Devin Piotrowski
Final Argumentative Essay
Search: “Economic Opportunity” -No Results Found
With great power comes great responsibility. A quote from a superhero movie perhaps,
but also the silent creed of American ideals. In today’s world, the United States serves as an
example of freedom and opportunity around the globe. Therefore, we remain responsible to
promote and allow opportunities for the same freedoms elsewhere in the world. As the
progression of globalization continues, we face a threat that challenges these ideals, yet no
implementation has been put into effect. Local governments have become ineffective in
regulating the digital business ventures of the Google Corporation in countries outside of
the United States and harmful effects occur as a result. These ventures should be further
regulated with a focus on the economic, legal, and social solutions for the hardships being
faced. By regulating this monopolistic growth of Google, we are ensuring opportunities for local
businesses to compete in a fair market and to sustain an economic presence in their native
country. Their success retains the image of American ideals of freedom and balance on a global
scale. Let us help them to develop this image even further and set an example of the strong
freedoms that the U.S. was built upon.
The exponential growth of the Google Corporation since its expansion into different
nations and their respective internet markets has set up numerous obstacles and preventative
measures for local competition. However, antitrust regulations have not been altered to include
these intrusive business practices. Neither the Federal Trade Commission nor the World Trade
Organization have attempted to contain this blitz from complete appropriation of the internet
market. It is because of such inaction that Google has gotten to where it is as a multinational
corporation and has damaged the economic freedoms of those in its wake.
The Current Dilemma [Circumstance, Quantitative Revision]
There are various reasons why Google has not been efficiently regulated since its birth in
1998. First, Google’s innovative structure makes it incredibly difficult to monitor in the same
fashion as other establishments. According to Eric Clemons, the Professor of Operations and
Information Management at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, “some
digital business models may be so innovative that they overwhelm existing regulatory
mechanisms, both legislative, and historical prudence, and require extension to or modification
of antitrust law” (Clemons 1). Google’s groundbreaking technological structure allows it to
flourish in the currently dated regulations in place. Secondly, regulations are inefficient because
Google’s business structures are continually changing parallel with society’s needs (Best and
Lowney 440). Its flexible base provides Google with no real permanent structure to regulate.
With its own concept of individual globalization, it reigns supreme over all competing
interests around the world from its ventures in Ascension Island down the whole alphabet to its
reach in Zimbabwe (Hightower xiv-xv). Regulation would promote freedom of competition
among the native businesses through political action to increase antitrust regulations on
multinational corporations like Google. One in fifteen internet entries by Israeli users are on a
Google site (Goldenberg 1). Because Google makes profit off of every search query, numbers
such as these in Israel have fueled Google’s growth bringing it into the realm of a superprofit. A
superprofit entails that the business makes more profit than what is worthwhile for them to run
the company (Haring and Douglas 155). These can also be called monopolistic profits because
they entail the restriction of competition (155). This amount of profit allows Google to “flood
the market” with advertisements and programs aimed for the customers of local businesses
(Johnston). According to Roy Goldenberg, a senior reporter for the leading Israeli newspaper,
Globe, the intimidating size of Google has created hopelessness for the local internet market
businesses. A current example of such a technique was used by Google in India. The population
had grown 31% with India being the third largest internet population already, but had not shown
an increase in Google usage (Keswani and Unni). As a result, Google created an advertisement
video to showcase their product to those who were not using it. “The total time spent on views
was the equivalent to 52 years (27,334,441 minutes)” (Keswani and Unni).
The current legislation on business regulation are the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and
the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 (United States). Its outdated and rigid guidelines for business
continue to be two steps behind the opposing actor on the economic stage. In the past, this act
enacted some of the most important sanctions for American business, yet they are not kept up to
date with the trends of digital expansion and a business structure. With such outdated
legislation, and initial obstacles for implementation, if action is not taken now, the situation
will only worsen.
Regulation or No Regulation [Consequence, Argumentative Fairness]
Because of this lack of regulation on monopolistic dominance, Google has prevented the
success of local establishments which challenge the laws of the free market and damages the
local economy (Haring and Douglas 217). Despite what some experts conclude, with
implementation by local governments as well as the World Trade Organization, drastic changes
will follow regulation of big business. First, regulation will help to forge native competitors into
alliances forming stronger economic coalitions (Leo). Second, antitrust legislation would be
updated to not only include Google but other invasive corporations as well. The practice of
using information from other sources without permission is a controversial topic involving
Google. In a recent dispute, Walla and ynet, two leading Israeli internet portals, have attacked
Google on charges of copyright infringement for such activity through Google News
(Goldenberg). With regulation however, disputes like this would decrease because there would
be current regulation on such activity.
Some might say that impeding on a private corporate venture is a form of oppressive
socialism. They might say to embrace the American spirit and adopt a strong capitalist view of
economics. However, if this continues, Google will continue to undercut local competitors until
they are all gone resulting in a local monopoly in a native country (Leo). The last time an
economic event such as that occurred it resulted in the Opium War between Great Britain and
China. There are much better ways to conduct business. “Israeli internet sites have emphasized
life under Google’s tentacles for a long time” (Goldenberg). Regulation would not hold back a
business network such as this from fair trade practices, but allow the opportunity to succeed to
those without it. Corporations, as creations of the people, must adapt to the peoples’ needs,
the Supreme Court has proclaimed, and benefit the common good or changes need to be
made in order to do so.
Regulations, the Government, and a Professional [Authority]
The highest form of the United States judicial system, the Supreme Court, ruled in 1906
that “The corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit
of the public” (Hightower 39). Why should we not extend this same selflessness when operating
an American business establishment outside of the United State? Our Constitution remains an
outdated document with it needing additions when a new issue arises. In that respect, the World
Trade Organization should add to the outdated regulations of international free trade. Jim
Hightower’s book “Armadillos”, focuses on the issues of multinational corporatism that is
damaging society, politics, and especially economics. Hightower provides insight on the
shadowed actions of corporate Giants like Google and how they steer global economics. Jim
Hightower is an American syndicated columnist and a widely published author of economics.
He has taught at both the University of North Texas and Columbia University and has held the
position of commissioner of the Texas Department of Agriculture from 1985 to 1991. He
describes in his book how trade tribunals have already been established by large corporations to
defeat acts of local sovereignty under the infringement on the global rights of corporations
(Hightower xv). Secondly, Hightower points out that when a corporation no longer benefits the
people, we have the ability to “sanction its incorporation” (Hightower 39). What some
government officials may have forgotten, but some scholars did not, was the true purpose
of corporations and our duty to correct them when they are out of line.
What Makes a Harmful Corporation [Definition]
Any business industry needs some level of regulation, and Google is still simply an
industry and should not be excluded from regulation due to their innovative digital structure.
“Yes corporations today are globalized and powerful, but they are not part of the natural orderthey remain an artifice of the government” (Hightower39). Therefore, it is the government’s
duty to enforce regulation of Google because on a broad level it still is only a corporation
although Google is not regulated by the same means despite conducting business in the same
manner (Haring and Douglas 144).
The lasting issue continues to be the obstruction of economic opportunity put in place by
Google and its associating ventures. We discussed India and Israel as examples of these
conclusions. The only option we have to ensure a balanced market is through political reform
with a focus on aggressive invasion of a business market. Overall, regulations must be made to
monitor and limit digital business to ensure the rights of a free market economy. There have
been many examples of business regulations throughout the last century and a half that
correlate with Google.
History of Regulation [Comparison]
Addyston Pipe and Steal Company vs the United States in 1899 upheld the Sherman
Antitrust Act by judging the documents to be interpreted by a rule of reason to make sure that
their actions were not unreasonably restraining trade (United States). Even though Addyston
Pipe and Steal claimed that they only partially restrained trade in order to receive a reasonable
deal on pipe making, the Supreme Court still charged them (United States). This is an example
of how seriously regulations should be taken today. Google fully restrains fair trade in foreign
nations through multiple tactics of intrusive advertising and low balling to drive out competition.
In the past, innovative business has caused additions to legislation and the creation of specific
claims because it does not apply to those laws currently being enforced (Haring and Douglas
142). The updated and innovative technology that Google uses as the backbone of its business is
an example of one of these innovations that will need a special addition or claim (Johnston).
Just like if you were a gardener, you would have to keep away the bugs that damage the
plants, as a symbol for freedom, we must regulate Google to prevent it from damaging foreign
countries even more. In this example, the legislation that would be implemented would be like
pesticides for the plants. And, although the bad bugs are gone, other ones are helping to
pollinate and reproduce the plants (a contributing business to the society). Because of our past
as a nation with big business as well as our role as a leader for freedom, Americans have a
duty to implement regulations on the Google Corporation.
Our Common Duty [Value]
It is our duty to ensure the rights to a free market not just because it is right, but it is an
ideal that America was built on. Since the Revolutionary War, we have served as an example to
countries around the world in search of basic freedoms including trade. Ensuring these rights to
others is important to us because it maintains our identity as a supporter of anyone or any nation
fighting for freedoms. These ideals were established when this country was created and are now
in the Constitution as a doctrine of what we fought to have. As of now, Google dominates the
internet market at 78% while its closest competitor drags behind at a measly 9.9% (Haring and
Douglas 147). This is no coincidence. Google dominates this market through aggressive
techniques to oppress those smaller than it. If nothing is done numerous countries will be
damaged by the economic failure of their native internet markets. It is because we live in the
United States and we live by the Constitution that we say this is an important issue. It represents
all that we are as actors in a free market as well as neighbors in a free world.
Conclusion
Whether your reason is to prohibit the overgrowth of corporations, or to allow for
opportunity to small businesses, it is a just reason. As international organizations and local
governments have failed to recognize this fault in the economic system, the Google
Corporation has been damaging foreign nations in which it conducts business through
aggressive invasion of these markets. These foreign ventures, therefore, should be
regulated to account for those in the shadow of the corporate giant. This is not the first time
our nation has been met with this kind of innovative business and it will not be the last.
However, this is the time for action. We must regulate Google in order to preserve the ideals that
we hold close to us. The people always have the power, so we will always have the
responsibility to act.
Bibliography
Best, Joe, and Kathleen Lowney. “THE DISADVANTAGE OF A GOOD REPUTATION:
Disney as a Target for Social Problem Claims.” The Sociological Quarterly. 50.3 (2009):
431-449. Web. 12 Oct. 2014.
Clemons, Eric K. “Regulation of Digital Business with Natural Monopolies or Third-Party
Payment Business Models: Antitrust Lessons from the Analysis of Google.” Journal of
Management Information Systems 27.3 (2010): 43-80. Web. 9 Oct. 2014.
Goldenberg, Roy. “Google Rules the Internet in Israel.” Globes-Israel’s Business Arena 1 Oct.
2013: n. pag. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
Haring, Norbert, and Niall Douglas. Economists and the Powerful: Convenient Theories,
Distorted Facts, Ample Rewards. London: Anthem, 2012. ProQuest. Web. 9 Oct. 2014.
Johnston, Kevin. “How Do Multinational Companies Affect Local Business?” Chron.com.
Houston Chronicle, n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
Keswani, Normata, and Madhavi Unni. “How Google Search Brought Hope to 1.4 Billion
People.” Warc n.d.: n. pag. Warc. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
“NY Congressman Solarz, Filipinos’ BFF Dies at 70.” Asianjournal.com. Asian Journal: The
Filipino-American Community Newspaper, 3-9 Dec. 2010. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
Sun, Leo. “Impact of Globalization on Small Business.” BusinessDictionary.
BusinessDictionary. n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2014
United States. Dept. of Justice. Antitrust Division. “Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S. C. 1-7.”
Justice. Dept. of Justice, Mar. 2014. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.
United States. Dept. of Justice. U.S. Law. “Addyston Pipe & Steal Co. v. United States. Justia.
U.S. Case Law, 4 Dec. 1899. Web. 3 Dec. 2014.