Enough with the attacks on BIG business

A common theme that always seems to unite both sides of the political aisle is advocacy for small business.  From sweetheart loans to tax rebates, a lot of public assistance is available for small business.  When the government isn’t helping small business, it’s usually going out of its way to harm large businesses with burdensome regulations and taxes.  None of this is fair or prudent.  All businesses should be encouraged to grow and commended for growing. 

 

Obamacare is a perfect example of what I’m talking about.  It only applies to those businesses that employ less than 50 people.  If the legislation is so helpful, why limit its application?  Sadly, there are thousands of regulations like Obamacare that small businesses can easily avoid, whereas big business must follow or face the full force of the federal and state legal apparatus. 

 

Many of the regulations meant to target all businesses only end up hurting large businesses because there is no glory in prosecuting a mom & pop pizza ship, when much bigger pockets can be extorted.  By way of example, anyone that knows anything about small business knows that many pay their employees under the table. If you should happen to be an under-the-table employee at a small business and report your condition to the local authorities, what are the chances a government bureaucrat will care?  Answer: slim...you probably wouldn’t report it, as the act of reporting it would likely get you fired.  However, assume you’re Wal-mart employee that is getting paid under the table and report your condition to the authorities, what are the chances a government bureaucrat will care? Answer: high...cash symbols will light-up in any government bureaucrat’s eyes, as that means big pockets to pay a hefty fine.

 

It’s often said that big businesses have expensive lawyers and savvy accountants; accordingly they can easily comply with Federal Regulations.  I reject this assertion, big businesses, if they aren’t making money, will go out of business or they will tailor their operation to make money.  One way to tailor an operation to avoid labor regulations is by relying on low cost foreign labor to make their products or manage their call centers. 

 

We should look to our big businesses as a source of national pride, not piggy banks or test cases in social justice.  In other countries, big businesses are often taken over by Government entities much like what happened to Yukos in Russia.  It’s why Third World Countries have economies consisting primarily of open-aired markets, while virtually every major significant corporation in the world chooses to compete on our soil.  

 

So the next time you hear someone make a pitch for a small business, do me a favor and remind them that we should support all businesses. 

Comments

Skip Stein Added Jun 26, 2017 - 1:06pm
Well I am HUGE supporter of Small Business; I are one! <smile>!  Then there are the massive corporate global businesses that seem to have forgotten where their roots are.  Others, are seeking ONLY profit and have lost their moral compass.
 
From the fast food industry, massive mono-farming agribusiness, pharmaceuticals and the health industry, many, TOO MANY are providing harmful products that are making Americans (and others) sick; sometimes dying.
 
Free Enterprise. Invention and PROFIT are the keystones of American Business.  But oftentimes they have reach monopolistic proportions.  The ability to patent life and GMO issues are a great point.  Drugs who's side effects are often worse than the disease are another.  The medical industry is predominately treating people to death for profit.  Cures are measured in years not lifetimes.
 
If the subsidies were removed from the agribusiness and related industry a pound of hamburger would cost about $45 and a steam upwards of $75.  The subsidies, paid by We The People, are promoting, often deadly, products and industries instead of allowing Free Enterprise and Free Markets to decide.
 
The healthcare system with it's sister the insurance industry only rewards sickness/disease and never Health & Wellness.  Physicians are ONLY paid to treat people; there is NO incentive to CURE or to keep them healthy with PREVENTION.
 
These are only a few examples where the Federal Government interference (corrupt politicians and cronies/lobbyists) have distorted Free Enterprise and skewed it toward greed and lack of any sense of moral compass.  Information that SHOULD be easy to obtain is clouded/obfuscated by over regulation and miss-information.  Like the tobacco industry, many in the food industry fight tooth and nail to Prevent the TRUTH about their products to enter mainstream thought.
 
So I am ALL in for business, big and small, but only when it is Fair and Competitive and not skewed only for profit at the expense of the Truth.
Phillip Louis D'Amato Added Jun 26, 2017 - 1:15pm
Exceptional article on the double standards imposed on big business versus small businesses. 
Phil Greenough Added Jun 26, 2017 - 2:03pm
Skip;
What makes you think small businesses have a stronger moral compass than large businesses?  Why do you think large businesses care about profit more than small businesses?  What makes you think “harmful” products are produced by big businesses and not small businesses?  These are all rhetorical questions, there are no differences between small or large businesses as it relates to any of that stuff. 
 
I read some of your past articles and get the fact that you’re a huge anti-GMO guy.  That’s great, but this is an article about the differences between large and small businesses and I have no interest in discussing GMOs or health and wellness. 
 
The subsidies you mention for agribusiness, are they going for big businesses and not small businesses?  If yes, will you kindly name the subsidy and how you know only big businesses benefits from it?
 
Phillip;
Thank you, it’s always nice to be appreciated. 
Skip Stein Added Jun 26, 2017 - 2:26pm
I never said that small business ethings or morals was better than big ones; I only addressed the larger issues of massive multi-national businesses that continue to get subsidized by the taxpayer.  And MOST of these subsidies DO go to big business enterprises, NOT small businesses like family organic farms who must compete against the agribusiness giants.
 
While it's true I am FOR health and anti-GMO, it was only used to demonstrate how Monsanto and big government collude to promote GMO rights over the small/independent farmers who are harmed (google lawsuits against small neighboring farms harmed by unasked for cross-pollination law suites by Monsanto).
 
There is just massive evidence and more examples that would fill this site.  Try this one that supports my argument:
 
Article by Chris Edwards:
"The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) spends $25 billion or more a year on subsidies for farm businesses. The particular amount each year depends on the market prices of crops and other factors. Most agricultural subsidies go to farmers of a handful of major crops, including wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton. Roughly a million farmers and landowners receive federal subsidies, but the payments are heavily tilted toward the largest producers.
 
Some farm subsidy programs counter adverse fluctuations in prices, revenues, and production. Other programs subsidize farmers' conservation efforts, insurance coverage, product marketing, export sales, research and development, and other activities. Agriculture is no riskier than many other industries, yet the government has created a uniquely large welfare system for farmers.
 
Farm subsidies are costly to taxpayers, they distort the economy, and they harm the environment. Subsidies induce farmers to overproduce, which pushes down prices and creates political demands for more subsidies. And subsidies hinder farmers from innovating, cutting costs, diversifying their land use, and taking other actions needed to prosper in the competitive global economy."
 
Read full: https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies
Phil Greenough Added Jun 26, 2017 - 3:34pm
Skip;
Monsato and big government (what’s the difference between big and small government) are not in collusion, that’s simply a conspiracy you also have no evidence to support.  GMOs are used by plenty of family run farms, as they are the surest way to produce the greatest harvest using the least amount of resources (such as drought-resistant crops).
 
I’m against farm subsidies too.  However, where Chris Edwards’s opinion article is misleading is in the assertion they’re disproportionately given to large farms because the Government is trying to assist large farmers.  These subsidies are based on the amount a farm produces.  It makes no sense to provide a large production subsidy to a small producer.  For a production subsidy to be fair it should be weighted by the amount a farm produces.  Otherwise, everyone who grows an ear of corn in the backyard would file for subsidies.
Dino Manalis Added Jun 26, 2017 - 3:56pm
Small and large businesses are consumers and they should be encouraged to spend; invest; hire; and be able to profit!  That's the whole point of being in business!
George N Romey Added Jun 26, 2017 - 6:11pm
Not all small business are ethical and not all big business are unethical.  However, the general tendency is that small business cares for employees and their communities, large corporations do not.  I work for a smaller business and its run by a bunch of arrogant a holes.
Peter Corey Added Jun 26, 2017 - 7:44pm
>the general tendency is that small business cares for employees and their communities, large corporations do not.
 
Any evidence for that statement?
Peter Corey Added Jun 26, 2017 - 7:49pm
>Many of the regulations meant to target all businesses only end up hurting large businesses
 
Conversely, many of the regulations that are approved and supported by big business are done so precisely because they have deep enough pockets to afford to comply with the regulations while an innovative small-business startup — one that might knock them off their comfortable perch and grab a chunk of their market share — likely would not. Historically, big business has always supported regulation in its sector for precisely that reason: as a legal way of using government to protect its incumbent status and hamper competition.
Jeff Jackson Added Jun 26, 2017 - 10:33pm
Phil, despite what many may think of my essays, I am not opposed to big business. I think the problem is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. For example, on the issue of executive pay, every time the government tries to tax the astronomical salaries, the accountants and lawyers got together and figured out a way to get around it. There are plenty of ethical big businesses. The problem is the manipulation and undue influence, as well as ethical.
Recently I wrote articles that were critical of both Amazon and Chipotle, who have millions of satisfied customers, so they must be doing something right. Nonetheless, I do not approve of the management practices of either firm at present time, for reasons I have explained in detail.
My beef will remain with CEOs making thousands of times what an average worker makes. They are not thousands of times more intelligent or experienced or educated than an average employee. Certainly, we can have a small number make tens of millions while all the others slave away for barely enough to live on. The result of such an economy is clear, just look at most of the Third World countries where wealth is concentrated in a few hands and everyone else is poor. I firmly believe we are on that path, and I also believe that big business is the perpetrator of this economic disparity.
It will become what kind of country you want to live in, where you have  middle class that can move the economy along, or vast wealth in the hands of a few and everyone else poor. I'm not saying janitors make $100k. But, as management guru Peter Drucker said: Drucker advocated "a ratio around 25 to 1 (as he suggested in a 1977 article) or 20 to 1 (as he expressed in a 1984 essay and several times thereafter). Widen the pay gap much beyond that, he said, and it makes it difficult to foster the kind of teamwork and trust that businesses need to succeed." I'm with Drucker on this. Nice thinkpiece, good thing on WB.
Peter Corey Added Jun 26, 2017 - 11:11pm
>Phil, despite what many may think of my essays, I am not opposed to big business.
 
As long as a business gets "big" in just the way you approve.
 
>I think the problem is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 
Lord Acton's quip is true, but it wasn't meant you to conflate two very different kinds of power: economic power (under capitalism, that equals the wealth earned by providing consumers with what they want) vs. political power (the police power of government, allowing them to tax, fine, conscript, imprison.
Jeff Jackson Added Jun 26, 2017 - 11:15pm
Sure, Peter, you're telling me that economic power doesn't translate into political power? Who's being naive here.
Phil Greenough Added Jun 26, 2017 - 11:21pm
George;
I would argue that because most small businesses are barely scraping by, big business is the one that gives more back to the communities in which they work.  But even if you’re right, the fact businesses are making money is all we should expect from any sized business.  I believe this because when businesses are successful what they give in terms of employment and taxes is far more beneficial than some highly visible charity action.   
 
Peter;
The belief that big business has deep pockets is a recipe for disaster.  It doesn’t take much for a big business to realize they’re a target and to pick up and move to a community or country that doesn’t see them as a bottomless pit of money. 
 
Jeff;
I’ve read your articles and I do think you’re an enemy of big business despite your claims to the contrary.  Even now, you’re assertion they manipulate and have undue influence is complete bull shit.  If big business was so influential there wouldn’t be Obamacare or Dodd Frank.  The fact of the matter is that big business is under attack and your articles are proof that society looks at them as piggy banks by which it extort and steal from.  Furthermore, the compensation of CEOs is none of your damn business.  If a company is paying too much for their top executives, they will be less profitable than those that pay less.  So there is no need to focus on the salaries of CEOs unless your goal is to extort and steal form them.  By steal, I mean tax.  
Jeff Jackson Added Jun 27, 2017 - 1:32am
Phil, your position would have more validity if it was backed by some evidence rather than obscenity.
According to The Wall Street Journal, “shareholders in Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. overwhelmingly voted against its executive pay package in a rebuke to the burrito chain's two top leaders over their combined compensation of nearly $50 million last year,” (Jargon, 2014). Apparently, the shareholders think that Mr. Ells and Mr. Moran are getting paid too much money. The shareholders apparently are looking for more dividends, and they see Chipotle as vastly overpaying Mr. Ells and Mr. Moran, perhaps not as much as $36 million, but overpaid just the same. After all, Ells and Moran certainly aren’t bringing in to Chipotle the $34 billion a year that Lloyd Blankfien, CEO of Goldman Sachs is bringing in but are paid more. I won't be buying Chipotle's stock any time soon.
Big business, Phil, and shareholders saying it's too much. Let me praise Goldman Sachs because they pay the employees well, and the CEO has a reasonable ratio to what the average employee is paid. There, praise of a big business. What was that about me being their enemy?
I rest my case. Oh, and you  might want to read the book, "The Fine Print" which details some of the nastier things big businesses do. By the way, big businesses fought hard to keep from having to reveal the pay of CEOs, even public companies. If they really wanted the pay to be a private matter, they can always go private, and then no one has to know. Cargill is a huge business, and it is private, so, I agree, what they pay is none of my darn business. As an investor in stocks, if they aren't willing to reveal what they are paying the CEO, what else aren't they revealing? It's business, Phil, not personal.
Lady Sekhmetnakt Added Jun 27, 2017 - 4:25am
Phil is just another mindless worshiper of the Oligarchy. Another puppet too stupid too see the strings. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Jun 27, 2017 - 8:37am
Get your head out of the sand.  The is the dumbest statement I have read to start of a blog, "A common theme that always seems to unite both sides of the political aisle is advocacy for small business."  Nothing can be further from the truth.  Those coffers of the politicians are filled with money from big business, that is who they listen to.  Hillary Clinton got her money from New York wall street that is why they moved to New York State and not back to Arkansas. 
 
Big business help formulate the regulations.  McConnell gave the health bill to lobbyist two weeks before Senators and we saw it.  No accident.  Big business have people that do nothing else but deal with regulations.  Small businesses do not.   Health care would not be a problem if the government let small businesses purchase insurance as a group.  They do not.   Your blind.
Phil Greenough Added Jun 27, 2017 - 8:58am
Jeff;
 
“Apparently, the shareholders think that Mr. Ells and Mr. Moran are getting paid too much money.”
 
Meaning what, that Ells and Moran are getting paid too much?  Or that CEOs at other corporations are getting paid too much?  Allow me, it means nothing.  Perhaps the shareholders are wrong and Ells and Moran are underpaid.  Look, I’m all for shareholders exercising their ownership rights and doing what they think is best for a company.  As for me, if I’m a shareholder of a mega-corporation, I want a great CEO and that probably means it will be an expensive CEO. 
 
“Let me praise Goldman Sachs because they pay the employees well, and the CEO has a reasonable ratio to what the average employee is paid.”
 
Goldman Sachs pays their employees well because highly skilled labor is the key to making money in investment banking.  There is no such thing as a reasonable ratio.  It all depends on the nature of the business.  Take Walmart, in light of the fact most of its employees make close to the minimum wage, how much should its CEO be paid? 
Jeff Jackson Added Jun 27, 2017 - 9:04am
One more time:
Consider what management guru Peter Drucker said about executive compensation. “When it came to the relationship between a CEO’s pay and that of the average worker, Drucker advocated a ratio around 25 to 1 (as he suggested in a 1977 article) or 20 to 1 (as he expressed in a 1984 essay and several times thereafter). Widen the pay gap much beyond that, he said, and it makes it difficult to foster the kind of teamwork and trust that businesses need to succeed,” Hunter, 2015). Chipotle’s CEO (Steve Ells) is been compensated at a rate that is 1000 times that of the average worker of the firm (New York Post, 2015). It is difficult to see how a CEO paid 1000 times what the average worker makes can “foster the kind of teamwork and trust that businesses need to succeed” as Peter Drucker said. Phil, if you do not know who Peter Drucker is/was, read about him before you write another article on business.
Phil Greenough Added Jun 27, 2017 - 9:14am
John;
Name one big business monopoly?
 
Jenifer;
You know you’ve won the argument when your dissenters only have ad hominem attack as a retort.
 
Thomas;
Get your head out of the sand.  If politicians only listen to big business why must they be subjected to Obamacare and small businesses get to ignore it?  Do you honestly believe Hillary Clinton, any Democrat for that matter, is a friend to the business community?  That is why the stock market exploded after Trump’s election, businesses knew they would no longer have to deal with a president hostile to Wall Street. 
Phil Greenough Added Jun 27, 2017 - 9:39am
Jeff;
So if Peter Drucker believes something, it must be so?  Drucker never ran a company in a low-wage industry, if he had, he’d realize his theory wouldn’t apply to all companies. Please keep in mind, I have no problem with anyone who believes some CEOs are paid too much.  My problem is when government exercises its power to control what anyone makes, as the free market should be the determinant of what all of us make for our services.  For whatever it’s worth, none of this talk of CEO pay has anything to do with my article.  Or do you believe it does? 
Ian Thorpe Added Jun 27, 2017 - 11:32am
Phil, John and I don't often sing from the same songsheet but ... only today it has been announced that Google are being fined $2.7 billion by the EU for abusing its near monopoly in the internet search market. I could show you many other examples of near - monopolies (Microsoft in the PC operating system market?) but you only asked for one and now you've had two.
And don't get me (or John) started on cartels.
George N Romey Added Jun 27, 2017 - 12:10pm
Ian add me to that chorus. 
Phil Greenough Added Jun 27, 2017 - 1:08pm
Ian;
When an American company is fined by European bureaucrats that’s hardly evidence of guilt.  Even when an American company is fined by American bureaucrats, that doesn’t necessarily mean the company did anything wrong either.  My favorite example of what I'm talking about is when Toyota was fined for American drivers failing to depress the brakes.  As to near monopolies, there are plenty, but that also means there is competition, hence the word “near.”  However, even if one company does such a great job that they establish a monopoly, that’s also not evidence of the company doing anything wrong.  I’d argue it’s evidence of them doing something really good (so long as the monopoly wasn’t created by the government).
Thomas Sutrina Added Jun 27, 2017 - 2:34pm
Phil G., " Small Business get to ignore Obamacare"  obviously you have not talked to small businesses that now have to provide health insurance because they have more then 50 employees.  You have not talked to the workers that now are part time employees because Obama care mandates that the owner of the small business wanted to avoid so he reduced hours of some workers, that pesky 50 employee limit..  

Phil.  I believe that countries, corporations, and people put money into Hillary's presidential campaign for a reason.  They are not interested in friendship but influence which is what they purchased.  The Clinton Foundation closed down the Global Initiative On January 12 because Trump was elected and the funds stopped flowing in.  Guess why Phil? 
 
The stock market planed for which ever person won the White House.
Phil Greenough Added Jun 27, 2017 - 3:01pm
John;
You clearly don’t know what an Ad Hominem attack is.  Jennifer called me mindless, a puppet and stupid.  Oh and by the way, don’t like Google, try Bing, Safari, Yahoo, etc. etc.    Are you honestly so naive that you think corporations want to be forced to provide their employees healthcare insurance?
Jeff Jackson Added Jun 27, 2017 - 3:19pm
Gee whiz Phil, let me explain this for your one more time. It is only big business that can pay dozens of millions of dollars to a CEO, therefore it follows that CEO pay is a big business issue. Do you understand that, or do I need to explain it another way? The small business down the street doesn't pay dozens of millions to a CEO, or maybe you think they do. Your failure to recognize the relationships that are exclusive to big business and your rejection of management principles reflect the depth of your understanding of the issues.
George N Romey Added Jun 27, 2017 - 3:35pm
I've been around tons of small business and the CEOs do not make 300X times their average workers.  Yes they lead a good life as they should but not to a point of tens of millions, often for doing not much.  Small business CEOs usually work their asses off.
Phil Greenough Added Jun 27, 2017 - 3:46pm
Jeff;
Yes, I’m well aware of the fact the owner of the local hardware store isn’t making a salary in the millions and CEOs of major corporations are.  Thanks for stating the obvious.  Who’s the one rejecting management principles, me for suggesting people should be paid what they’re worth or you for basing it on some formula designed by liberals that have no understanding of business and economics, such as yourself. 
 
George;
CEOs of major corporations also work their asses off.  But assuming all they do is play golf, how does that affect you?  What are you folks suggesting be done to our capitalist way of life?  
Ian Thorpe Added Jun 27, 2017 - 4:27pm
Phil;
"When an American company is fined by European bureaucrats that’s hardly evidence of guilt."
That's a non sequitur. The evidence of guilt was presented in a series of court hearings over several years. The evidence was in front of anyone who uses Google every time they did a search. The evidence is easily testable to anyone who is even a little tech savvy.
And with all that evidence available, the failure of American bureaucrats to act when American companies complained of Google's business practices stinks of collusion.
Peter Corey Added Jun 27, 2017 - 5:17pm
>The belief that big business has deep pockets is a recipe for disaster.
 
An absurd statement. It's precisely the deep pockets that make their business "big".
 
>It doesn’t take much for a big business to realize they’re a target and to pick up and move to a community or country
 
Yep. And guess what? It takes deep pockets to move your entire operation to a different location. Most small businesses and startups can not afford to do so.
 
Economic historians and business journalists have studied your topic intensively for many years. You might read "The Triumph of Conservatism" by Gabriel Kolko (there's a free PDF online) to find factual information on the great extent to which big business sided with government regulation mainly in order to make it difficult for anyone to compete with it. You should also broaden your reading with some of the works of economist George Stigler (U. of Chicago and Nobel laureate) on the "Theory of Regulatory Capture", showing how big business (or at any rate, established, incumbent businesses) have powerful economic incentives to spend money for the sake lobbying government for legislation that's in their favor and which disfavors new entrants into their sector.
 
>that doesn’t see them as a bottomless pit of money. 
 
A non sequitur. No one ever claimed that having "deep pockets" is the same as being a "bottomless pit of money."
 
Stone-Eater Added Jun 27, 2017 - 6:23pm
Google was fined 2.4 billion by the EU today. Pocket money for them. Make feel justice LOL
Stone-Eater Added Jun 27, 2017 - 6:29pm
CEOs of major corporations also work their asses off.
 
I know a few. Fly around, dress well, stay in good hotels and pretend, talk a lot, then delegate the real work. Sorry. Talking and pretending might be hard work, but then they should try Hollywood, that pays better. And when talking is hard work you can relax after in a n star hotel.
 
We have lots of those useless parasites in Africa, believe me. They earn with blabla 1000 times more much money than the people do which ALLOW their salary.
 
Fuck them.
Stone-Eater Added Jun 27, 2017 - 6:31pm
BTW: The only work they REALLY do is trying to keep other people off their back who want their job.
Phil Greenough Added Jun 28, 2017 - 9:04am
Ian;
If governments and its populace embraced capitalism and free markets, there would be no court proceedings against Google because Google didn’t do anything wrong.  After all, it’s not like Google was fined in America.  Do me a favor and summarize the case against Google?
 
Peter;
I think we’re saying the same thing.  My arguments is that large corporations aren’t going to be fined and taxed without eventually altering their business.  So while it may appear they are bottomless pits of money, they will close that pit up. 
 
John;
Do you have anything to add to the conversation ever?  This is the last time I so much as read anything you ever write again.  So you might as well go troll someone else. 
 
Stone;
To anyone that believes class warfare is a thing of the past, I present you as exhibit A to its continued existence.  For whatever it’s worth, delegating work is the most important part of any CEO’s role in an organization.  The responsibility is a full time job and why one CEO may make a lot more than another. 
Peter Corey Added Jun 28, 2017 - 9:42am
>large corporations aren’t going to be fined and taxed without eventually altering their business.
 
Same with individuals. Taxes and fines (e.g., the Obamacare Individual Mandate) change incentives. When individual are faced with changed incentives, they alter their economic decision-making, and hence, their economic behavior.
Peter Corey Added Jun 28, 2017 - 10:03am
>Corey is recommending a Marxist?
 
Why not? After all, you recommended a crypto-fascist — John Maynard Keynes (Mussolini's favorite economist).
 
"Fascism entirely agrees with Mr. Maynard Keynes, despite the latter’s prominent position as a Liberal. In fact, Mr. Keynes’ excellent little book, The End of Laissez-Faire (l926) might, so far as it goes, serve as a useful introduction to fascist economics. There is scarcely anything to object to in it and there is much to applaud."
— Benito Musslini
Ian Thorpe Added Jun 28, 2017 - 10:14am
Phil, if you believe Google did not do anything wrong, then perhaps you are not the right person to be commenting on business matters. What Google did, and this is proved beyond argument, is rig their algorithm to make sure their brands are always listed above competitors in search results. This was in spite of their having given (as all search operators must) a LEGALLY BINDING committment to net neutrality, i.e. to apply the same criteria to all websites, their own included, when determining position in search results listings.
WHEN A LEGALLY BINDING COMMITTMENT IS BROKEN PHIL, A CIVIL OFFENCE HAS BEEN COMMITTED if not an actual crime.
And there are many more cases against Google in the legal pipeline on six populated continents, mostly relating to invasions of privacy and the sale of information not gathered from our browsing activity but plundered from personal files on our computers. They are in trouble everywhere for breaches of national law and unethical behaviour.
Peter Corey Added Jun 28, 2017 - 10:34am
>What Google did, and this is proved beyond argument, is rig their algorithm to make sure their brands are always listed above competitors in search results. This was in spite of their having given (as all search operators must) a LEGALLY BINDING committment to net neutrality,
 
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2611526/data-center/no--google-fiber-doesn-t-violate-net-neutrality.html
 
"The fact is, Google is well within its rights, and perfectly consistent with the Net neutrality concept, to ban "servers" from its service. Google Fiber is not, nor was it ever, designed for corporate use. Google claims it will be offering a business-class service in the future, and I expect it will have a similar TOS to other business-class services from other ISPs, in that running servers is not only OK, but expected -- hence the term "business-class."
 
If Google was throttling traffic to its competitors -- or to anyone, for that matter -- then it would be violating Net neutrality. If it were offering only tiered services with access to a handful of websites rather than the entire Internet, then it would be in violation of Net neutrality. If it were outright blocking or censoring certain sites, protocols, or services, then again it would be in violation to its stated position on Net neutrality. But Google is doing none of these things . . ."
Thomas Sutrina Added Jun 28, 2017 - 10:36am
Mitch McConnell the man that ran in 2013 campaign on repealing AHA and leading the fight to repeal root and branch.  Two weeks ago gave the big business health insurance lobbyist a chance to review the health care bill.  They fill his campaign and the senate's campaign coffers.  So nothing goes out without their approval.  Same goes for Paul Ryan that said he would put the VETOED 1/3/2016 AHA repeal bill on the desk of a GOP president after the 2016 election.
 
I just sent my representatives these tweet: 1)Tsunami flow over base CBO 20% & 3X for 45+ premiums 17% poll popularity Keep promise 1/2/2016 repeal GOP JH on this bill   2) Employer drops HC employee fined  running on this 2018 goodby base 
 
Both bills have about a 17% approval rating.  Hillary won the popular vote so the GOP can not loose a vote.  They won on the county district level.  Those districts that elect representative to congress and state legislatures.  The people most effected by premiums, and work for small employers are in those counties.   Big business attacked in effect the heart land of America to reduce risk, have a captured clientele.                
Phil Greenough Added Jun 28, 2017 - 3:45pm
Ian;
If you believe Google did something wrong, then perhaps you are not the right person to be commenting on business matters. Sound familiar?  Peter provided some information on the matter, I highly advise you reading it.  I suspect you’re content with large American corporations being fined by the EU, so why bother with any argument to the contrary, eh?
 
Peter;
I couldn’t finding it after searching, but did Google release an official statement regarding the fine? 
 
Thomas;
How is your comment relevant to the discussion at hand?
Ian Thorpe Added Jun 28, 2017 - 4:52pm
Peter and Phil; the court case in the EU and others elsewhere have seen evidence proving Google did the things Peter says they did not. And the link he provides does mention net neutrality, but pertains to private servers on fiber networks in the USA,, not search results across the world. It's a completely different issue to the EU case.  Google don't want people setting up private servers on Google fiber lines. That is absolutely their right. Unfortunately it is absolutely eff all to do with rigging search results.  Fiberoptic technology is good, but it would not be practical to run a fiber link from Europe to the USA.

Google Fiber is, according to Wikipedia, a fiber to client distribution service. The article linked to actually concerns people setting up servers on Google Fiber links. Nothing at all to do with search results. Did either of you read the article? Do either of you know what a server is? Or a Fiberoptic distribution service? 

Here's the relevant text (emphasis added):
Google is well within its rights, and perfectly consistent with the Net neutrality concept, to ban "servers" from its service. Google Fiber is not, nor was it ever, designed for corporate use. Google claims it will be offering a business-class service in the future, and I expect it will have a similar TOS to other business-class services from other ISPs, in that running servers is not only OK, but expected -- hence the term "business-class."

The quibble is this language: "Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection..."

But very few people in the USA and none in Europe have a Google fiber connection.

If you two did not have your heads so far up your own arses you'll only see the light if your throats are cut, it might dawn on you that the European Union case was not about fiber services in the USA. Or even that the WORLD WIDE WEB (the clue is in the name) is not a service confined to the USA, and American companies operating in foreign jurisdictions must abide by the laws applying in that jurisdiction. Phil, Google broke European law and carried on breaking it after being warned to stop. What happened to them is what the rest of the people in this thread apart from you and your mini-me would recognise as justice.

And if you aren't aware of the difference between a local fiberopitic distribution service and the World Wide Web, then you should definitely stay out of discussions that involve technology - as well as avoiding business and legal matters because you obviously don't read very well.  
Phil Greenough Added Jun 28, 2017 - 9:25pm
Ian;
Kindly direct me to the link where Google was found guilty of doing anything?  Before you go searching, keep in mind being fined is not evidence of guilt.
 
Not that it matters to anti-American bureaucrats in Europe or Ian, but Google immediately rejected the commission’s findings, and signaled its intention to appeal.  For the record, the following is what Google was fined for:
 
Brussels claims tech giant abused market dominance by manipulating its search engine results to favour its own comparison shopping service
 
I find that to be ridiculous thing to be fined for, not to mention the outrageous amount of money.  It’s obviously a sneaky way to extract a pound of flesh from a highly successful American corporation, emphasis on American.  However, Americans are guilty of the very same thing, as evidenced by the fines imposed on BP and Toyota. This brings me back to the point of this article, let’s stop attacking big business, they’re the hand that feeds us. 
Athena Carson Added Jun 29, 2017 - 9:13am
I need to read everyone's very intelligent comments later, but in the meantime I have to get to work.  So I'll just offer this quickly:
 
In my experience, small businesses suck.  I know I'm not supposed to feel that way, but I have a lot of experience being a customer of small business as well as serving small business clients as a CPA.  As a customer, my experience has been 50% good / 50% bad.  But that bad 50% has been really REALLY bad with no real recourse.  As a CPA, my experience with small business has been 10% good / 90% bad.  90% really REALLY bad.  As a CPA, it's totally fine if you don't speak my language; I do my job for a reason, and part of my job is helping you to understand accounting.  Look, I get that you're proud of your business (and deservedly so!) but it doesn't mean you know everything.  Don't try to tell me that you know better than I do how to do MY job when you don't know the first thing about what I do.
 
On the other hand, big business has its own share of headaches from where I'm sitting, but they are the type of headaches that come with complexity and over-regulation.  Not from any character or personality defect in the client contacts themselves.  It's a personal choice but I would rather deal with big-business headaches than small-business headaches any day.
Phil Greenough Added Jun 29, 2017 - 7:23pm
Athena;
I know what you’re saying but I think there is a more eloquent way to say it.  Clients come in all shapes and sizes, generally speaking it’s way more profitable to do business with several large clients versus many small clients.  The takeaway I hope to provide my readers from this article isn’t to favor big over small businesses, it’s to stop attacking big business. 
George N Romey Added Jun 30, 2017 - 11:45am
Athena I worked here with a number of small business in South Florida and some of what I've seen makes me just shake my head.  Its sad because there are employees dependent upon that paycheck.  I see senior management totally unattached, unaware and often uncaring that the business is falling apart.  They want pretty PowerPoint slides that in actuality have no basis to reality.  For example, recent experience.  The company has no idea and no handle on all of the equipment its leasing.  Some of it sits aside broken.  Bills get paid for equipment no one is sure even exists anymore. Yet the CFO won't touch the problem with a ten foot poll and wouldn't listen to me.
 
Instead he just said that I need to express the problem in a Spreadsheet, which I did for what it was worth, and he promptly ignored.

Recent Articles by Writers Phil Greenough follows.