Thiel: Google has $50B, doesn't innovate

It's not so much about tax rates and I haven't looked into it too deeply - although I'm sure the big companies hire the best accountants to use every loophole in existence. I am referring to this: [LINK] Companies should not be allowed to simply hang on to 250 billion dollars. Imagine what could be done in science, infrastructure, services etc if 10% of that money went towards those things. There's a great Peter Thiel clip about this that sums it up very well: [VIDEO]

Is no one going to talk about the hypocrisy? Eric Schmidt isn't a beacon of sensible innovation pushing America forward. Peter Thiel called him out eight years ago [1] and I strongly encourage you to watch the 4 min clip. [1] - [VIDEO]

Ask Eric Schmidt why Google has billions laying around in cash. You don't actually have to since peter thiel did: [VIDEO] You can skip to 3:00 for an answer.

I can't help but think of Peter Thiel's very appropriate comments (admittedly targeting GOOG, but still applies) here: [VIDEO] As I read it: if AAPL had any idea at all what to do with this cash, they would deploy it. They are completely out of innovative ideas, and are just turning the product crank. Instead, they should return $$ to investors in the form of a dividend.

It's interesting you bring up Thiel with regards to Google. I haven't ever seen anyone so willing to slam their top leadership directly and on television. [VIDEO] It's not clear at all that Google will be safer from anti-trust investigation now that Thiel has political influence either: > “Peter has indicated that if he takes the P.I.A.B. position he intends to take a comprehensive look at the U.S. intelligence community’s information-technology architecture. He is super-concerned about Amazon and Google”—and Facebook, less so. “He feels they have become New Age global fascists in terms of how they’re controlling the media, how they’re controlling information flows to the public, even how they’re purging people from think tanks. He’s concerned about the monopolistic tendencies of [all three] companies and how they deny economic well-being to people they disagree with.” When I asked this source how likely it is that Thiel will assume the post, he answered, “He’s heavily leaning toward it. He feels there’s a lot of good he can do and it’s worth putting up with all the bullshit and scrutiny that will accompany his appointment.” [LINK]

Obligatory Peter Thiel statement on this (2012): [VIDEO] > Google is no longer a technology company, and [...] it's basically [...] a search engine. The search technology was developed a decade ago, it's a bet that [...] no one else will come up with a better search technology so you invest in Google because you're betting against technological innovation in search, and it's like [...] a bank that generates enormous cash flows every year but you can't issue a dividend because the day you take that 30 billion and send it back to people you're admitting that you're no longer a technology company. Still relevant today.

I am a fan of Open AI, but is this not an admission that they raised more capital than they know how to deploy on research? Similarly, Peter Thiel once made a case that if Google ever paid a dividend it would be an admission that they are no longer a technology company and are instead a bet again innovation in search. [0] [0] [VIDEO]

Peter Thiel expressed the same sentiment against Google and friends, even calling them non-tech companies [VIDEO] The counter point is that nearly every one of these incredibly successful businesses is doing this, and they can’t all be incapable. Money never sets the speed limit for these companies. Some amount of money in the bank is too much even for your grandest of plans. Once you have 10x that, what else do you do.