[freemrkt8]

As inequality has grown, so has the deficit.

But for decades, government programs ran surpluses.

It’s not hard to explain it away in memorized economics terms. The thing is those terms are merely one set of reasonable, generic language. Not immutable laws of reality.

Technology is moving faster than that because of government investment; IBM refused to invest in solid state fearing it would undermine sales of old tube computers. Government invested in and gifted them solid state patents.

What do you think the cheap money flowing to tech corps was about the last decade? Government subsidy of technology, which is verifiable in that now that rates are down tech genius CEOs are not innovating but pushing traditions of austerity. These companies are middlemen dependent on government subsidies.

[such12]

How is this relevant?

[briantakita]

The Fed prints fiat which goes into the banking system to VCs & other investment vehicles. Fiat is based on the credibility & debt of the issuer. When the issuer looses credibility & when the issuer issues more fiat in relation to assets & production, then the fiat loses value. Large tech companies have received much of this credit & debt based fiat. When the value of the fiat falls, then the large tech companies' value is increasingly based on fundamentals which is based on underlying assets & production.

[such12]

Again, a macroeconomic analysis with no explanation of how this is relevant.

[briantakita]

I think the macro trends support your comment. Economic credibility & social credibility are related. Let's say a regime that controls the monetary system consists of pathological liars that uses the monetary system to their advantage & a certain critical mass knows it...they will want as little participation with that system as possible...explicitly or tacitly.

If the large tech companies are the vehicle of the monetary regime, then aware people will want to maximize their interests...One way to improve their interests is to use alternatives or to somehow influence the large platforms. If the large platforms do not change in peoples' favor, then it becomes clear that the more effective use of time/energy to use alternative solutions

Even if the large platform does change one's favor, the awareness that those who control it are not creditable leads to distrust & an understanding that participating with the creditable is a better mid & long term strategy.

[freemrkt8]

You think he’s wrong about how great government control would be, but the government is in control.

[such12]

Don’t be silly. The government doesn’t regulate how these services operate.

If you are going to argue that macroeconomic policy means ‘control’, then the government ‘controls’ everything in everyone’s lives at all times. You are welcome to believe this if you like.

[freemrkt8]

The government regulates their existence, their ability to grow, hire, develop services.

Section 230 regulates what is allowed. DMCA, etc etc

You say I should not be silly but I can believe what I like. Which is it? You are not really selling a strong argument here, just wishy washy opinions decoupled from the negotiated terms of society documented openly.

Society, the rest of us, do not have an obligation to your head canon.

With the money printer off, tech corp are going where the money is; government welfare, not a free market: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/google-and-...

The government does not “own assets” on paper but it has a whole lot of influence over agency

[such12]

> You say I should not be silly but I can believe what I like. Which is it?

They aren’t mutually exclusive.

> The government does not “own assets” on paper but it has a whole lot of influence over agency

Feel free to believe that your agency is under government control.