill out the TRUTH behind the BIG TECH BULLSHIT!
is it true that Google has 93 lobbyists in Washington?
That’s is some stuff right there! I love the front line part...
This is exactly what he talks about in his book, "The Four."
Bethebest 1 have you read the book? How is it?
Andre yes, I have! If you're interested in business and/or technology then I recommend it. It's a good book to me, as he pairs the four (amazon, apple, facebook, and google) with appealing to a human emotion and tendency, so as to have success. These four are close to having a Trillion dollar evaluation. The funny thing is that when I finished reading the chapter on apple, they had reached a 900 billion dollar evaluation. It's a nice read, but if you're familiar with his TH-cam channel, some stuff he talked about on his channel are in the book, but it's a cool read though.
We should add microsoft to that list, and break them up again once and for all so they go bankrupt this time, and burn down the economy and send drones to kill all of the people who would be corrupt in a capitalist society and then run away from the drones because everyone is corrupt, cuz Jesus wasn't lying
Your communism is disgusting
Paul Lelyukh ?
Technology is like freedom, both lead to complacency. We are at our best when we're a little bit hungry.
BREAK THEM UP! BREAK THEM UP!
Awesome and fundamentally sound perspective. Scott is definitely the man.
Totally agree 100%
breaking up a company like Google or Amazon is definitely an interesting perspective and I've heard decent arguments on both sides. One side that says hey that company has build up what they have and there are other websites like them and anybody could build a website and do what they do. I've heard arguments on the other side that said these companies are basically a monopoly and are so big that the free market really can't compete because of its size nobody could make another one and be able to get off the ground. I kind of lean a lot more for the former since I am a Libertarian so I believe heavily in the free market but I do understand the argument of them being monopolies.
This is such an important video. Share it widely >>
Emphatically agree. Unequivocally now more than ever!
lmao what are those noises at the very start
Andréa Hubert i listened like 10 times. I think the intro speaker grunted as he walked off stage.
Why do I suddenly feel so motivated to go and study at NYU?
The markets are working how they're supposed to. This is what eventually happens in Capitalist "free markets"; monopolies or duopolies or oligopolies eventually form. What was once a diverse market becomes dominated by 1-5 corporations flat-out and the only way to stop this natural way Capitalism will progress would be to use regulations where you're essentially interfering with the natural progression of those competitive markets, not somehow protecting them.
Needless to say, as much as I like how well-intentioned this guy is, he's also wasting his time talking about how people have elected officials who don't do much against these companies while calling these countries _democracies._ Apologies but *not a single country in the West (or on this planet) is a democracy.* Certainly not the US, these countries are usually *Republics* (slyly often labeled "Representative-Democracies") which means you're meant to elect people _who represent you;_ as in, people who get to make decisions on your behalf as they see fit. It's essentially just an oligarchical system where the common folk get to choose who sits at the top of the oligarchy who still often tend to be wealthy and famous people who can actually muster the support and campaign donations to reach such high echelons of power.
Worse yet, you have the Republican system of governance existing alongside Capitalism which obviously will lead to only a few people holding the majority of wealth in the world relative to the overall population. So I ask you... In this setting where there are people with net worths in excess of 1 billion US dollars and people who essentially have no net worth beyond what's in their pockets; who do you think these representative officials, who tend to really need things like campaign donations, will respond to? I write this quite sadly when I tell you that you're deluding yourself if you think the majority of them will ever respond more to the latter demographic.
And finally, a democracy actually involves everyday people having a part in the decisions that effect them. It is self-governance and is *nothing* like what republics are. Humorously, the founders of Scott Galloway's current _home country_ (the USofA) were well aware of this which is why the word _democracy_ *never appears in the United States constitution* because they were all, to speak overly simplistically, snooty wine snobs who held nothing but contempt for the idea of common people ruling themselves and bought into this silly (and unfounded) ancient Greco-Roman belief that this would only lead to utter chaos. They did this whilst taking steps to ensure that only men of privilege such as themselves would have much of a chance of rising up to the highest positions of the republican system they'd chosen and all you're seeing today is that already elitist system making love with Capitalism, a system, at a base level, even more elitist than it is.
You're not going to make any sort of great difference by _fighting within the system_ like this man suggests. All you'll accomplish, *if you're lucky,* is establish a decent Social-Democratic sort of state of affairs like with Iceland or Norway or what have you where everything is still republican and capitalist but at least somewhat more humane for the common person with a robust welfare system, higher and more responsible taxation on the wealthy and so on. But this is doomed not to last and someday your country will end up with a Reagan or a Thatcher or a Shinzo Abe blabbering about something that sounds an awful lot like _trickle down economics_ while working very very hard to gut your country's welfare programs over the span of decades in conjunction with winning the rich more and more tax-cuts whilst they already dodge taxes with overseas tax havens and you'll be right back at square one; chattering about fixing the system from within.
Newsflash, the systems themselves are corrupt *and always were.* You want change? Break it all down and replace it with something new and truly democratic or good luck with your reforms, lol.
Not only that but that 100,00$ tax revenue is now 50,00$ so to make up for it you all demand more taxes on the 2 remaining companies that struggled but held on. Now those 2 have decided they cannot afford it as there is no benefit since they aren't rewarded for improving. They either fire everyone or downgrade their products to crap to make up for sudden lost of revenue. Now those 2 companies may bolt.
He's ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! And Elizabeth Warren AGREES!
Google needs to lose their search engine and TH-cam
Brilliant analysis. I agree completely
Keep speaking the truth
Great video! As a cynicist seeing absolutely no action towards breaking up or even controlling the companies, this makes me consider adding amazon to my stock portfolio haha
High Price to EBITDA a sign that they will start charging monopoly prices? And measuring market concentration by share of market GROWTH? This guy is off the wall.
The universe is a platform.
super collider ((currently) required for quantum computing/AI) 14:25
I don't think it should be broken up but rather taxed a lot. Hey why not write most of it off by using it to expand even more as business expenses. The power structure should also be regulated. As in more board members... As in hundreds of thousands of them which shareholders can elect. Be a intangible country if it helps. Bezos shouldn't be allowed to keep so much of the share.
Why shouldn't he be allowed to keep the shares that he was allotted in the company that he envisioned and still leads? I don't agree with his policies but I do think he should be able to reap the benefits of his work.
HighFlyer sure paying labourers slave wages then working them to death is "his work".
KNO you mean the laborers who volunteered to work there? At the same Amazon that he himself work 12hrs/day 7 days a week? I can assure you he put the work in to get where he's at. And those people who were at his side are probably doing ok also.
If these people didn't want to work at Amazon pulling orders maybe they should have been Valedictorian in high school. Graduated from Princeton worked on Wall Street then opened their own business where they could work even harder.
HighFlyer By that logic why even have worker protections and minimum wage. Remove every humane regulations and import people from other countries and make them work for free for food. If they protest just deport them and import more volunteer workers.
KNO I'm not defending the way he treats his employees. I just pointed out they were volunteers not actual slaves. I am defending his right to a fairly large chunk of the wealth he created. You claimed that he shouldn't get his shares, which technically aren't money yet. And their value depends on his continued hard work.
i think he has a strong point - and honestly after this presentation, if i was a juror id say, "break them up"
thats way they get money for blocking youre accaunt and you to pay for it 50 times and the get payd for blocking unhelthy comments person data then you get duplo google banks and food dont have any persons all automatic than all youre live is an lie 1/3 of poppulation pay taxes its bracking point that 1/3 is giving up
30:50 was savage
He's right! Great video.
I hate big government, but GO DOJ. Dismantle it. Make TH-cam independent.
I 100% agree!
This professors and academics always coming up with business solutions to industries that they have never even put the effort to run and manage it or even simply putting up a start up and even paying wages to workers.
They sit pretty in the comfort of their university offices read books and develop theories and boom just like that they have solutions for the real world of commerce.
The days when academics and so called intellectual educators sitting at the top of the revered people hierarchy is long gone! This century people respect people who start small businesses and grow them into giants. That is true education in progress showing "fruits" in real time not theories in books that haven't been tested yet!
I'm angry, too.
I am not familiar with what it means to "split them up". How?
Basically redefine the antitrust laws so that these tech giants can be defined as monopolies or oligopolies. Then their major business divisions will need to go their separate ways or be sold off into independent companies, which will not thence be allowed to merge or acquire one another anymore. For example Alphabet will have to let go of TH-cam if it wants to retain Google.
Its essentially what happened to Rockefeller's Standard Oil in 1911. Originally an oil monopoly dominating the US economy, it was broken up into 34 different companies. Which become the modern oil companies Chevron, Exxonmobil, etc.
Funny that this is hosted on Business Insider's page! XD
In a Communist country, government owns the businesses.
In a Capitalist country, businesses own the government.
You’re either getting screwed from the front or the back, but you’re still getting screwed if you aren’t a business tycoon or a political tyrant.
The problem is we want it that way because we’ve figured out the more they own, the happier we are. If Facebook bought Google, we’d be excited because then we’d have one less tab to open.
Galloway is appalled that Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple got away with it and rightly so. But it’s no surprise we got here. We saw what they were doing and we wanted them to do it; that’s why we did nothing to stop it. However, we didn’t give them so much power without getting something in return. Think about it, we did this knowingly, willingly. We voluntarily gave them this power in exchange for the cheapest high on the market - the pleasure you feel from somebody liking your post.
Look at the internet usage Galloway cites - it’s insane! That much usage can only indicate one thing: a world addicted to the internet. And somebody is always profiting from addiction. Zuckerberg is nothing more than the modern day Pablo Escobar who sells the virtual equivalent of cocaine. It’s cheap, just as fleeting, and keeps you coming back for more.
What Galloway noticed is not a lapse in the Capitalist system working properly. And it’s not going to get solved by applying Capitalist measures either (i.e. “ break these guy’s up because we are Capitalist”). Why? Because again, if we were true Capitalist’s we would have done something about it by now. But it’s not going to happen because underneath every Capitalist, Communist, and Socialist is a miserable human being that just wants to get high enough to escape pain and stay sober enough to enjoy pleasure.
There is no way you’re going to take away my virtually induced high. Zuck is my dealer and Facebook is my snuff. I want it that way. Don’t bother me. Like this comment if you agree.
I love your logic and funny inserts :)
How dare they pay for advertisments in rubles.
Facebook needs a strict sheckles only rule now!
I hope they breakem up soon before they do more damage. Facebook, google and Amazon. Can someone also stop these Kardashians! Worse thing that happened to young girls after IG
Just tax the robots and use the money for a basic income.
So should Verizon, Comcast, and at&t.
Got 2 Amazon ads on this video lol my guess is it's purposeful 🙄 (Yeah I know how TH-cam ads are targeted, you could still Target Galloway's videos through keyword targeting)
*Sidenote* : I have never gotten an Amazon ad before today
echo system
15:42 I wish the audience laughed, that was great.
My Alexa went off when he said at 15:41 "Alexa, is that a good thing?" and she's like "I don't know about that"... BET YOU DON'T, ALEXA AND YOUR TAX AVOIDIN' A**
At the end Galloway references two ecosystems, does anyone know what the first is?
that is definitely the weakest welcome i've ever seen in the history of things
I wish he'd give more specific examples on how restructuring would help the end user in a given market. Like, he knows that having fewer available choices improves customer satisfaction in a product class. He's stated as much. BUT... he should definately still talk about the benefit in diversity of first (trend) choices. This is a scenario where diverseity in *platform* *choice* allows different high level players to succeed in their own specified domain (see: Josh Peck on Vine) Honestly tho, idk if Galloway will get anywhere with his petition to reorganize the big 5; he gets so cought up in the party politics that idk if he ever steps past the base question of "should we break them up?" and moves on to 'how do I implement and leverage my assets in order to break them up'. Scott is no hero, like, I think it's possible someone might come along with a really great story and be the face of the fight against Amazon, but rn there's no meme for people to get behind except for for Galloway's giant wig. 🐥🐥🐥
After watching the video on my APPLE device... I got on ... AMAZON.COM, bought his book, KINDLE edition, and downloaded it to my KINDLE DEVICE... then proceeded to share this TH-cam video link on FACEBOOK
^all true btw minus the sharing it on Facebook lol
Imagine a forum with Scott Galloway, Ben Shapiro, and Elon Musk
Jordan Gonzales who?
Jordan Peterson as well. Man that guy understands our society and what we have become.
"Ben Shapiro"
ENDING KILLED IT
ironic that this is on TH-cam(Google)
This guy needs to run for president
What do you think of a new logistics innovator who will exploit time and labor scheems tied to employee dividend reinvestment similar to how tech gamed investment expedecency that created market demand with employees optioning for fat paybacks in the early 2000's to undercut global logistic delivery pervayors?
My friends and I used to joke in highschool that Microsoft would take over the world. We were so naive!
Walmart is Amazon ... Amazon is walmart?
great talk
If there is one company that needs to be broken up, it's Disney. They have WAAAAYYY too much power.
Why didn't he include Microsoft?
He did mention Microsoft.
Why is this a MARKETING talk? Seems much more expansive, political and profound.
Well this is a random find to have done there
Jeff bezos owns business insider, which is the channel that uploaded this haha
15:42 "Alexa, is this a good thing?"
Lol...kinda odd to promote breaking up Amazon when you're relying on their products to move your presentation along. This is the problem: these "successful companies" have such a broad reach (honestly...we're almost always on one of those platforms, or some other large social media network, like Reddit/Snapchat/Instagram), it's almost impossible to have far-reaching conversations online without touching them. It's...complex.
They should have been broken up years ago as they do have way too much power over the Internet.
Plus there is a big danger to the economy when a company holds too much of the GNP see the collapse of Daewoo in South Korea and Petrobras in Brazil.
What human need is satisfied by Microsoft?
I'd say Microsoft is the exception to that analogy because they dominate corporate IT, and are still pulling in revenue off the back of their meteoric success in the early IT years.
They're trying to move in the direction of Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon by being more consumer-focused but they don't have the brand image that the "big four" do to push their technology down people's throats. That, and they have to remain loyal to their corporate customers. I mean they've tried and failed multiple times to get into the consumer space with Windows Phone, Zune and Bing to name a few.
Jamie A I agree, but what if "their regression" is only positioning in a less visible place (corporate IT), as well as their work. It is interesting that they are relatively easy to get out of criticism compared with Аpple.
Аnd yet they are large .
you guys are so freakin dumb microsoft was already broken up, and you are talking about doing it again!!!! Like they just making a come back after being crushed by the democrates
He is right, but it won't happen
This is exactly why I’m so hell-bent on blockchain technology, because it can mitigate the centralization of technology that has made the big 4 so powerful.
He misses the fact Amazon doesn’t actually sell or take a position on most of the products. They are sold by 3P sellers who Amazon abuses. Amazon gets money from both ends
not sure breaking up the phone company made long distance bills go down back in the day, they will call you liberal. ooh! but I sure like your analogies & making consumers think about stuff although cheap prices seem the only thing we the consumer like. thanks for making us think. :)
Get em Scottie
Saw his tedtalk! Seems like he took the comments seriously and volume down his voice.
The fact this talk was interrupted by an Amazon ad is beyond ironic
Nice rip. 0:04
Really good video
He has a great youtube channel too :)
DerNeuere
Whats the name of the channel please?
L2inc
Galloway for president!!!
Hahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahhaha, you crazy
I hope democrates add this to they're platform they won't win another election in a century
"es'muse me." - Scott Galloway
This guy is arguing for these companies to "take responsibility" for whats posted on the platform in other words he's arguing for Censorship, fuck off. But I agree with everything else he said. Particularly about tax.
27:00 this is why trump has been attacked by media facebook and twitter
Facebook and Google are free.
Not too many examples of monopolies who's product costs nothing.
Yes, the make money from advertisers but there are plenty of other ways to advertise.
Is My Space a monopoly?
It's not Facebook's fault that people choose it over others.
Joe Giuffre No. There really aren’t many other ways to advertise that are nearly as effective. In that right, they’re absolutely a duopoly.
AT&T all over again. history repeats
Funniest thing.....I wear a few different Swatch watches and without fail, someone compliments my watch choice and LOVES the fact it is a swatch. With so many fake watches out there you can really standout just by just being original :)
There has been an awakening. Have you felt it?
Scott Galloway is the funniest guy in any lecture theatre.
look I'm pro capitalism, I like trump all that stuff but if there's one thing I can agree with on the left its that big tech should be broken up.