best stocks on wall street today

Google’s chief economist: “We do not have to worry about collecting our information”The majority of start-ups will say that finding talented engineers is the biggest problem,” said Varian, who spoke about the aqua-healing phenomenon. For them “Google’s chief economist and professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said Wednesday that Google’s fear of collecting data on its users is exaggerated. Varian made the remarks in a panel on monopolies and dominant companies at a Tel Aviv University conference on antitrust issues, digital economics and the question of whether the huge power of technology giants can be restrained. “Most of Google’s income comes from search ads,” Varian said, adding that “there’s no data collection there, just a keyword choice – for example, a pizza vendor wants to show his product to someone who is looking for a pan.”Later, Varian described other types of ads on Google, including “contextual ads, such as an ad for pans that will appear next to a story about cooking equipment in a dedicated magazine, the only type of ad that uses a diet is the behavioral tragot – when ads follow a user a few days after looking at something about” .It’s annoying but effective, people are stressed because it’s not about something they’re doing now, but it’s not something to worry about.” If you look at what interests Google has set up for you in your account, Because we do not approve it, if you do not like it, turn it off, but then you’ll get ads that do not touch your interests and maybe even worse. ” Varian did not refer to data collection on user location, for example.

Varian also referred to the aqua-healing phenomenon – the acquisition of a company made mainly to employ its personnel. “It’s easier to acquire a company with five engineers than to be able to employ five engineers separately,” he said. “Not only does Google do it, it’s also Facebook, Microsoft and everyone, it’s easier because the team is already working together, and you can see what they’ve created and know they’re talented.”Varian said that the main difficulty in high-tech today is the hiring of engineers, even for small companies, due to the lack of industry. “Most start-ups will say that finding talented engineers is the biggest problem for them, and that the biggest problem is getting funding, which is the limit in the system, that there are a limited number of people. In the 1990s there were a lot of fixed costs that were critical in setting up a technology company and entering the market – you had to rent Data Center, equipment, to buy software that is protected by copyright.Today when you want to start a technology business make a cloud agreement with Google, Microsoft or Amazon to get the amount of computing power According to what the company needs and can export a lot of business processes to third parties – to raise money Sea through Kikstartr, office rent valuations and only use open source software and run it Bgithab. But talent is the main constraint. “

Michal Halperin, who is in charge of the competition, asked Lurian a question from the audience and asked whether Google should continue to be allowed to do Aqua-Hiring in such a situation. Varian said, “There are five times as many acquisitions from IPOs today as 50% of start-ups believe their company is most likely to be acquired and only 15% believe the reasonable option is to be issued.” If regulators start preventing aqua-leasing, In the field of artificial intelligence, 630 companies have been established over the past year and a half, but there will not be 630 IPOs, it would be ridiculous, most of them will fail, and those who survive will acquire not necessarily by the giants, but also by hospitals, Biotech companies, and companies from various fields that artificial intelligence touches and needs. “Professor Abraham Wickelgren of the University of Texas Law School, who also participated in the panel, said later that Varian said that “we need to think about how acquisitions affect not only the incentive to establish companies, but also the kind of companies that people are setting up. In existing fields, and not in innovative areas where there is greater uncertainty about the future of society, but the social benefit may be better. “US regulator: “Antitrust laws also fit the digital economy”In the first comment since reports of investigations against technology giants, Delrahim said:” Reduced quality is a form of harm to competition, and privacy can also be An important dimension of quality “Do existing antitrust laws make it possible to curb technology giants? Contrary to the position of some of the experts, the senior US Antitrust Commissioner, Makan Delrahim, thinks so.

“We have the tools to enforce US antitrust laws even in cases involving digital technologies. The rules are flexible enough to apply them to old and new markets, “Delrahim said in a video speech Tuesday at a Tel Aviv University conference on antitrust and the digital economy.Those who say we need new or revised laws need to look at history,” Delrahim said, adding that the United States’ concerns about monopolies are more ancient than the Constitution itself.To substantiate his claim, Delrahim demonstrated how US law can cope with changing economic realities and innovative developments through a series of historical cases in which the US acted against monopolies and compared them to the digital economy.He said the laws cover more elements of competition – beyond maintaining low consumer prices – and even noted a number of digital markets dominated by only one or two dominant players.The price alone does not give a complete picture of the dynamics in the market”mong other things, Delrahim mentioned the dismantling of Standard Oil, a monopoly company for 34 companies, saying, “It had technology that it patented, and it came up in a period of rapid change due to the second industrial revolution, which emphasized the value of oil for consumers in revolutionary and unpredictable ways.” “We can live in times when consumers are more aware of the power of digital data, and there are those who will say that it will bring about the next industrial revolution.”n his speech, he said that contrary to what people claim to be changing the antitrust laws, the laws not only relate to keeping prices low, but also to additional dimensions of competition. “The price alone does not give a complete picture of the dynamics in the market, especially in digital markets,” he said, explaining that “additional elements of competition include protection of innovation, quality of products and services. In the competition, privacy can also be an important dimension of quality, and competition protection can have an impact on the protection of the data and privacy, “he said.

Commenting on the Standard Oil, Delrahs noted that the company was dismantled despite consumers enjoying lower prices during its peak market dominance, saying that like today’s technology giants, Standard Oil has developed important patents – but its innovation slowed down when it became monopolistic.Delrahas also referred to the dissolution of the AT & T communications company, saying that the company grew due to the invention of the phone when it began to install telephone networks and purchase from local competitors. “It was an early example of a network effect (the value that a product user gives to other users) because it bought local competitors and refused to connect its lines to independent traffic, so customers had more value to work with.” In 1914, as a result of the government’s claim, the company promised to allow independent companies to use its network and not to acquire additional companies without the government’s permission. However, independent companies complained about the agreement, which prevented them from being sold to AT & T under favorable conditions. “It reminds start-ups that they want an exit when they buy it from a big company,” he explained.

A third case referred to by Delarahim is that the United States accused Microsoft of maintaining an illegal monopoly in the personal computer market by preventing equipment manufacturers and consumers from installing alternative software such as Netscape instead of Internet Explorer. Its monopoly against software such as Netscape, which could threaten its market power. “Fortunately, in the United States, the antitrust department has experts in the intersection of competition and technology, which have been at the forefront of enforcing high-tech antitrust laws for decades,” Delrahim said.At the end of his speech, he quoted Senator John Sherman, after whom the original American antitrust law was named, saying that if the Americans “are unwilling to surrender to Caesar’s power, we should not accept autocracy in trade.” These words, which refer to monopolistic economic forces, imply that Delchallim may intend to take a heavy hand against large companies.We must examine what causes the growth of the companyHe also said that a close look at digital markets is important in areas where there is only one or two dominant companies, noting that this appears to be the case in Internet search, social networks, mobile and desktop operating systems, and e-book sales. He noted that “this is also true in the digital advertising market, where only two companies take the lion’s share of advertising spending.” “When there are concerns that business practices are anti-competitive, effective enforcement of antitrust laws is essential,” he said. “The digital economy also has to examine whether a company is growing because of innovation, price and quality better than its competitors, or because of unbalanced and anti-competitive business practices.

“If we look at the commercial dynamics of Internet search, with the same concepts that examined the yellow pages that were sent to our home a generation ago, we can not correctly assess,” he said. The practices and dynamics that create power in the market – and in some cases – monopolistic power. ” “Like the old monopolies, companies operating in digital markets are often built around proprietary technology,” he explained, “The most successful want to gain customers and use the power of the networks we built to lower prices, because the more users there are on a platform, the better it is for everyone. Of users. ” However, he warned that the same network effect could also be used to create entry barriers for competitors, as did AT & T and Microsoft: “When a company has market power, it should pay attention to transactions that eliminate competition,” he said. He noted that even certain mergers and acquisitions may raise the Authority’s suspicions – which will examine whether they aim to reduce competition or create a monopoly against the law.Mauritius vacation: clear sea, pampering resorts, lots of tropical green and relaxationAt the same time, it seems that some Democratic lawmakers are in the opposite position to Delrahim’s, and have declared that they will reexamine antitrust laws to see if they meet the new challenges posed by the dominance of technology giants. “The Congress – not the courts, the authorities or private companies – has set the rules, and the Congress must be responsible for determining whether they fit the competitive problems of the modern economy,” said David Sicklein, chairman of the House Committee on Restrictive Trade Practices, .

In addition, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who is running for the presidency of the United States and is calling for the dismantling of technology giants, also said this week that Delphreys should refrain from participating in Google and Apple’s investigations, since he had worked for the companies in the past. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to buy the DoubleClick Internet ad company, and said that “it does not have to monitor the investigationsWhat can be learned from the documents that Microsoft sent to Israel, and why is the dismantling of the giants not necessarily the right thing? Prof. Barak Orbach of Arizona State University explains in an interview to “Globes” why antitrust experts have fallen asleep on the watch, what can be learned from history, and why Israeli high-tech professionals should take part in the discussions. “Israeli high-tech may suffer from the limitation of purchases Of the giants “Last week regulators shook the shares of four technology giants Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook. Reports of corporate investigations and division of labor between the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have prompted investors to worry that after a long period of time, regulators have taken another step toward curbing the giants.In the background, there are increasing voices calling for the dismantling of some of these companies and their participation by politicians, academics, high-tech industry officials (including former senior executives) and others. The US presidential elections in 2020 are contributing to radicalization of discourse, led by Democratic politicians, for example, when Elizabeth Warren, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, repeatedly calls for dismantling the giants.

“Warren is doing something irresponsible because she is talking decisively about breaking companies,” she says, adding that there is a lot of experience in doing so. There is a certain experience but the result was not good and cost a lot of money. It is impossible to find a historical example of a breakdown that had a good outcome. In the end, the changes have come from technological innovation, “says Prof. Barak Orbach of the University of Arizona, and a conference will be held at Tel Aviv University at the initiative of Orbach, which will deal with the antitrust policy regarding the digital economy. In 1911, it was decided to dismantle the oil company Standard Oil, which controlled the US market, to 37 regional companies. What happened? Each company was strong in its own region, and they also cooperated. After many years they even merged back into Exxon Mobil, “Orbach says.Another example was in the cinema market – the five largest studio studios in the US held 95% of the theaters. In 1948, after a 15-year process, they were forced to sell all the cinemas. Anyone who bought them went bankrupt because the TV came into the market. This is not coincidental – they understood that the market is about to change and therefore they agreed to break up. People feel that they won because it is a judgment in their favor, but historically, they knew what they were doing, “he explains.

Scroll Up