[calverson]

Just an interesting thought I had after recently reading Altas Shrugged.

Would it spell the end of the world? Would you leave the States? Economic/political ramifications? Would it be GOOD for the country?

I know that it would (probably) never happen, but I like to speculate.

[imitchellg5]

How would a multi-national corporation be nationalized? If Google were to be nationalized, why would it be an American corporation?

[calverson]

I dont know. Let's just say it was.

[calverson]

I think that, considering it's founders are American, it's HQ is American, it reports it's profits in $$$ and not Euros, I think that it would be American corporation. There principal state of business is the US.

From wikipedia:

Nationalization may occur with or without compensation to the former owners. If it takes place without compensation it is a case of expropriation. Nationalization is distinguished from property redistribution in that the government retains control of nationalized property. Some nationalizations take place when a government seizes property acquired illegally. For example, the French government seized the car-makers Renault because its owners had collaborated with the Nazi occupiers of France.

I am just thinking out loud (on a forum). The ramifications would be immense, but would it be a good thing?

[SpaceMonkey]

I don't understand the premise. What would be the point of nationalizing it?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I don't understand the premise. What would be the point of nationalizing it?

^ This is kinda where I'm at with it. What the?!?

I mean, I guess I could see the benefit in controlling a search engine and all the ancillary ventures that Google has developed in order to return the "government approved" stuff and eventually infringe upon the non-approved stuff, but this would be a Google killer. Regardless of whether or not your Google-facilitated content was stifled, the mere ideal that it's an ACME-INTERNET™ experience I think would doom Google to obscurity.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by calverson 

I think that, considering it's founders are American, it's HQ is American, it reports it's profits in $$$ and not Euros, I think that it would be American corporation. There principal state of business is the US.

So what happens to all of its locations abroad? Do they become US embassies? Google has more abroad branches than they do in the US.

[calverson]

This is more a "what would the government do with all that power" kind of thread.

Gmail tracking? You betcha. The privacy issues we all love to complain about with FB and Google and Amazon would become, well, non-issues, IMO. They would be "accepted". Remember the Homeland Security acts?

I dont know that the concerns abroad make any major managerial decisions in the company, and so I don't think that they would be totally effected. They'd just get paid by the US government.

[finboy]

IF? You mean work MORE for the government than they already do?

Well, imagine Google being run like the Post Office. That's how nationalizing works out. Plus, the govt. would declare that you could ONLY use Google if you were a contractor or if you employed more than 5 people, etc.

Whatever monster Google is, at least it isn't the government. Directly, at least.

[Athens]

Its a scary thought considering how much personal data Google has collected on the worlds general population, I really really don't like the idea of the US Government having access to that.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by calverson 

Gmail tracking? You betcha. The privacy issues we all love to complain about with FB and Google and Amazon would become, well, non-issues, IMO. They would be "accepted". Remember the Homeland Security acts?

This is silly. The government doesn't need to control Google to intercept electronic communication. Remember the warrantless wiretapping scandal from a few years ago? Reportedly, that was the least disturbing tip of the iceberg. The NSA was (is?) abusing a program that enabled it to trawl virtually everything: email, web searches, etc.

Charges Against the N.S.A.’s Thomas Drake : The New Yorker

[Athens]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

This is silly. The government doesn't need to control Google to intercept electronic communication. Remember the warrantless wiretapping scandal from a few years ago? Reportedly, that was the least disturbing tip of the iceberg. The NSA was (is?) abusing a program that enabled it to trawl virtually everything: email, web searches, etc.

Charges Against the N.S.A.’s Thomas Drake : The New Yorker

There is a difference between intercepting messages case by case vs full out total access to everything and every one. What needs to be nationalized is the internet infrastructure not Google. Let home owners pay for the last mile connections and rent the lines to companies so any one can start up a ISP and deliver anywhere. Oh and Microsoft could improve being nationalized. Even the Federal government could do a better job managing that place more so then the monkey at its helm right now.

[calverson]

Originally Posted by finboy 

IF? You mean work MORE for the government than they already do?

Whatever monster Google is, at least it isn't the government. Directly, at least.

Examples? I thought Google was ok... ish. Remember the China ordeal?

If US Gmail accounts were hacked by the US Government on account of potential terrorist activity – I think that the public/media would be hard-pressed to blame the US Govt for privacy infringement and side with Google on that one.

Originally Posted by Athens 

Its a scary thought considering how much personal data Google has collected on the worlds general population, I really really don't like the idea of the US Government having access to that.

The thing is, we kid ourselves, but it's true what other people have been saying in this thread. They probably already do. Maybe not for the world, but for US citizens they could definitely dig up all they wanted.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Athens 

There is a difference between intercepting messages case by case vs full out total access to everything and every one.

The real-life practice I was referring to is more the latter than the former. The innovation was in automating the analysis on the fly so that data did not need to be fed back to HQ to be looked through (which with amounts of data this massive would be like looking for a needle in a haystack -- by the time you found something it probably wouldn't be actionable). Rather, it identified patterns of otherwise innocuous data to be flagged.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Well, imagine Google being run like the Post Office. That's how nationalizing works out.

This is a silly analogy. First, the Post Office was never "nationalized", since it was never a private corporation to begin with. Second, despite the constant demonization of the Post Office from conservatives, it's a total myth that it's "badly run". The USPS is run fine and quite efficiently, actually.

The USPS has been losing money recently not because it's government-run, but because a) they have a ridiculous requirement created by a Republican-run Congress to pre-fund the pensions of their workers, which is putting a huge strain on what would be an otherwise profitable bottom line, and b) the business model they make most of their money on is gradually being eliminated over time by email and the internet. People don't send first class mail as much as they used to, and that's a simple fact. This reality would impact any business whether it was private or public, doesn't matter.

Anyway, back on topic, regarding the nationlization of Google, it's kind of a strange thing to speculate about, since the US doesn't generally get in the business of nationalizing successful private corporations, except in the minds of paranoid conservatives and libertarians. There aren't any past examples for us to go by, which means this whole premise is highly unlikely. But for the sake of argument, I suspect it wouldn't make a lot of difference if it were nationalized. Search is not a business where the private sector has an inherent advantage over government. In fact, about the only advantage public Google would have over private Google? No ads.

Obviously, that's not the case with other businesses like, for example, making clothing, which are clearly better suited for private corporations.

If it were to be nationalized, we'd have to be very careful about privacy, but to be honest, privacy is a big deal anyway, whether Google would be public or private. I suspect we'd also have periodic political "controversies" and grandstanding if it were a governmental agency, with people using it as a convenient weapon against the other side. Small-government types would rail against any and all stories of minor inefficiencies as solid proof that "government doesn't work", while civil liberties -minded individuals would see any breach of privacy, whether accidental or not, as unquestioned evidence of the imminent arrival of fascism to the US.

I don't think nationalization would do anything significant for Google that they couldn't already do now, nor would it be the disaster that libertarians would think it might be. The status quo is perfectly fine in this case.

[lpkmckenna]

If I remember correctly, the big threat that Atlas Shrugged warned about wasn't nationalization, but rather leaving business in private ownership with excessive gov't direction. Ayn Rand had correctly predicted that passion for state ownership would die out but heavy regulatory agencies would become the norm.

Anyways, we will certainly see more regulation of Google and other internet firms with a goal of improving privacy and protecting IP. It just blows my mind that Google got away with their massive book scanning venture with no gov't opposition when local libraries in Canada restrict private photocopying of material to 10%. Or the fact that they scraped home WiFi networks during their street view photography missions with no legal repercussions. And their limp reaction to content sharing on YouTube, while within legal limits now, is a far cry from what is required; right now, just flipping a video before uploading defeats YouTube's content filter, and just about any song is available on YouTube: I just searched for "metallica master of puppets", "pink floyd another brick in the wall", and "the beatles twist and shout", with the entire songs available, often with lyrics or music videos, something which many companies like Napster were completely destroyed over. Google, of course, walks on water because they've stuffed the pockets of politicians, but refuse to release to whom or how much of this political graft they've spread around.