| > YT barely makes money Sure. And the same has been about Amazon in retail. But the scoreboard for the tech companies is not earnings; it is return to shareholders, mostly share price appreciation. If the stock prices are high in relation to income, that suggests that the monopoly power is somehow valuable, probably in expectation that the monopoly can be significantly monetized in the future or used to help other parts of the business. Monopolies may have multiple downsides even when they do not extract extortionate profits. Google must obtain plenty of positive feelings from the public for providing so much amusement via youtube, maybe so much good feeling that no one even tries to assess the consequences of their other monopoly (search). Somehow, when I see a huge company like Alphabet (Google) based on a niche like search, which has a single winner, and they offer a service like youtube that looks so grass-roots inclusive inviting everyone to join in and get happy, rich and famous, but only a very small fraction do, where success is based so much on what youtube itself recommends, I suspect that there may be some implicit bias working in favor of unequal results that maybe google has something to do with. We should be looking for alternative models and finding ways to reverse the trend to single-winner markets. I grew up when all the significant cities in the USA had multiple local newspapers, all of which hired writers, and when very many more musicians made a living than do so now. I cannot think of a good reason why anyone should have expected that vast improvements in communications technology would destroy that or why we should just let that go. Monocultures do not find global optimums. |