6 ms·

> Once you're big enough to be a target, you have to spend money on lobbying, and contribute to campaigns. Absolutely not. You do the opposite of that. You go

> Once you're big enough to be a target, you have to spend money on lobbying, and contribute to campaigns. Absolutely not. You do the opposite of that. You go at layer zero. At the population level and enter the culture wars arena with the goal of winning. Some of these companies are structured in a way that the founders are poised to retain control of their companies till they retire (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Berkshire). If you are Zuck or Brin or Dorsey and you want to do this until you are 95 like Buffett then you are better off barking and biting back, acquire a reputation of a fighter so that people like Sanders and Warren would leave you alone. There will be consequences such as employees criticizing and leaving but in the long term you are better off fighting. When a politician comes after you and your company, you just attack back, if you are not prepared to do this you should simply not start a proper company and opt for a carrer in a hedge fund instead, where you can make money in the dark. Founders and CEOs should not be the first offender but when they are called out they should absolutely attack back. Sanders is pouring manure all over corporate America since 2015 and all he had to endure was Michael Bloomberg attacking him back for half a debate, and wouldn't have happened if Bloomberg didn't decide to run. If a guy like Bezos or Zuck were to tweet back at Sanders something to the tune "I've started a company in a garage and now it has the same credit rating of the US Government, what have you done with your life?" That would be fair game, politicians prey on weakness, they smell it and keep biting till you lay there unconscious

skak 5y ago
> Sanders is pouring manure all over corporate America since 2015 Can you please expand on this? What exactly are you trying to say here?
joejerryronnie 5y ago
You’ve also got to read the room. The mood in the US is not in favor of hard charging mavericks of industry. This approach today would likely backfire spectacularly. Big Tech should be locating large employment centers in strategic locations around the country. And by strategic I don’t mean where the talent, resources, or customers are located but rather where influential Congresspeople, Senators, and Governors are located. Then wield your soft power with these folks, e.g. “You can break us up but it’s just going to cost your district/state massive job losses”. Next, meet with other agitating politicians to find out their underlying motivations and help them to achieve those things - doesn’t even need to be real, just help make them look good for their next re-election campaign. So Bezos should work out a public deal with Bernie and AOC to raise Amazon’s minimum wage to $20 an hour. Bernie and AOC will look like progressive heroes but would be effectively defanged in continuing to attack Amazon (to a large degree).
- ojbyrne 5y ago
  At least 1 company has beaten you to that idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_HQ2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_HQ2
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- Growling_owl 5y ago
  This strategy would have worked before MMT took over, now politicians don't need to bring about jobs, they can just print money and pass deficits of epic proportions and substitute the private sector with the state. Especially Democrats they have no regards for fiscal responsibility , they'd have no qualms in breaking up Amazon, knowing full well that the next step would be to install a dependency scheme in the form of UBI financed via fiscal deficits.
- klaudius 5y ago
  Big Tech should be locating large employment centers in strategic locations around the country. And by strategic I don’t mean where the talent, resources, or customers are located but rather where influential Congresspeople, Senators, and Governors are located. I thought this was one of the problems of a Soviet style command economy. They would locate production not where it was more efficient and made economic sense, but where it was politically more beneficial. If these companies start doing this they could lose to more efficient competition. Hope they aren't that stupid.
  - 8note 5y ago
    *Less efficient competition if they can't get the government to vote their way
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
parafactual 5y ago
> If a guy like Bezos or Zuck were to tweet back at Sanders something to the tune "I've started a company in a garage and now it has the same credit rating of the US Government, what have you done with your life?" Aside from whether or not this is good to do, do you remember the Amazon News incident? Amazon tried to "fight back" on Twitter and it just made them look bad. (Maybe incident is too strong a term, but I don't know what else to call it. Tweets such as this: https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1374911222361956359 https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1374911222361956359)
- Growling_owl 5y ago
  It has to be Bezos not a small time account. It has to be him and has to be unapologetic, like Trump was. People like to make fun of Trump but he delivered a masterpiece. He got to be POTUS for 4 years and the 73M people he convinced to be part of his movement grant him total immunity against past and future actions (including crimes). His only mistake was to be banned from social media, otherwise he could be a shadow "monday morning" President right now, undermining everything Biden says. You don't get to choose which type of ship you run, society does that for you. If you are being attacked it's the signal that you are running a ship which is too tight , you gotta loosen up

skak 5y ago

> Sanders is pouring manure all over corporate America since 2015 Can you please expand on this? What exactly are you trying to say here?

joejerryronnie 5y ago

You’ve also got to read the room. The mood in the US is not in favor of hard charging mavericks of industry. This approach today would likely backfire spectacularly. Big Tech should be locating large employment centers in strategic locations around the country. And by strategic I don’t mean where the talent, resources, or customers are located but rather where influential Congresspeople, Senators, and Governors are located. Then wield your soft power with these folks, e.g. “You can break us up but it’s just going to cost your district/state massive job losses”. Next, meet with other agitating politicians to find out their underlying motivations and help them to achieve those things - doesn’t even need to be real, just help make them look good for their next re-election campaign. So Bezos should work out a public deal with Bernie and AOC to raise Amazon’s minimum wage to $20 an hour. Bernie and AOC will look like progressive heroes but would be effectively defanged in continuing to attack Amazon (to a large degree).

ojbyrne 5y ago
At least 1 company has beaten you to that idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_HQ2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_HQ2
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Growling_owl 5y ago
This strategy would have worked before MMT took over, now politicians don't need to bring about jobs, they can just print money and pass deficits of epic proportions and substitute the private sector with the state. Especially Democrats they have no regards for fiscal responsibility , they'd have no qualms in breaking up Amazon, knowing full well that the next step would be to install a dependency scheme in the form of UBI financed via fiscal deficits.
klaudius 5y ago
Big Tech should be locating large employment centers in strategic locations around the country. And by strategic I don’t mean where the talent, resources, or customers are located but rather where influential Congresspeople, Senators, and Governors are located. I thought this was one of the problems of a Soviet style command economy. They would locate production not where it was more efficient and made economic sense, but where it was politically more beneficial. If these companies start doing this they could lose to more efficient competition. Hope they aren't that stupid.
- 8note 5y ago
  *Less efficient competition if they can't get the government to vote their way
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

parafactual 5y ago

> If a guy like Bezos or Zuck were to tweet back at Sanders something to the tune "I've started a company in a garage and now it has the same credit rating of the US Government, what have you done with your life?" Aside from whether or not this is good to do, do you remember the Amazon News incident? Amazon tried to "fight back" on Twitter and it just made them look bad. (Maybe incident is too strong a term, but I don't know what else to call it. Tweets such as this: https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1374911222361956359 https://twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1374911222361956359)

Growling_owl 5y ago
It has to be Bezos not a small time account. It has to be him and has to be unapologetic, like Trump was. People like to make fun of Trump but he delivered a masterpiece. He got to be POTUS for 4 years and the 73M people he convinced to be part of his movement grant him total immunity against past and future actions (including crimes). His only mistake was to be banned from social media, otherwise he could be a shadow "monday morning" President right now, undermining everything Biden says. You don't get to choose which type of ship you run, society does that for you. If you are being attacked it's the signal that you are running a ship which is too tight , you gotta loosen up