GOOG is in trouble intermediate term

nitro

nitro

I think GOOG is probably one of the most exciting companies, way more exciting than Apple for example. However, increasingly, its revenues will continually come under pressure as competition heats up. Love the company, the stock? Hmm....

Unless they introduce some other means to make money, I think GOOG, if it hasn't seen generational highs, it is not far from it. The money multiplier from internet related businesses are about in the 6th to 7th inning of maturity.

http://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/art...and-china-bigger-google-threats-than-brussels
 
I really don't get this crusade against monopolies. Why exactly are they bad? Monopolies get to where they are clearly because they are better and more efficient at what they do than their competitors. More competition just lowers standards for all and eventually the firm with the most brand loyalty and customers always wins, thereby becoming a monopoly
 
nitro said:
I think GOOG is probably one of the most exciting companies, way more exciting than Apple for example. However, increasingly, its revenues will continually come under pressure as competition heats up. Love the company, the stock? Hmm....

Unless they introduce some other means to make money, I think GOOG, if it hasn't seen generational highs, it is not far from it. The money multiplier from internet related businesses are about in the 6th to 7th inning of maturity.

http://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/art...and-china-bigger-google-threats-than-brussels
More...
I think you are worrying more than necessary. What about to take a look at this from the other side?
 
nxt7 said:
I really don't get this crusade against monopolies. Why exactly are they bad? Monopolies get to where they are clearly because they are better and more efficient at what they do than their competitors. More competition just lowers standards for all and eventually the firm with the most brand loyalty and customers always wins, thereby becoming a monopoly
More...
This is very weird logic...

Monopolies are bad because they create productivity losses. There is ample theoretical thought and empirical evidence to suggest that monopolies, in fact, are worse and less efficient than businesses which have to compete.
 
nxt7 said:
I really don't get this crusade against monopolies. Why exactly are they bad? Monopolies get to where they are clearly because they are better and more efficient at what they do than their competitors. More competition just lowers standards for all and eventually the firm with the most brand loyalty and customers always wins, thereby becoming a monopoly
More...

Too many holes in this argument to begin with...I suppose you are coming at this from a "free market" angle, but that is clearly not the case with many existing monopolies...In a "crony capitalist" system, any number of monopolies can be created by bribing the right politicians and having legislation or laws changed that limit or eliminate any potential competition...Better yet, you can "privatize the profits" and "socialize the losses".
 
der_kommissar said:
Too many holes in this argument to begin with...I suppose you are coming at this from a "free market" angle, but that is clearly not the case with many existing monopolies...In a "crony capitalist" system, any number of monopolies can be created by bribing the right politicians and having legislation or laws changed that limit or eliminate any potential competition...Better yet, you can "privatize the profits" and "socialize the losses".
More...

well i guess I didn't know that thing about monopolies before.

its just that most of us are so used to purchasing products from monopolies that we really don't consider any consequences of their existence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top