What needs to be reined in is your overwhelming jealousy of those wealthier than you.
...I mean, isn't that 90% of the population anyway?
What needs to be reined in is your overwhelming jealousy of those wealthier than you.
...I mean, isn't that 90% of the population anyway?
And Toasters should always be kept in the fridge?
How is your Crypto investment going? You no longer see it as a long-term investment strategy, just something to short-sell and pretend to be a trader?
So you morphed from an investment expert to a trading expert. Ha, Ha ButtPlug, I warned you about Crypto from the very beginning. If you failed as a crypto investor, you will fail as a crypto trader.
Have you updated your LinkedIn profile yet?
Umm, what are you talking about?
I bought BTC at $14k years ago and still holding it. It's currently at $80k.
Also...
Solana - bought at $12 currently at $90
Ethereum - bought at $1.2k currently at $2.3k
...and I've always traded memecoins, defi tokens, gaming tokens, etc.
Tell me, Visser, why do people that do better than you anger you so much? Were you a jealous child?
For some reason i get the feeling that you have siblings that have drastically outperformed you. Am i right?
Oh , I also noticed that you ran away from the Ai thread where i asked you if you ever tested the GPT instructions i pasted for you. This was after you said something like "I'd want to see if your Ai's actually work....something about deepest darkest Africa"
Lol
PROMPT: What do real investors and day traders say about people who buy crypto only
RESPONSE:
Real investors and day traders often criticize people who buy only crypto as gamblers rather than serious investors, due to extreme volatility and lack of diversification. They view it as high-risk speculation that ignores traditional assets like stocks and bonds. Many recommend limiting crypto to 5% or less of a portfolio.
Experienced voices prefer HODLing strong projects like BTC/ETH in a balanced portfolio over all-crypto exposure. They stress discipline and warn volatility can wipe out undiversified holders during downturns.
ButtPlug, you are the perfect target for Crypto. You delude yourself into thinking you know a topic through emotion. It clouds any form of logic and filters out reality to reinforce your misinterpreted narrative.
You basically con yourself; it is like shooting fish in a barrel for the crypto creators.
lol...BTC is the best performing asset in human history.
In fact, you should probably buy some now.
I know enough about investing and trading to know that I don't know much about it.
I would only rely on the recommendations of someone who does this as their day to day job, not some wannabe Crypto investor trying to impress people on a blog by positioning themselves as a guru
You seethe with jealousy, ViaKop
Hey Guys, look at me - an investor and more recently a day trader...ButtPlug, you are the one trying to make yourself sound successful...
The new African answer to Sam Altman and Bankman-Fried combined into one. You, Sypho and Malema are working 24/7 on the new AI model. Ha, ha..
Hey Guys, look at me - an investor and more recently a day trader...ButtPlug, you are the one trying to make yourself sound successful...
The Plug just can’t help himself; with his imaginary captive audience, it’s like he has to constantly showcase his successes. He’s been noticeably silent about moving to Canada—just another attention-seeking exercise. Thousands are migrating to Canada quietly and without any fuss, unlike the Plug, who attaches a sense of self-importance.
As i thought, you have nothing to add. Just as you had nothing to add on the oil price thread other than showing us that you really are out of depth even when someone has literally drawn pictures to explain it to you. Just a jealous little man that hates the rich because he knows he'll never be one of them. Sucks to be you.
Yes, Denise...we should all make a million posts about trump. Cos that's far more healthy and interesting to read.
ButtPlug, the pseudo-intellectual who uses big words to try to pretend he is a topical expert. This is evident in his writing style, which is oblique and vague. He makes a prediction, but it is totally unclear what it is. A bit like saying one day it will rain, and when it does rain he claims credit for the prediction.
He has a YouTube education and picks up a few stompies here and there. For a few months, he is a long-term Crypto investor, then switches to day trading.
Everyone knows that the price of oil will drop when the war is over, but the Plug thinks he can see patterns in the data to make a prediction, when really there is only one variable of significance.
lol still not understanding but running your mouth.
What have you actually contribute to any of these conversations?
...oh, wait...you asked Chat gpt some questions and posted its anwers.
What a specimen you are
still not understanding but running your my mouth.
Story of your life Pluggie boy..... the story of your life.
This thread was about Starmer, and ButtPlug changes the topic. Was it not he who was complaining recently about threads changing topics? The ButtPlug was schooled on the other threads and should have learned his lesson, but clearly did not. His charts were BS. It did not predict the price of oil going up again significantly (e.g. over 20%), shortly after he predicted minor fluctuations upwards, before moving downwards again.
Try J.P Morgan, Buttie, they're desperate for a financial geniarse like you. A financial Guru shouldn't waste his talents on an inconsequential message board.
You spoke about your usual jealousy of the wealthy. I commented on that.
...you brought up crypto.
lol numpty
So ButtPlug, have you started to like your own posts? It seems miraculous that there is always one like, but never two.
What does Starmer have to do with being rich and successful? I supported him in the beginning, regardless, but no longer see him as the way forward. Incidentally, he is the least popular prime minister ever, so not many other people do either.
"Starmer is refusing to resign, and it has become an ego trip about his own commitment to woke social values, while doing nothing to rein in the richest of society, who are consolidating wealth."
...pleb
Well Shark it would seem you want Starmer to ‘rein in the richest in society’. What exactly should he do? And what form does this wealth consolidation take? How is it harmful?
Average wage growth has flatlined in the UK over the last 15 years (for the first time ever). The US has also experienced minimal wage growth. (Excluding the Oligarchs, who are paid out in dividends and loans instead of wages anyway).
The wealth gap is growing, and the voters want that resolved. It is a Democracy with majority rule.
This transcends left/right-wing politics; it is something the majority can unite around.
A short-term treatment is increasing taxes on the richest 5%, or at least making sure they pay the same % of wealth (not just income taxes, capital gains workarounds, etc).
That will allow taxes to be reduced on everyone else, instead of the majority carrying an unnecessary burden. Wealth should be taxed at a flat rate, regardless of who owns it.
However, the real fix to the problem is more competition. Low competition and monopolies are not a long-term plan, it consolidates wealth in fewer hands. If America want their Oilgarchs and shareholders to be the main benefactors, we need to cut them out of the supply chain. I would prefer a protectionist EU that Boots out Big Tech. If we block their tracking technologies, like Google, we can replace them by giving the data to European companies like Search engines. The EU is still committed to a global market of open fair trade, whilst China and America are protectionist, but still want to access the market.
More competition will better distribute wealth.
Capitalism = lots of competition = Democracy = decreasing wealth gap
Authoritarianism = low competition = privatised communism = increasing wealth gap.
(Traditional communism is no competition, with centralised state ownership). China actually have more competition, so whilst being politically COmmunist, their economy is more Democratic)
SB
Back to Starrmer. If he resigns what has the Lab/or Party got to replace him. As fa as I can make out the candidates are from the far left-wing of the Party and that is just going to embark on spending sprees and then havo increased taxation wh ich in the end cause g rbeate pverty than is there at present,
Maybe I should not be bothered by such a move by Labor - It will inevitably lead to destruction of the Labor Party itself,
Andy Burnham seems to be the best Labour has. However, Starmer blocked him from being an MP, so right now, he was not eligible.
However, an MP has just stepped aside, so that has triggered a by-election for the MP's job that Burnham is going to compete in. But... It is an area that Reform has done very well in recently, so there is no guarantee that he will win this. If he does win and becomes an MP, he has the backing of most of Labour to take the job.
Although having a mini-runoff with other candidates would be good to hear what he has to say, first of all.
The other candidates are not great, and Stammering Starmer may even beat some of the other candidates.
Burnham is from the North of England, and Starmer is from London. I think he should get the job, with Rayner (another very working-class person) as the deputy. I think people might get behind them. Although time will tell....
The North of England have lost total faith in the establishment (left and right wing), hence why Reform has grown so quickly. However, the new party, Restore, appears to be growing as quickly, and its focus is on illegal immigration.
With the rise of China, it has raised questions over Democracy. Many in the West do not believe their governments work for them. As if the 2 main parties are 2-sides of the same coin, or 2-sides of the same arse.
Burnham has tried to become leader twice before and failed. Hopefully, it’s not a case of third time lucky.
As for Rayner, no thanks. She’s a nasty piece of work.
I think that when a party wants to change its leader, they are forced to call a General Election. Let the country decide who becomes PM, not a party swopping and changing like the Conservatives kept doing.
Governments don’t work for us and yes, we are losing our democracy, I believe.
Just my opinion, before you start jumping on me !
The problem with your logic Shark is wealth is the result of creating value. Mankind has benefited vastly by the activities of US tech firms And there is strong competition in every category. In fact the modern world would grind to a halt if they suspended activities for a day
Witness Microsoft, top dog three years ago and now challenged by many alternatives. Yes you could legislate away some of Google’s lead in search..but nobody but the shareholders of companies that got a helping hand, a finger on the scales, would be better off
You could tax their success beyond current levels, but you run the risk of reducing entrepreneurial activity or more likely the flight of capital to other taxing jurisdictions
Go to Berlin and take a tour through formally West and East Berlin to see the difference between the two economic models… grey Soviet slums vs a successful modern city
Pure capitalism linked to societal safety nets has produced the best for most
As for Rayner, no thanks. She’s a nasty piece of work.
Why is she nasty?
I think that when a party wants to change its leader, they are forced to call a General Election. Let the country decide who becomes PM, not a party swopping and changing like the Conservatives kept doing.
There wouldn't be a leadership change if that was the case. Right now Labour would lose an election so why would they change leader if they knew that just result them being thrown out of power. Would be better to stick with Starmer and hope he can turn it around.
But asides from that general elections in the UK don't elect a Prime Minister. They elect MP's from one of the political parties or an independent. The party member decide who will be party leader and thus Prime Minister.
@Mozart,
Your cliches about capitalism ignore competition. Low competition is more like privatised communism than capitalism. America used to be all about competition, that is, the entrepreneurial spirit. Low competition is just consolidating capital in a few hands.
Big Tech are the product of old America; the path they are on now does not prepare future generations (e.g. 70% of Big Tech employees in America are not American).
China has distributed wealth through greater competition, so in many ways, they are more capitalist. If anything, America is nationalising and taking a stake in the private sector, like China.
The world benefits from oil, and without it, everything would grind to a halt. That does not mean there should be no competition in oil suppliers. If anything, more competition would be better. Green energy, if anything, is another competitor that will push energy costs down.
In theory, America should benefit from having the most Tech companies; however, America was a better society before the rise of Big Tech. Their wealth distribution and trust in government systems were much better than now, and there was much less conflict between left and right, etc.
MAGA is associated with Trump, but really, it is created out of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Trump turned this into a marketing campaign, but many of his supporters are eventually starting to see this.
However, Trump is a symptom - not the cause.
The declining trust in traditional career politicians, both left and right. While they both talk a good game on social issues, the economic policies they deliver are not that much different. Neither is solving the increasing wage growth crisis, nor the fact that more of the cumulative wealth is being consolidated in the hands of the richest 3%. That is not a Democratic agenda. America could be heading for a civil war, and most Americans believe they are on the wrong path. Who cares about an AI competition with China? If your society is on the wrong track, you will lose the long-term battle anyway.
Communism fails because of its centralised power. Capitalism fails when it centralises power (Due to reduced competition).
Europe is in the process of moving away from being dependent on Big Tech, for the very reason that a volatile America is no longer stable enough. We can have competition in Europe.
What Google does with its tracking is not difficult. Only they have the user data. if other search engines could do this, goodbye Google. Europe is fading out Microsoft.
In a capitalist economy, competition is one of the primary mechanisms that drives efficiency, innovation, price discipline, and consumer choice. When competition is reduced — whether through monopolies, oligopolies, excessive consolidation, regulation capture, or barriers to entry — the structure of the economy changes significantly.
The impact is not always entirely negative in the short term. Some reductions in competition can improve scale, infrastructure investment, or stability. However, over longer periods, persistent reductions in competitive pressure tend to create economic inefficiencies and concentration of power.
With less competition, firms gain greater pricing power.
In competitive markets:
In concentrated markets:
This is common in sectors such as:
A monopoly or dominant oligopoly can effectively become a “price setter” rather than a “price taker.”
Competition forces businesses to improve products, services, and operational efficiency.
Without strong competitive pressure:
Historically, many major innovations emerged from competitive rivalry:
However, there is nuance:
The key issue is whether dominant firms remain contestable by new entrants.
Competition improves productivity because inefficient firms are forced to adapt or fail.
Reduced competition can lead to:
Economists often associate declining competition with:
This has been debated heavily in the context of large technology firms and modern corporate consolidation.
The labour market can also become less competitive.
When a small number of firms dominate hiring in an industry or region:
This is sometimes called “monopsony power” — where employers have disproportionate control over labour markets.
Examples include:
Reduced competition often concentrates:
This can widen wealth inequality because:
Over time, capitalism can shift from:
As firms become larger and more dominant, they often gain:
This can create “regulatory capture,” where:
This creates a feedback loop:
Consumers may experience:
Digital markets are a modern example:
Examples include:
Highly concentrated economies may become more fragile.
If a few institutions dominate:
This became highly visible during the 2008 financial crisis involving firms such as Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and AIG.
There are situations where reduced competition can produce benefits.
Larger firms may:
Examples:
Highly fragmented markets can sometimes produce:
Some industries naturally trend toward concentration because scale matters significantly.
The central issue is not whether competition should exist, but:
How much concentration is efficient before it becomes economically and socially harmful?
Modern capitalist economies attempt to balance this through:
Examples include:
If competition continues declining over decades, capitalism can gradually evolve into:
In those environments:
This is one of the major structural debates in modern economics and political economy.
-]
Shark your cliché’s about competition are outdated. Amazon is in effect a monopoly, but it’s applying its monopoly more as a monopsony. In effect by reaching out to different suppliers, many in China, it has become a force for keeping prices low.
Search for an item on Amazon and you get many alternatives, all aware of their competitors’ prices. This market has has been perhaps the largest factor in China’s penetration of the US market.
And who is Amazon’s competition, Walmart another near monopoly of physical mega stores and Google a different pathway to most of Amazons suppliers. Each look like a monopoly but in fact compete with and do business with each other. If Amazon raises it’s own margins it runs the of diverting customers directly to suppliers via Google or sending them to shop at Walmart.
But it’s very aware of these risks and it acts cooperatively so you might find your ‘rapid delivery’ item ordered on Amazon, supplied by Walmart in an unbranded box.
The old Depression Era notions of monopoly spouted by out of date economists and parroted by Chat don’t reflect the modern economy. There is vast competition for anything which makes money, multiple delivery systems for any manufacturer and the world as your supplier.
A company may act like a monopoly, but if it;s value proposition changes competition will expose that flaw. We don’t need governments breaking up super efficient companies like Amazon and Google who have done more to restrict inflation than any Central Bank,
As for a European response, as in the case of a military switch away from America, it’s possible, but not without all the hard work. The first step is building a cadre of financiers, versed in tech and willing to take big risks. Silicon Valley has that capability. Then there is the network of suppliers. The skilled people in all the disciplines…..and above all trying to step onto a moving train. What exists today will be vastly better tomorrow and Europe doesn’t even have today.
All of this is the ultimate exercise of democracy, people using their talents to produce wealth for themselves. It’s truer today that when John Stuart Mill wrote:
‘Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign’
That quote has been far truer than anything you’ll find in Das Kapital, Marx’s botching of economics. And China only emerged because in the economic sphere they allowed some measure of that freedom.
Yes vast sums of money have been made in the process, at times that appears to be excessive. But eliminate those efforts and we would all be much poorer. If it was presented fairly I’m sure most of the mega rich would pay some sort of surtax.
Perhaps they are given shares in the Humanity Enterprize….a charity for the betterment of mankind. Some of which could be an actual tax, some of which could be a charity. These shares have no economic benefit but huge social credit. Just an idea.
If you have lost the game, as Europe has, it’s tempting to blame the rules. But changing them will not change how the modern world is functioning,
That is the story that both Biden and Trump said. But the voters are not buying it.
Most US politicians are significant shareholders. Basically they are lobbyists pretending to be politicians. The are pushing a narrative of shareholders, a short-term plan.
Do you know that if the UK was a US State...it would rank dead last in terms of income per person?
Even the rust belt red States earn more per person.
It's no wonder the Poms, and Visser types, are chucking stones across the pond. Jealousy and denial is a horrible combo.
The US is constantly at the cutting edge of everything. They dare to dream and dare to take risks. The majority of those risks don't pay off, but the ones that do keep them perpetually ahead of the curve.
Visser, Europe and the UK need to understand that they are masters of their own destiny. The only feet on their throats are those of their own leaders. And it's not this leader or that leader ...it's the entire system and all of them. Europe is drowning in its own pessimism and denial. Wake up FFS.
The best part is that so many tech people from Europe actually go to the US and make their ideas become a reality.
To me, that speaks to one environment being more conducive to opportunity and innovation than the other.
Perhaps that's the place to start. Fix the system and regenerate the environment to one where people actually have a chance.
More heavily taxing the few that have created wealth is literally the opposite of that. You'll chase future innovators away and in another twenty years you'll still be complaining about "Booo the evil Yanks have monopolies on everything."
The ButtPlug sits in the darkness of Africa, thinking he is a genius among the other monkeys.
Next to the ancient Greeks, the UK may have delivered more inventions than any other country. But dont discount the rest of Europe. (e.g. Einstein).
Google used to have its own AI department before acquiring DeepMind from the UK. Over time, Google fired its own AI department and renamed it Google DeepMind. The governments here need to stop homegrown companies from being acquired by American monopolists.
The governments here also need to wake up to GDPR. It is a barrier to technological development.
No neither Trump nor Biden said anything of the sort….that came straight from me this morning. With a quote from John Stuart Mill. I don’t use Chat to think for me, I use it as calculation resource and to gather facts.
The conclusion from voters that the economy is not working for their particular skill set may be right, but the conclusion that things could be better for everybody is largely wrong. The fact that voters, with huge help from the Democratic media think things are bad, proves nothing.
Nor does the measuring tool of instant gratitude always serve long term gratitude’s purpose. How many of the Jewish elite were happy with Hitler’s early revival of the German economy. What was their fate 10 years later?
Sometimes you have to do unpleasant things, like fighting the Ukraine war or stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear player. That is the main beef with Trump’s economics. Tariffs have played little role.
Overall America is in outstanding shape with A’s on all of the report card including employment. The uptick in inflation will subside when oil is normalized and then we will hear the deflation worries again.
Leave well alone.
"More heavily taxing the few that have created wealth is literally the opposite of that. You'll chase future innovators away and in another twenty years you'll still be complaining about "Booo the evil Yanks have monopolies on everything."
The lefty way...hate people with more money than them..I think you hit it on the nail with the envy angle.
The ButtPlug sits in the darkness of Africa, thinking he is a genius among the other monkeys.
I guess that’s the white flag, but calling your fellow posters stupid because they are associated with South Africa seems arrogant
Next to the ancient Greeks, the UK may have delivered more inventions than any other country. But dont discount the rest of Europe. (e.g. Einstein
You make Plum’s point perfectly, there are very smart people in Europe but the little men in suits make it impossible for them to succeed.
Google used to have its own AI department before acquiring DeepMind from the UK. Over time, Google fired its own AI department and renamed it Google DeepMind. The governments here need to stop homegrown companies from being acquired by American monopolists.
In which case Google would acquired another company or simply hired away the key Deep Mind people ….in either case given the market hold they have they would have succeeded and Deep Mind would have languished.
The governments here also need to wake up to GDPR. It is a barrier to technological development
Probably true, but probably too late even if even implementable.
"Next to the ancient Greeks, the UK may have delivered more inventions than any other country. But dont discount the rest of Europe. (e.g. Einstein)."
Just to be sure, are you pretending that I was talking about the UK in the entirety of all its history, or that perhaps I am clearly talking about today's Britain?
Pleb
@Draad,
You quote what I say, but then remove context or completely ignore certain points.
I said to tax billionaires at the same rate (e.g. income or other wealth such as shares). However, if they were taxed at a higher rate, it would be temporary. The real fix to the problem is more competition, which will share wealth out. Basically, proper natural market capitalism. The American Oligarchs buy their competitors to boost share value, meaning that less wealth in the economy is taxable.
Microsoft acquired Activision. The first thing they did was to fire 10% of its staff, mostly in the US, and then they increased the price of the Xbox. Then they had another round of redundancies.
This practice reduced the number of jobs in the US, helping to suppress natural wage growth by impacting supply and demand. This is not natural market capitalism.
It was a natural market situation with competitors. Governments are meant to break up monopolies, not help them form. However, the US government is filled with shareholders, so we know where the loyalty lies. America is an economic cabal. They have centralised power and wealth into too few hands by killing competition. Instead, that boosted Microsoft's share value, meaning less taxable income/
Those are not treated the same under the tax system.
A normal worker might:
If Jeff Bezos:
Then under current U.S. rules, most of that gain is not taxable yet.
So:
That is why critics say billionaires “pay almost nothing”.
The famous ProPublica figure looked at:
Taxes paid ÷ increase in wealth
Their estimate for Bezos was roughly:
So:
That is the comparison people are making.
So the system effectively taxes:
The real debate is not whether Bezos literally pays zero tax.
It is whether:
Someone whose wealth rises by tens of billions should face tax rates closer to ordinary workers.
That is the heart of the argument.
SB
I am amazed about what happens as to spending of financial and financial management in existence. The leftists believe that spending sprees and just print money and that in a few years leads to endless inflation and short supply of items Gross incompetence is the order of the day
And do you want to do with the 954 billionaires in the USA. After reading your comments on site do you really believe to arrest them and their families and deport them to Teheran
So give us your solution to the problems leading to improvement of the lives of people.
@DumbMike, you dumb fool. I did not expect you to be able to read the explanation. Ha, Ha.
Even AI said that I am independent - not left-wing or right-wing.
The old unrealized capital gains aren’t taxed until exercised argument. In other words we should tax wealth vs income. There are many arguments about this …..but if fully implemented it would wipe out 24% of most retirees savings, and thus their whole life style. Many would have to sell their much appreciated homes
People have planned their lives based on existing laws which are working fine. As for fairness every mega wealthy person pays many times what the average person pays in tax, just based on income tax. And uses way less government resources. That’s not fair? We have to somehow punish that person by shifting the goal posts.
Also if you tax capital differently, there won’t be as much capital. That could affect the cost of every new capital project, especially the kind of high risk projects going into Tech. Every year you could be paying in up to and beyond 10% of your original investment, just to retain it….way before profits emerge.
The other victims of this kind of policy change would be the people who work for the punished, who sell to the punished and the charities that rely almost exclusively on this group to fund their activities,
If it’s not broken, don’t try to fix it.
BS. This system was working - or at least much better than it currently is. Most Americans would attest to that, as would most Europeans.
ChatGPT defines capitalism.
Notice how there is emphasis on free markets with "LOTS" of competition.
Prompt: Define Capitalism
Response:
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production (like factories, land, and businesses) are owned and controlled by private individuals or companies, rather than by the government. In capitalism, decisions about what to produce, how to produce it, and at what price are mainly determined by market forces—especially supply and demand. (This is why high competition is essential; otherwise, it is just an oligarchy).
Key features of capitalism include:
The ideas behind capitalism were famously developed by Adam Smith, especially in his book The Wealth of Nations, where he described how self-interest and competition can benefit society through what he called the “invisible hand.”
In practice, most modern countries use mixed economies, combining capitalism with some government regulation and social programs..
"Microsoft acquired Activision. The first thing they did was to fire 10% of its staff, mostly in the US, and then they increased the price of the Xbox. Then they had another round of redundancies."
You state something and then make an argument based entirely on your uninformed interpretation of why it occurred.
"The sky is blue(yes) because Pappa Smurf Painted it that colour(no)."
Why Microsoft get rid of a percentage of staff?
How do you know that it was not part of an effort to prevent Activision going the way of Ubisoft?
You're pretending that run of the mill business decisions are somehow nefarious and out to get you.
Here is some sanity for you to chew on. If a product is good enough, it is almost impossible to prevent the company owning it from becoming a monopoly. What you are advocating for is an unfairly discriminating against the winner. So perhaps just come out and admit that you're a closet communist because you can't stand losing.
As soon as you do that, I'll Brasso your medal for competing and pop it in the mail.
Completed 3 steps
The claim is partly true but overstated. Microsoft did lay off about 1,900 employees in its gaming division shortly after closing the Activision Blizzard acquisition in early 2024, and that was roughly 8%–9% of Microsoft Gaming, not 10% exactly. Microsoft also raised Xbox prices in May 2025, but that increase affected consoles and accessories globally, and later in 2025 it raised U.S. console prices again. There was also another layoff round in September 2024 cutting about 650 gaming jobs, followed by much larger Microsoft-wide cuts in July 2025 that hit Xbox as part of broader restructuring.
A fairer version would be: Microsoft cut about 1,900 gaming jobs soon after the Activision Blizzard deal, then later raised Xbox prices, and later still made additional layoffs in its gaming division.
ButtPlug, your arguments are weak. This acquisition exercise was simply about increasing the share value of Microsoft and increasing the Xbox price and sales.
Free open markets with lots of competition is what made America a Great country.
They are now deviating from that, with a pretext of beating China at all costs. However, China is increasing competition, not reducing it.
Reduced competition just leads to corruption because power becomes centralised - like a traditional communist economy.
P.s. We saw on the Stav AI thread that AI sees you as a joker, not someone to be taken seriously, merely entertainment value. AI respects me; it sees me as a superior form of life. A bit like a God, a creator.
"AI respects me; it sees me as a superior form of life. A bit like a God, a creator."
I'm glad somebody/something, respects you.
So, are you gonna dissect Microsoft's acquisition of Activision for us or are you gonna insist that we rely solely on your opinion?
You're all about AI, so enter this query;
Microsoft fired a bunch of Activision staff and studios post acquisition, why?
Notice the response states "Microsoft said". Would you trust a bunch of lobbyists and the shareholder board? The acquisition playbook is always to fire lots of staff because of duplicate functions. However, this was previously a natural market situation to have duplicate functions as determined by competition.
Completed 2 steps
Microsoft’s post-acquisition cuts were mainly about eliminating overlap, lowering costs, and reorganizing the combined gaming business after buying Activision Blizzard for about $69 billion. Phil Spencer said the layoffs were part of an “execution plan” with a “sustainable cost structure” that identified “areas of overlap.”
The basic logic was that when Microsoft absorbed Activision Blizzard and King, it inherited duplicate roles in corporate, support, and some publishing functions, so some jobs were cut to streamline the combined organization. Microsoft also said the restructuring was meant to support “future growth,” not just immediate savings.
Some studio teams were affected because consolidation often means closing projects that are expensive, underperforming, or redundant in a new org chart, even if the company says no games or studios are being targeted in a specific round. In January 2024, the cuts affected staff across Blizzard, Activision, Infinity Ward, Sledgehammer, and Xbox-related teams, and Microsoft later made additional cuts in gaming as it kept adjusting the post-merger structure.
The FTC argued the layoffs undercut Microsoft’s merger-era claim that Activision and Microsoft would operate independently after the deal. Microsoft pushed back by saying some reductions were also tied to Activision’s own pre-existing plans and that the layoffs were not solely a merger effect. (Does anyone believe this?)
So the answer is: Microsoft bought Activision, then trimmed the combined headcount to remove redundancy and protect margins. The public justification was “overlap” and “sustainable cost structure,” while critics saw it as evidence that the merger was about consolidation as much as growth.
--------------------
Was Activision profitable?
Completed 2 steps
Yes — Activision Blizzard was profitable before Microsoft bought it, and it had been generating substantial profits for years. A 2023 Fortune profile showed about $7.5 billion in revenue and $1.5 billion in profit, with profit margin around 20%.
So the layoffs were not mainly because Activision was an unprofitable company that Microsoft needed to rescue. The more likely reason was consolidation, margin management, and reorganizing duplicated functions after the merger.
Almost every merger and I have managed through 2 major ones, create opportunities to cut overheads, consolidate plants and sales forces. That raises profits and cash for capital expenditures. Jobs are lost certainly, but your argument is to keep jobs by not merging, even if that means a much less efficient company, which in the global arena will become uncompetitive and vulnerable
Capitalism tolerates no emotional weaknesses.
And BS to you, the system has never worked better than it is today. Your agonizing about US Tech companies is critical of the equivalent of the Industrial Revolution. Get with the times.
Trump has the lowest poll ratings of any US president on the economy - ever.
So the Democratic majority do not believe the system has never worked better. Even Fox and Friends, the gospel of the American right wing concurs this fact.
Even Biden had better poll ratings on the economy, and he had to deal with post Covid inflation that was unavoidable. He was still managing the same corrupt system, with politicians as major shareholders. Lobbyist pretending to be politicians.
The economy is a means to an end, so cutting jobs to boost shareholder profits is not helping people as a whole. Reduced competition is just about boosting shareholder profits, and the expense of majority.
Well the USA is the offending system that leans capitalist….Europe is the system doing what you want to do, protecting jobs that aren’t productive. Here are the results:
The widely cited World Bank comparison for 2008?2023 gives:
Socialism just doesn’t work. Men like Musk who invented Tesla and SpaceX improve the world, men like Bernie Sanders live off those achievements.
Your argument has never worked. As for Trump he could have declared victory after the first strike on Iran. He wasn’t satisfied the job had been done and put himself at political risk to make sure it was. People don’t like it because they have to pay a bit more for gas. The West isn’t big on sacrifice, it’s not like Trump didn’t know there was a much easier political road.
So, increasing competition is now socialist/communist? Utter BS.
Europe's GDP has dropped, but that, to some extent, is down to the rise of China and Big Tech in the US.
The problems started after America caused the 2008 global financial crisis. The UK had become too dependent on financial services, and they have lost global reach in this area.
I believe in a protectionist Europe, with exemptions for our close trade partners like Canada. Countries that commit to traditional capitalism, not pirate monopolists.
I would like to remove China from the supply chain where possible and move all high-end manufacturing jobs to the EU. The low-end manufacturing jobs can be moved to places with weaker currencies in the East, outside of China.
China cheats the global trade system with its X2 currencies. They want to access a global free trade market, while blocking other countries from accessing their own markets.
"Get with the times"
Exactly.
I doubt anyone here actually uses Google to its full potential. Let me tell you, there is a reason they are so far ahead of everybody else.
You can create a website on Google Sites. You can then create contact and info forms linked directly to Google sheets, share docs via Google Drive, manage Calendars, collaborate on Whiteboard, store data...on and on. And that is all from one account on one site.
They are not the market leader because they got in early. They got in early and then they built a product that is simply superb.
To the point where, if they closed up shop, I would need to have numerous subs and accounts on different sites that Google does for me under one roof.
Again, we haven't spoken about their developer tools and analytics yet either.
One of their big cash cows would not be where it is today had they not acquired it. YouTube was not profitable when it was purchased. If you can imagine, and I know this because a friend was working on it at Google, it took plenty of innovation and investment to turn it into the biggest video platform in the world. Should they feel bad about it? They took the risk, they innovated to turn it profitable and today it's unmatched.
...and because they are refuse to rest on their laurels, they continue pushing the envelope with Ai and computing.
Apparently this is all bad.
I pay something like R180 a month for my Google account and I could not be happier with what I get for that pittance. I'd have to pay ten or twenty times that if not for Google.
@ButtPlug, I recall you frequently saying you do not use Google Search, and instead use DuckDuckGo, because of Google tracking you. Do you recall saying this?
It is very simple: if other search engines had the same user-tracking data as Google, there would be intense competition. If there were a standardised open source tracking technology that did not reveal who people were, and just provided aggregate data of numbers, it would be a massive win for user data privacy while creating a level playing field for competition.
If website A gets 100 clicks for a search term and gets 5 sales. Then website B gets 4 sales for every 100 clicks for the same search term, and website C gets 3 sales, and so on - it is obvious what the rankings must be for that search term. This is not difficult, but only one company has the data.
Then just show ads above the organic results.
Google just harvest the internet, and you would be amazed at how much data they have about you. For example, Google can see everything that you buy online. They know your address, your spending habits, and so much more.
Google never made a profit until it copied a company that invented paid ads. Nearly all of Google's profit is from ads, with something 90% profit. Why should only one company have access to all of this user data, and why should they be able to identify individuals building long-term databases of people?
Google Search is organic, natural. That means users themselves decide the rankings (e.g.,
Instagram and YouTube were both acquired long before 2016, the mobile revolution that made the whole internet more profitable. They just needed decent ad platforms, which could have been created by 3rd parties in a free market with competition, assuming they could not do this themselves.
"@ButtPlug, I recall you frequently saying you do not use Google Search, and instead use DuckDuckGo, because of Google tracking you. Do you recall saying this?"
On my phone.
My work accounts are Google.
"Google never made a profit until it copied a company that invented paid ads. Nearly all of Google's profit is from ads, with something 90% profit. Why should only one company have access to all of this user data, and why should they be able to identify individuals building long-term databases of people?"
It's called being the market leader.
Next you'll be asking why Apple and Samsung should dominate the device market.
And the answer remains the same.
Google match up various ID's to identify users across different devices, accounts, browsers etc.
Then they keep a long-term database of you. So that is a futile attempt to preserve your privacy.
It used to be about cookies, nowadays Google have dozens of different ways of tracking you. So for example if you go to a website, and reject the cookie banner - Google still tracks you.
If their is an open source tracking script that replaces Googles methods, that is the end of Google's monopoly. It is much harder to create an Apple or Samsung device, than to dominate a search market if all the players have a level playing field.
SB
@DumbMike, you dumb fool. I did not expect you to be able to read the explanation. Ha, Ha.
Even AI said that I am independent - not left-wing or right-wing.
I wrote the above because you, are really incredibly idiotic. You have no idea about taxation issues and knows nothing about Governance,
First of all you wrote about people in the US A earning $5 000 a month and paying 20% to 30% taxation on that income to cover Federal and State tax. Nobody bar in California and other corrupt states pay that kind of tax on that kind of income,
So lets get to the taxation issue, Some items like Home ownership is important, People bought homes decades ago and a a result of fleeting of millions of people from States like California, New York IIlinois and Minnesota moved to States like Florida, Texas and South Carolina causing home shortages in the latter States and rise in home prices, Then there is added to that inflation caused by the idea that the Government can print money on unlimited level causing inflation. So if a owner bought a house 15 years ago fo $300 000 and now sell it for $1 5 million you support the idea he should pay the Government in taxation $120 000.
I can give you another example, Take farms for instance - the major farmers will be considered by you as ultrarich - so the Democrats you, so admire wants to charge 20% death duty on all famers, It wiil mean that most farmers would have to pay massive taxation in death duties running into tens of millions in dollars destroying agriculture in he USA since most commercial farmers have no ability to pay the state to inherit the farms and will go out of business destroying agriculture in the USA.
Increase taxes caused increased production costs and that is routinely passed in increases in living costs, So your solutions are basically based on issues without any relation to economical realities,
The main problem in he USA, the UK and EU relate to a totally deranged administrative incapacity and incompetence as well as bribery and corruption involving federal and state Governance, Allow me to give you a few examples:-
So the question should be asked - is increase of taxation a source for incompetent and corrupt Government operations? The answer is simple - NO - the US and other governments in Europe must clean up their mess, For instance the EU has circa 80 000 employees.
With weak political control by the political leadership leads to destruction of democracy replacing it with bureaucratic government, That is one thing you obviously you do not know and that s that -
So my advice to you is start thinking of something real and not stick to your obsession of taxing the billionaires - which would have serious consequences for every inhabitant in the USA , the UK and the EU
,
. .
Visser, Snowden exposed all of this stuff almost twenty years ago.
Whatever you think Google is doing, it's probably worse than that. And the same goes for all Big Tech. The Chinese aren't any better. Neither are the Japanese. How much of your data is captured though your car comms, tv mic...
If any device has the ability to capture data about you and that data provides a competitive edge, then you can rest assured that device is capturing data. And in many cases the only way to stop that happening is to totally depower the device.
I use DDG on my phone because it's the device I interact with the most and it blocks pop-ups, doesn't store any data and has a bunch of other features that make being on the internet a more pleasant experience. That doesn't mean that I think Google hasn't already stored my fingerprints and genetic code for electronic Jesus to have access to.
But that's the world we live in.
That is why I say all private tracking should be banned. Instead. An open source alternative should be created that protects individual users, while still providing the benefit of aggregated data (numerical averages totally removed from individual IDs.
SB
The following is a result of tax ideas you espouse is implemented:-
Saka previously welcomed Wilson after she defeated incumbent Bruce Harrell, saying in a statement, "The voters have spoken, calling for change and a renewed focus on affordability, community, and fighting back against a resurgent Trump agenda."
He praised the "energy she brings to leadership," and said he was "look[ing] forward to partnering with her to build a thriving, inclusive Seattle that uplifts working families, expands universal preschool for all, ends food deserts, and creates safer, more connected neighborhoods across our city."
Starbucks recently announced it will shift 2,000 corporate jobs, primarily in IT and supply chain management, to a new regional headquarters in Nashville. Last week, KOMO News reported Starbucks laid off an additional 61 employees as part of a reorganization of its technology department at its corporate headquarters.
State leaders in Washington have also faced criticism for recently passing the "millionaires tax," which Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson signed on March 30. The measure has been described as the state's first-ever income tax, backed by progressives and socialists and opposed by conservatives.
The new tax will impose a 9.9% income tax on households earning more than $1 million each year.
Starbucks is not the only business impacted by the state’s economic policies. The Columbia Tower Club, an iconic business club atop Seattle’s tallest skyscraper, closed last month after more than four decades. Long considered a hub for executives, developers and civic leaders, the club cited declining office traffic and downtown business activity tied to remote work and high vacancy rates. Critics quickly pointed to the closure as another sign of weakening business confidence in Seattle.
On Monday, the Washington State Republican Party ripped into both Wilson and the city council, posting on X, "Marxist @MayorofSeattle Katie Wilson is more concerned about toilet ribbon-cutting photo opps than massive capital flight in downtown #Seattle all the while @SeattleCouncil stands idle as a once iconic city crumbles."
The jab refers to a recent Wilson event promoting new downtown public restrooms, which critics mocked amid concerns about Seattle’s economy and business climate.
Though Wilson’s now-infamous "like, bye" line drew laughs and applause from her audience, it immediately sparked backlash on social media from conservatives criticizing her economic policy.
"Seattle's Socialist Mayor responds to exodus of wealth from Washington State by saying ‘BYE’... then laughing. We're doomed," wrote Brandi Kruse.
This Mayor by the name of Wilson never had a job in her life and lived off her parents, As stupid as the bitch is as ugly she is too,
Those wicked Democrats again! Someone should really do something about them . . . or at least tell the world how evil they are.
I believe in a protectionist Europe, with exemptions for our close trade partners like Canada. Countries that commit to traditional capitalism, not pirate monopolists
So you are happy to quote the dusty old economist theories about competition…..but also happy to ignore their positions on protectionism.
It seems you are happy to believe the bits that coincide with your beliefs and announce them as truths, but ignore the rest.
Very convenient.
America uses protectionism when it suits them, but they want to access a global free trade market. Ditto for China. The global free trade system is dead due to this type of abuse.
Throw in Trump's sanctions and promises to support far-right-wing parties who will support the EU's end, we need to remove them from our supply chain. Trade will still occur, but it will be less.
Data products need to be European for security. E.g. Email etc. Our search engines need the same type of data as Google, then we can throw Google out of Europe.
So you are happy to quote the dusty old economist theories about competition….
What are they? And what are the other newer economist theories about competition?
As for Trump he could have declared victory after the first strike on Iran. He wasn’t satisfied the job had been done and put himself at political risk to make sure it was. People don’t like it because they have to pay a bit more for gas. The West isn’t big on sacrifice, it’s not like Trump didn’t know there was a much easier political road.
A lot of words to mean nothing.
Men like Musk who invented Tesla and SpaceX improve the world,
It is very funny how liberals equate the world with themselves exclusively. The US have nothing to trade with the vast majority of humanity. China has a lot to trade on the other side.
Trump is acting on this observation: as he can not go directly against China, he is going against the rest of the world to turn it away from deals with China.
Remember, peeps, liberals are en route to kill hundreds of millions people.
The fact they keep equate the world with themselves is a big sign. It is the same path everytime. When people deny reality so often and so perversely, they have no other choice than to work to match reality with their claims. They do not adapt, they strive to adapt reality to their claims.
"The US have nothing to trade with the vast majority of humanity. China has a lot to trade on the other side."
The largest nothing ever. Lol
It is very funny. Because liberals are regularly betrayed by their so called servants.
Donald Trump has been acting in a way that confirms the US have nothing to trade with a vast majority of humanity.
The US have been forcing a certain number of countries out of trade deals for so many things that only liberals can maintain that the US trade offer exists.
If the US had anything to trade with a vast majority of the rest of the world, they would not be forced to act that way. They would put their trade offer on the table and let people choose.
They can not afford the move. The US can not let people choose.
It is very funny because liberals probably do not even realise their own behaviour. They are failing at self perception. They can not look at themselves and see themselves as they are.
See, they claim they promote freedom around the world and the US have been forcing deals on countries.
In a liberal mind, people are free when they are forced by the US.
And this is the situation: backing up the statement that the US have nothing to trade is very straightforward. And Trump has done a lot to make it easy.
On the other hand, liberals who claim that the US have something to trade can not do that.
All they can do is to deny.
This is how they must establish a monopoly on speech. So they can force their narrative on people.
But Peeps still no comments on the performance of your team in South Africa. Give them a grade. An A, B, C, D or F will do nicely.
Very funny.
What team in South Africa? What team is South Africa part of?
It is hard to figure out where liberals on this board got their political education but remember, peeps, voting requires to be politically educated. At least, this is what liberals said.
Data products need to be European for security. E.g. Email etc. Our search engines need the same type of data as Google, then we can throw Google out of Europe.
Oh that will work beautifully:
The U.S. goods trade deficit with European Union was $218.8 billion in 2025, a 7.3 percent decrease ($17.1 billion) over 2024.
U.S. total services trade (exports plus imports) with European Union totaled an estimated $500.9 billion in 2024. U.S. services exports to European Union in 2024 were $294.7 billion, up 12.3 percent ($32.2 billion) from 2023. U.S. services imports from European Union in 2024 were $206.1 billion, up 8.9 percent ($16.9 billion) from 2023. The U.S. services trade surplus with European Union was $88.6 billion in 2024, a 20.9 percent increase ($15.3 billion) over 2023.
So adding up the trade surplus in goods and subtracting the deficit in services we get a net benefit to Europe of $130 billion from trade. Sure let’s eliminate that….far easier for the US to replace the goods than Europe to catch up and eliminate the services.
But there’s more…..the $50 billion US spends directly on European defense and the next $50 billion it spends indirectly on Europe. And of course there is the massive remaining US defense budget of $1 trillion that Europe benefits from ….the umbrella they have enjoyed. Call that another $50 billion they might have to spend to feel safe on the Eastern boundary ….but that number is probably much larger.
So with that great policy of kicking out the USA, it seems you might have to find another $280 billion in taxes and of course deal with the implosion of export industries.
In the meantime European businesses and consumers will suffer for years using inferior tech tools, while you catch a ride on a moving train.
So no grade Trad….need something beyond F?
South Africa grade: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...
And that is on Team South Africa.
Which team is that again?
Very funny.
Again, liberals can not answer questions. They demand their questions to be answered though.
Liberals are en route to kill hundreds of millions people.
You simply have no answer Peeps….but your best tactic is to blame the ANC. They got what they wanted, the one economically successful country in Africa … with no guardrails. Give them an F for heaven sake, try to be just a tiny bit intellectually honest.
Is it supposed to mean anything except being a pitiful attempt to try to maintain control over the situation?
South Africa grade: ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...
It could be read as much worse than F.
See, peeps, liberals can not accept answers. They must twist them to avoid facing they can not answer questions.
A lot of questions have been asked and they are still unanswered.
Because liberals can not answer.
So you are happy to quote the dusty old economist theories about competition….
What are they? And what are the other newer economist theories about competition?
They can not.
So they demand answers to their own questions. When the answers are provided, they claim the questions are not answered. Rinse and repeat.
Because they want to hide they can not answer questions.
Liberals are en route to kill hundreds of millions people.
...very funny...LMGA!!!
Read the string that contains the quoteTrad, you will see exactly how the new internet economy is destroying the traditional concepts of competition. It’s all there for you in black and while, your favorite colors.
But I take it from the Z grade, which I assume is the worst on your scale, that you feel Africa has been destroyed by the successors to the Liberals?
Internet is just about user data. If the EU government ever realise that, they will ban all tracking companies technologies and turn it into an open source solution which will create competition and improve privacy.
If one government pulls it off, the others around the world will do the same.
They won't stop it, they'll just tax it more effectively.
I don't think there has ever, in human history, been a worse time to advocate for open sourcing tracking data.
Visser, have a bit of a read about Anthropic is saying about their new model.
Keeping powerful AI systems and sensitive data controlled rather than fully open helps ensure there’s accountability, making it much easier to trace how attacks happened, who was behind them, and how to prevent them in future.
What you're suggesting is the Wild West but every outlaw is equipped with and army of attack helicopters.
A better solution is to ban every form of tracking. Make it highly illegal. The most a company should be allowed to do is to track how you use their app when you're on it. Anything beyond that should be banned.
But I take it from the Z grade, which I assume is the worst on your scale, that you feel Africa has been destroyed by the successors to the Liberals?
Where did liberals on this board get this political education?
Read the string that contains the quoteTrad, you will see exactly how the new internet economy is destroying the traditional concepts of competition. It’s all there for you in black and while, your favorite colors.
On this site, the background of published comments is not white but a greenish/yellowish colour.
See, peeps, when liberals are asked simple questions, they can not answer.
The question was what the old dusty competition tenets are and what the new competition tenets are.
And more, there is nothing of what it is claimed: the thread reads about an absence of competition and what it should be done to correct the situation.
@ButtPlug, when I say "open source," I mean the government would be the author.
So only they could approve any changes to it. The Open advantage is that anyone can develop, ensuring no technical issues. Also, Open source is transparent, so it is clear to everyone how it works- and it has one set of privacy settings.
There would be a central database that resets the cookie ID for each user, say every 3 months, deleting all past user data. Search and advertising products could still work while protecting privacy.
The question was what the old dusty competition tenets are and what the new competition tenets are.
Read the string…..but tell us about your rating, how did you come to that conclusion?
A central data base, that sounds like the government controlling data security….nope I’d rather have the smart guys doing that. And it’s never going to happen, what’s your PlanB?
lol that thing that Google does, I'm sure governments could do it.
Just imagine, if you can, the level of clusterfuck if government suddenly decided they were going to emulate Google's data infrastructure and management.
Simply thinking about it as I type this is giving me chest pains.
The stupid is strong in this thread...Snark, the government is even less trustworthy than the tech giants....duh!!!
.
I would rather have a Tech sector, even if it means the government are the author. We cant have a foreign country controlling access to our data and creating foreign based monopolies. Open sourcing the technology will mean that development will not have to be done by the government, and a single database means a level playing field for all companies.
As ButtPlug pointed out, we cant just have just any company having access to the data - at an individual level which can identify users by ID,
it would become mayhem. So it is the only solution.to have one central database that just gives aggregate data.to protect individual privacy.
Otherwise, it is just leaving it and allowing US Tech to grow at our expense. If they can access the data, a the very least native companies should be able to do the same. The only other option is totally blocking tracking technologies of American. Do you think they would allow foreign countries to access internet user data inside America? Especially if American companies are not allowed to do this. It has to be a level playing field what ever it is, or even just ban American companies and just allow native companies to do this. That would grow our tech sector, and make Big Tech smaller.
Google tracks people all over the world to improve their products, and then declares their profits in Ireland to avoid paying tax on profits to each country.
"I would rather have a Tech sector, even if it means the government are the author. We cant have a foreign country controlling access to our data and creating foreign based monopolies. Open sourcing the technology will mean that development will not have to be done by the government, and a single database means a level playing field for all companies."
They are not controlling access to your data. They are controlling the access to your data which they have collected...it's now their data.
No company is obliged to share user data with competitors or anybody else in the market place.
Anybody is free to do the same.
Your real gripe comes down to them being market leaders.
The shortcut is to legislate. The better route is to innovate and/or compete.
You act like they are playing by a different rules or have stacked the deck. You should create your own game or become better than them at their game. Those are your options. But if your game isn't better and if you don't end up out-skilling, they're gonna keep winning.
Everybody was dealt the same hand and you think that because one is on a losing streak you have the right to demand the winner sneak you some Aces under the table.
Your wanting government to control this stuff is the equivalent of a kid wanting his mommy to ref the football game.
For heaven's sake, have a teaspoon of cement, will you?
I have a question. You're here whining about tracking data and how it's all so unfair. As you know, and yet again, the US are leading the way in the new stuff...AI.
An example; There was some Ai craze around recently where kids where taking pictures of their hands and getting Ai to palm read. As a result, ChatGPT now has the biggest repository of images of children's hands. Superficially, one might think that's meaningless. Until that data becomes valuable for medical research, design, or some other means by which it can be used to generate income.
What then? Are you gonna complain and say that data that was willingly given to OpenAI should somehow be restricted and that it's offering US firms unfair market advantage? What stops anybody from doing anything similar? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
And that's the thing. It's US innovators that will look at that data set and turn it into something useful.
It's a perfect example of how while Europe remains cynical and complains about how they are being taken advantage of, the Yanks are rolling with new technology and constantly extracting value by taking the risks required to extract said value.
It's not simply a tracking data issue, Visser. It's an entire mindset and environment that needs changing in Europe. For every complaint you have, the Yanks have ten innovations.
FFS. Stop being a crybaby, pick yourself up, and make something new. Dreaming is free. I told you about something I had made. I even shared it with you. What was your response? Cynicism, sarcasm, negativity, etc, etc. You might want to think about why that is.
...or sit there and complain about user data.
Originally, I was talking about a search engine, which only needs aggregated user data.
If Google were blocked from doing this, it would be the end of Google. It is an unfair competitive advantage and an artificial monopoly.
I certainly believe European companies could do this, but they are blocked from doing it by GDPR.
GDPR is like walking around with a huge anchor tied to your foot.
Read the string…..but tell us about your rating, how did you come to that conclusion?
It is very funny.
No answer and adding another question.
Liberals are empty, they have nothing in store.
What are the old tenets and the new tenets on competition?
"I certainly believe European companies could do this, but they are blocked from doing it by GDPR.
GDPR is like walking around with a huge anchor tied to your foot."
GDPR is applied based on where the user is and not where the company's headquarters are. That's a regulatory level playing field. Unless I'm not understanding something.
Are you talking about the cost of compliance and how Google can cop it while start-ups can't?
Not. What I mean is that Google is allowed to use tracking technologies, while other search engines aren't.
In theory, much of the tracking is illegal because GDPR only covers cookies.
That is why I suggested an open-source solution that provides a level playing field, but is more privacy-centric. Either ban the tracking completely, or have a level playing field.
Open source products are good. Anyone can develop it, but it has to be approved by the author, in this case, the government. Big Tech will have to ask to make updates by writing the code first to apply for government acceptance.
The stupid is strong in this thread...Snark, the government is even less trustworthy than the tech giants....duh!!!
Another funny bit.
Trusting the government with what.
US lament the downfall of European countries etc
Which is incorrect. If ever European countries had their own solutions, it would be clearer when they take a knee at the US. They could not pretend to be coerced.
Of course, the US do not want European countries to assert themselves, to have their own technological suites. It could mean they are able to show the US the middle finger as any sovereign entity should.
The US have been relentlessly threatening to shut down the internet in Europe or credit cards.
What has this to do with trust in a government... Nothing at all.
No answer and adding another question.
Your own tactics, you have never answered a question honestly on this Board
Liberals are empty, they have nothing in store.
Unlike communists?
Your own tactics, you have never answered a question honestly on this Board
It is very funny. Like pushing a button and getting the expected behaviour. See how it works, now the answer is made, liberals are in panic mode, they demand more, they want diversion.
Remember, peeps, liberals are en route to kill hundreds of millions people.
Unlike communists?
And now, that is the communists.
This board is addictive. Strong liberal specimens.
Just for you Trad...
.
Visser, I think you’ve got the wrong idea here. How do you work in this industry but understand critical guardrails this poorly?
GDPR definitely doesn’t just cover cookies, and Google doesn’t get some kind of special exemption either. They still have to follow the same rules, they just have way more resources to handle compliance than smaller companies.
GDPR is about personal data in general, not only cookies. Things like IP addresses, device IDs, browsing history, and user tracking can all fall under it too.
So it’s not that Google is magically allowed to track people while everyone else can’t. The same regulations apply across the board.
Again, perhaps I am missing the point you are making but I can only respond to what you are saying and what you are saying is simply not correct.
@ButtPlug, Context...The topic is search engines. When I was talking about GDPR, I was talking about tracking people across the internet (third-party tracking).
So, I made no mention of first-party data (a company's own website user data, or email list, etc.)
GDPR is a wide topic, but it in its most conceptual level - it is consent-based marketing. So, any tracking without consent is by definition illegal.
When I said GDPR is about cookies, I was talking about a cookie consent banner. If someone accepts this, Google is allowed to track people using cookies.
However, we know that Google uses a range of ways to track people without permission. So even if someone pressed reject, Google continues to track people despite their explicitly not consenting.
For example, digital fingerprinting tracks thousands of user data variables—such as IP addresses, installed fonts, browser configurations, screen resolution, and Android device specifications—to create a stateless yet persistent identifier. This allows user tracking even when cookies are disabled or routinely cleared, or when changing devices. Google creates a central permanent database collecting information about the profile they have of you, using a range of ways that get around your choice of consent.
That is why I say a single, unified way of tracking should be used - one that also respects people's consentuial choice about whether they want to be tracked. So it would improve privacy. - but also provide a level playing field for all tech companies. A system which just gives aggregate data, without revealing the IDs of people. So it would be more like TV advertising, where only the average data is shared.
So this is not my field, but I’m bored sitting in Rhodes harbor waiting to depart. So I asked Chat about your claims, here’s the response:
would summarize it this way:
But the statement becomes less reliable when it asserts as fact that:
Those are stronger claims than the publicly proven evidence fully supports.
Some agreement on the privacy concerns, but not for the Google claims. Given the EU attitude towards the US tech companies, I doubt something obvious would be ignored.They have launched dozens of lawsuits against these companies.
My own reaction is a little different.The advertising element of the internet doesn’t bother me as long as it’s used for purposes of selling a company’s product. If it’s used for other targeting or if the information isn’t protected would be a a problem.
But this advertising is fueling the massive spending underpinning the growth of AI in general, which one assumes (maybe wrongly) will be a vast boon for mankind. Cut off that source of revenue and our progress will be much slower and the initiative may pass to countries like China, which is a sobering thought.
For the West to continue to lead, the advertising cash cow has to stay in place one would think. And if the data has to reside somewhere it’s probably safer with Google and other hyper scalers.
Something I have noticed about American AI products is that they sometimes provide a curated version of sources when the topic is about them.
Here is some stuff from DeepSeek AI.
The ICO published an official blog post on December 19, 2024, titled "Our response to Google's policy change on fingerprinting" . This is the primary source document where the UK GDPR regulator directly addresses Google and digital fingerprinting.
Source: Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) - the UK's independent data protection regulator
URL: ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/media-centre/news-and-blogs/2024/12/our-response-to-google-s-policy-change-on-fingerprinting/
Here is what the ICO actually said, directly from the source:
"The ICO's view is that fingerprinting is not a fair means of tracking users online because it is likely to reduce people's choice and control over how their information is collected."
"The change to Google's policy means that fingerprinting could now replace the functions of third-party cookies. We think this change is irresponsible."
The ICO explicitly quoted Google's own 2019 position against fingerprinting to highlight the contradiction:
"To quote Google's own position on fingerprinting from 2019: 'We think this subverts user choice and is wrong.'"
The ICO made clear that UK law still applies regardless of Google's policy change:
"Businesses do not have free rein to use fingerprinting as they please. Like all advertising technology, it must be lawfully and transparently deployed – and if it is not, the ICO will act."
"Businesses must give users fair choices over whether to be tracked before using fingerprinting technology, including obtaining consent from their users where necessary."
The ICO's official explainer for the public directly addresses your concern about consent being bypassed:
"Fingerprinting, however, relies on signals that you cannot easily wipe. So, even if you 'clear all site data', the organisation using fingerprinting techniques could immediately identify you again. This is not transparent and cannot easily be controlled."
"Fingerprinting is harder for browsers to block and therefore, even privacy-conscious users will find this difficult to stop."
Beyond the blog post, the ICO also published:
| Document | Description |
| Draft Guidance on storage and access technologies | Official ICO guidance on how data protection law applies to fingerprinting, cookies, tracking pixels, and similar technologies |
| Public consultation | Open until March 14, 2025, for industry feedback on the draft guidance |
The ICO's official statement confirms the core concern you raised:
As for "The West". America and its sanctions and economic warfare, and threats to invade Greenland, part of Denmark/EU and NATO, pretty much show it is America first. America is panicking from the threat of China, and will do anything to try to prevent China from passing it by.
American Tech companies have an unfair tracking advantage that allows them to access our data while also violating data collection laws. How much access do we have to our own internet user data? How much access does the EU have to American user data? GDPR is a joke, the only way to properly implement it is to take over the tracking.
That seems a bit like shopping for the answer you wanted rather than an objective opinion. But sure, why not add Chinese AI, to Chinese cars…..good luck with them as an alternative to America. Their obsession with Taiwan is all the proof you need of what kind of masters they’ll be,
I dont want China or the US having access to our user data.
I would prefer to just block America from accessing our user data. We do not have access to American user data. Then just allow European companies to access European user data. but in a way that protects privacy.
Fool's Paradise is a real place...
@Draad,
Are you expecting the Democrats to win the 2026 midterms? With the mass immigration to Texas, the brain power is increasing.
I don't expect anything...and although Texas is more than 50% Hispanic, we still, they still vote red...Hispanic Texans don't want their neighborhoods to be flooded by illegal immigrants and gangsters...more brainpower my arse...we just don't do stupid here...as for the rest of the country...some well meaning bleeding heart liberals will probably fck up the mid terms a bit...hope not too bad though.
IDK ..Taxas is 50% Hispanic and still voting Red...people thinking different than you isn't necessarily stupid, just different...people looking down at other people really p!$$es me off...just because Copilot thinks you're smart doesn't make you smart...you fooled it with all your uncredited AI copy and pasted... Not saying you're stupid, but you've got no business calling anyone else stupid...you used to have a better sense of humor...what happened? You seem a lot more bitter these days ...bring back the old Shark...and I'll try being less of a judgemental d!ck myself.
Visser, I finally read that long reply.
What you are still describing is a market power problem.
And actually, EU regulations already punish Google for being the market leader in ways that EU companies are not - perhaps we should talk about that a little.
Also, how are you gonna say that Google is acting illegally but EU companies aren't? What are you basing that on?
Anyway...
"For example, digital fingerprinting tracks thousands of user data variables—such as IP addresses, installed fonts, browser configurations, screen resolution, and Android device specifications—to create a stateless yet persistent identifier. This allows user tracking even when cookies are disabled or routinely cleared, or when changing devices. Google creates a central permanent database collecting information about the profile they have of you, using a range of ways that get around your choice of consent."
This is extremely misleading. Predominantly because Google offer a wide range of services. Heaven'a knows how many times I've clicked "allow" on all the multitude of Google products I use. For my websites alone I use about 5 different products. For my App...at least 4. For my business, also a bunch.
So be honest here and say that Google likely collects more data because they provide far more services than literally anybody else. Google Maps, Gmail, Calendar, Drive, Sheets, Docs, Workspace, Sites, on and on...and that's before we get to Google Play Consile which is an animal all on its own. Analytics? YouTube? Chrome with its gazillion features.
So let's not pretend that Google is a market leader in data simply because people search on Google and Google illegally collects data. That rubbish and you know it.
They have all that data because they offer an unmatched suite of services which might not be the best in terms of the individual product but as a coherent system blow anything else out of the water any day of the week.
So let's not pretend that Google is a market leader in data simply because people search on Google and Google illegally collects data. That rubbish and you know it.
They have all that data because they offer an unmatched suite of services which might not be the best in terms of the individual product but as a coherent system blow anything else out of the water any day of the week.
Point made very well. The real issue Europe and the US face is not Google, it’s the fact that most chips are made in Taiwan….which could be invaded any day by China. That’s the stress in the technology plates that could lead to an techquake of monstrous proportions.
Trump is the first Western leader who has done something about it by supporting Intel which has a vital chip foundry and by encouraging Taiwan Semi, probably the most important company in the world, to manufacture in the US.
And he gets no credit for that either.
I see the gripe that Visser has like this.
You play a ten match series and lose nine games out of ten. In the final game, most of the 50/50 calls go your opponent's way.
In the post series presser you complain about that game and claim things would have been different had it not been for those 50/50s in that one game.
...but even if you won that game it would still have been eight games to two.
I look at my phone and I have not a single App created by a European company on it. Literally, not one.
I think of all the tech platforms I'm subscribed to and the only one I can think of that is sort of European is DSTV because some French company recently acquired it.
So, having already massively underperformed in the tech sector, what is Europe doing to try and win somewhere else?
Take England as an example. They're basically a bank at this point. But banking is slowly changing. Tokenisation of assets is a huge deal and it is without a shadow of a doubt the future. BlackRock have said so themselves. Banking is going to move to blockchain too. The secured ledger is archaic and inefficient. Blockchain is instant, traceable and incorruptible.
Where is England as regards all this? Well, they have been moving to ever stricter regulatory control of almost everything to do with crypto.
Where is the US? Oh, that's right, they're leading the way, loosening regulation, approving ETFs and bubbling away as more and more blockchain innovation happens there every year.
Why is England not recognising the changing landscape and trying to lead the way? Seriously, what harm is there is deregulating, lowering taxes, funding blockchain projects and trying to attract blockchain innovation to its shores instead of chasing it away at every turn?
That's what the UAE have done and because of it they are putting themselves into an excellent position.
I can totally sympathise with being treated unfairly. But if you shoot yourself in the foot and lose the race as a result, all I'm gonna do is laugh.
20,052 posts
Nearly everyone wants Starmer out. He is now the least popular prime minister of all time.
Starmer has become Joe Biden. Today, he was talking about a battle for the soul of our nation. "It is not who we are, blah de blah". He tried to give an inspirational speech about who Britain is as a nation. It was only a few months ago that Starmers' US ambassador, Peter Mandelson, was fired for giving Epstein insider information.
Starmer is refusing to resign, and it has become an ego trip about his own commitment to woke social values, while doing nothing to rein in the richest of society, who are consolidating wealth.