Or maybe this is largely a manufactured issue. Alphabet sent Walker, but the committee didn't allow him to sit down. Between him and Salgado, the experts that Page and Pichai defer to, I don't think there's anyone better qualified to talk about these issues, because they deal with them all the time. If you want to have a meaningful conversation, that is. The problem is that the hearing was mostly an excuse for the senators to posture and to go on off topic rants about pet peeves. It's a media event, not a venue to get anything of substance done. Page has little tolerance for such BS.

While the senators' whining was to be expected, because it largely called their bluff, I was more disappointed by the media's acceptance of the lines that Walker was not the right person to be there and that he was "a lawyer" (should we send home all politicians with a law degree?). These are policy issues, so you talk to the experts and leaders who make the policy calls.

Big companies are just successful small companies.

IBM, Bell Labs etc. did far more innovation than any Mom and Pop shop.

> Big companies are just successful small companies.

That would imply either that big companies all started as small companies which became successful and grew large, which is false (some big companies start big). Or that big companies operate the same way as small companies, just at a larger scale, which is unequivocally false.

Successful at what? "Mom and Pop" shops are totally different and provide for their small communities in ways no big company ever could. Individuals like Alexandra Elbakyan, Bram Moolenaar, and Guido van Rossum have done great things on their own without the help of corporations.

I'm no fan of big companies, but I feel we need both big and small companies. Mom and Pop shops can never tackle huge infrastructure projects or projects that require intense capital (space etc).

That said, celebrating billionaires (many of whom trampled on others to get there) leaves a bad taste.

I wish we had more cooperatives...

I don't think this is not so much a property of the big company than it is of the public company. The only thing which generally unites public investors is a desire to see a positive return on their investment, typically with a high aversion to risk.

I would argue there is something to be celebrated about the "richest man in the world". Large private investors are more accountable than the public, and can act on ideologies or intentions other than greed (for better or worse).