From an ethical perspective, tech monopolies aren't a very good idea. However, from a purely economics standpoint, tech giants make up a not insignificant part of the US's GDP.
> However, from a purely economics standpoint, tech giants make up a not insignificant part of the US's GDP.
Yes. It would surely be better to have a large field of non-giants competing for customers taking up the same proportion of GDP though right?
The real question is where do those competing considerations meet up. A monopoly is bad, but you can go too far in the other direction as well. I don't know how to decide what the best answer is (I'm not even aware of anyone who has made a useful argument for any particular compromise)
Those things are not linked. Large and monopoly are very different. Your example of engines is good, there isn't afaik a monopoly on building engines. Even a small number of huge auto makers are still competing against each other.
> A monopoly is bad, but you can go too far in the other direction as well. I don't know how to decide what the best answer is (I'm not even aware of anyone who has made a useful argument for any particular compromise)
I agree, I think the general aim with the EU makes sense which is about use of power in one field to control another. So google are good at search but that doesn't mean they get to make their own shopping attempt rank higher than others. If they have 90% of the search market then fine if that came from being better than everyone else but their shopping offering has to be better than others.
Disruptive tech monopolies upset entire existing industries for the sake of their owners/shareholders/employees, which is usually tiny compared to the said industries.
(Think of FB/Google advertisement centralisation as the end of other media providers.)
I keep wanting to push back on whether GDP is the best way to measure an economy, but most of the articles I find bring in concepts like "[GDP] doesn’t meaningfully account for successful management of priorities like public health, economic equity, climate action, or racial justice."[1] But you're making it clear you're talking from a purely economics standpoint. So pushing back on the ethics of applying GDP doesn't even apply.
Indeed. So could the US reliance on these monopolies and tax-avoiders have anything to do with the US's relatively unimpressive growth compared with the EU?
The "in-" actually is negation; the word means something like "NOT susceptible to valuation", i.e. beyond value.
- GMail, Google Maps, etc
Saying there's no value in those (even if ad sponsored) is a bit naive
That doesn't really matter at the end of the day when you're discussing finances. All that matters for people, countries and governments in capitalism is that they have more money in their pockets than the rest, not how ethically that value gets generated or if their work produces much social value to society.