Google fears China, but doesn't fear the EU?
Interesting.

TO: Google & Microsoft & Such
RE: Fear This

Just got out of the meeting with my portfolio manager.

All moneies associated with that part of my investments that touched on the aforementioned are moving away.

It's only $7K, I'm not a really big investor, but a few K here a few there and after a while, someone's talking real money.

The funny thing about it was that I had to move completely out of one market area and into another. The people that were managing that particular part of the total portfolio were unwilling to shift my money away from Microsoft and Google and Cisco into some other company.

And I thought they had computers to help them deal with these sorts of things?

How very odd.

So, instead of continuing to manage my $7K and shifting it from one company to another one, they lost all that money.

Look a self-inflicted wound on their part.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Rbj: The EU can be reasoned with (or at least one can argue with it, publicly, from inside, with some hope of effecting change).

This is not true of the Chinese government.

(And this is why I think Stephen's post is misguided; "standing up to" Beijing won't do anyone any good. It won't get Google any business, and it won't help the Chinese get freer internet access, since the alternative to Chinese Censored Google is not Free Access To Uncensored Everything.

Google's presence in China does no harm to Chinese democracy and will probably, I think, do non-zero good.

(See Instapundit's link, today, for the ineffectiveness of Google's censorship... which might even be deniably intentional; they certainly have no real incentive to expend a large amount of mental effort on making the censorship platonically ideal.))

TO: Sigivald
RE: History Lessons, Anyone

"standing up to" Beijing won't do anyone any good" -- Sigivald

Just like standing up to Hitler or the Soviet Union didn't do any good either.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. When were you co-opted by the 'borg'?

Stephen, your post from the other day -- about China hampering its own competitiveness by restricting information access -- might apply just as well to the EU.

Sigivald:

Man, that's like saying Human Rights Watch only condemns the US because the US (instead of say China, Cuba, etc) is generally a good, democratic country and is responsible to the people. They won't spend any resource going after the real human rights offenders because that would be SO much work and its easier bashing the United States (plus its the fad thing to do).

Oh wait, they already do that...

Google is the same way. Google tries to make it out like they are some "progressive" company that stands for all these "forward-thinking" principles. When its easy to do, they'll oppose the "fascist" US government and be praised as Bastions of Courage Fighting for The Peoples' Rights (TM). But when the going gets tough, they'll accommadate TRUE fascists and throw those principles out the window.

John

John, key phrase "those principles". I'm rather opposite Chuck here, I think it is the shareholder's interest - and therefore a Good Thing - to expand into China.

It may not be the "right" or "moral" thing, but it will make Google more money - that is the point of a corporation, right?, to make money for their shareholders?

How about having the goverment declare Google's technology vital to national security and forbidding export? (and I hope everyone gets the sarcasm there)

TO: mrsizer
RE: What Was It....

"It may not be the "right" or "moral" thing, but it will make Google more money - that is the point of a corporation, right?, to make money for their shareholders?" -- mrsizer

...some Wag said, "The love of money is the root of all evil"?

So, if making money is the most important thing, I guess we understand where you're coming from.

In truth, if making money is the most important thing than doing whatever it takes to make the most amount of money is perfectly justified; lie, cheat, steal, murder, pillage, rape. Whatever it takes, eh?

On the other hand, we've seen, throughout history, that this is wrong. So, what's changed that makes it right now?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

P.S. Then Mr. Lay et al of Enron should walk, if we use your standard.

So, what's changed that makes it right now?

Love what that bigass strawman does for the place, Chuck.

Mr. Lay et al of Enron should walk, if we use your standard.

And I REALLY love what that guilty-without-trial and does for your eyes.

TO: 6Gun
RE: Looks To Me...

...like your hammer's dropping on empty chambers, compadre.

In the first instance, that's hardly a straw man. It's a simple question to mrsizer asking him why it's okay now to lie, cheat and steal, etc., etc., etc. NOW, when it wasn't before.

In the second instance, Lay's not guilty HERE until after a trial finds him so.

If you REAKKT want to experience GUILTY-WITHOUT-TRIAL, I recommend you move to Chicom land. Be sure to bring Falongong literature with you.

Just tell them a friend asked you to bring it to them, as they don't get good 'connections' on the internet there.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Well ChuckIe, if being obtuse and/or begging an idiot's questions is what you prefer to being known by, have at it.

Moral corporations are next aisle over, right next to you voting with your dollars.

Your rules, your rhetorical funeral.

TO: 6Gun
RE: Au Contraire, Mon Frere

...if you'll pardon my french.

"Your rules, your rhetorical funeral." -- 6Gun

Not MY rules. The rules I play by were written over 3000 years ago. They are just as valid today as they were then.

And, as far as funerals go....

...it's a promotion, from my perspective.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Life is boot camp. We are all expected to go out and be heroes.]