I think the moral of this story will end up being something about stones and glass houses. Apparently, Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently criticized the lack of transparency in the banking industry to the BBC. So what, you ask? Well, he concludes his point by saying “Things that are too big to fail, we want to know everything about them, so we don’t have to deal with this in the future.”
“Things that are too big to fail,” eh? I feel a flashback coming on.
You really want the government and the American public to know everything about businesses that are “too big to fail”? Really?
After the Yahoo deal was dragged out for months and finally killed over the DoJ’s scrutiny, after Google is pretty much one deal away from being sued as a monopoly and broken up, are you really advocating increased governmental involvement and oversight for large businesses? Really?
When the BBC calls you a “captain of industry,” you’re really going to call out other companies for being “too big”? Really, Schmidt?!
Valleywag asks the biggest question here: “Is Google too big to fail?” And if so, what exactly is Schmidt proposing the government do? (VW jumps to say that Schmidt proposed breaking up banks, and Google might get the same treatment, but I just don’t see that in the BBC interview, which they have video of on VW.)
What do you think? Is Google too big to fail? Should they start cowering in fear of a summons daily? Or has the recent recession proved that, although Google’s big, they’re not the kind of business we need to fear?