I fought the Google, and the Google won: the Genesis of PolEcon.net

Apologies to the Clash, the Bobby Fuller Four, and especially Sonny Curtis and The Crickets. • Since 2007, I’ve maintained a little blog, formerly known as PolEconAnalysis.org. It’s gone. You are at its successor, PolEcon.net. You’re reading this, so you’ve arrived here. Welcome. A little explanation is in order.

Blogging is almost free. In the case of this blog, it has been hosted from 2007 to the present, at no charge, at Blogger.com. To give it a recognizable handle, I decided to pay $10 a year for the domain name “PolEconAnalysis.org.” That’s it. Self-publishing has become really possible and really accessible.

However, that domain has to be renewed once a year and, well, I forgot. Life sometimes does interfere with commentary. The attempt to fix the error took me deep into the bowels of the Corporate Internet. It was an interesting trip.

First challenge – find a live person. You won’t (or at least I couldn’t). There is apparently no landline. Emails remain unanswered. Help sites are better labeled “unhelp” sites. One told me to contact the web-hoster GoDaddy, the company which manages domain names for Blogger. I got hopeful. GoDaddy has a landline. I reached a person. He was very sympathetic. But he couldn’t help.

“Sorry. You didn’t buy direct from us. You need to contact Blogger.”

“But Blogger said to contact you.”


Next mistake – wait a week. At the end of that fateful week, the issue was no longer GoDaddy. My old domain opened up into another person’s blog – a dummy blog with no content – but a blog nonetheless. I got worried. I went back to GoDaddy. At least they had a landline.

“Tell me what’s happening, please.” They took pity.

“I’ll check,” said the fine young man on the phone.

The results of his research? “It’s a live domain, sir. Someone else owns it.”

I got scared. I had been pirated. My old domain gathered into the arms of a domain name harvester. I went back to the old domain. It was even worse. The pirate who purchased it had stolen my blog summary, “analysis and commentary with a political economy slant.” This was a disaster. How much would it cost to buy it back? Probably more than $10. Maybe I could sue? Maybe I could get a loan? Maybe I could get one of those six-month zero-interest credit card deals? Maybe I could get a home equity line of credit?

Then I got angry. I had really stepped into it, and was mired in the unsavoury underbelly of the world of intellectual property, and about to become a victim of someone else’s attempt at scamming a bit of money. It’s just a name. Who cares? Start over. Ten dollars later, I was the owner of PolEcon.net, a little humbler, a little wiser, and with a little work to do to re-establish connection with folks who read these articles.

Then, I got curious. What are the contours of this vortex into which I had been drawn? What is this company with unhelpful help sites and no landlines? Probably a shoestring operation. Probably unable to afford landlines. Probably living hand to mouth.

That might have been the case a few years ago. Back in 1999, a San Francisco company called Pyra Labs, launched Blogger. Pyra was made up of “three friends … trying to make our own grand entrance onto the Internet landscape … we created Blogger, more or less on a whim.” These three friends carried on through the dot-com boom at the turn of the last century, and “then the bust happened, and we ran out of money” (Blogger). So bad was the bust, that the entire staff was laid off in late 2000. That would explain the absence of a landline.

Except a little cash came to the rescue. In 2003, for an undisclosed amount of money, Pyra Labs was purchased by Google, and Blogger became part of the growing Google empire (McIntosh 2003).

But then, at the time, using the word “empire” was a little bit of a stretch. Google itself only filed for incorporation in 1998 (Google). I heard about it first from my late father-in-law, who called me into his study: “Paul Kellogg. Have you heard about this thing called ‘Google’?” I hadn’t. I listened patiently, but concluded that it was little more than a novelty, or a party trick.

Many agreed. When Google purchased Blogger, there were quite a few sceptics. The only source of revenue for a search engine like Google, is from advertisements, and a common opinion voiced at the time was that “advertising doesn’t support many dot-com Web sites.” The author of that analysis, writing at the time of Google’s purchase of Blogger in 2003, worried that “Google may be stepping down that well-trodden portal path” and asked: “Five years from now, will googling be just an answer to a trivia question” (Morochove 2003)?

The unease did not go away quickly. In 2004, Google decided to “go public,” selling shares in itself through an Initial Public Offering (IPO). In the run-up to the IPO, there was lots of negativity. In August, 2004, one writer commented that “one big brokerage house has already pulled out of the highly anticipated public offering, and many more are grumbling about the large workload and low margins” (Martinez 2004).

Google did, in fact, stumble out of the gate. Originally hoping to sell 25.7 million shares, it had to drop that figure to 19.6 million. It had to cut the cost per share drastically, from a range of $108 to $135 a share, to a range of just $85 to $95. As a result, instead of the hoped for take of $3.6-billion (U.S.), the Google owners were going to have to settle for a mere $1.86-billion (McCarthy 2004).

But don’t shed a tear for poor little Google. The chart here tells the story. August 19, 2004, a share in Google was worth $102.37. That price rose to $280, August 19, 2005; $383.36, August 19, 2006; $500.04, August 19, 2007; and soaring to a high of $741.79, November 7, 2007. It was pulled down to earth during the recession of 2008-2009, share prices falling to $292.96 by November 3, 2008. But February 1, 2012, Google shares were back up to $604.64 (Yahoo! Finance 2012a), giving Google Inc. an enterprise value of $159.48 billion and a market capitalization of $196.6 billion. It had annual revenue of $37.9 billion, gross profit of $24.72 billion, net income of $9.74 billion with $43.33 billion of cash on hand (Capital IQ 2012).

It seems that Google (and Blogger) could actually afford a landline. Maybe they are hesitant about installing one because, once you start to hire people, some of that net revenue might just disappear. Or maybe the new economy is not just about the Internet. Maybe the new economy is also about replacing people with computers and machines (although to be fair, Google does employ 32,467 full-time employees) (Yahoo! Finance 2012b).

How do do they make all that money? That question is answered with just one word – advertising. In 2010 and 2011, advertising comprised fully 96% of Google’s revenues. In 2009, that figure was 97% (Google Inc. 2011, 10). And as is well known, this is “targeted advertising,” shaped to the individual user through the masses of data Google has gathered about us, and our Internet-browsing habits.

They keep urging all of us in the blogging community to get in on the action. “Monetize your blog” they say. They will sculpt ads according to the information they glean from the articles written here, and the people who read them.

Could become a clearing-house for books on ALBA (the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas), or maybe Joel Bakan’s film “The Corporation.” Maybe get a cut from sales of Frantz Fanon and W.E.B. Dubois. I wonder if there are ads ready to go for C.L.R. James and Raya Dunayevskaya? How’s the market for chachkas from Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Palestine?

No, no – this is not about money, it’s about “analysis and commentary with a political economy slant.” We’ll pick up the thread from last year’s conversations, and carry on.

And corporate or not, – it’s still only $10. I’ll do a little blogging, tell a few stories, and see who’s interested. It won’t be a problem to reconnect with former readers. I’ve got lots of email addresses, and I’ll send out a bunch of messages.

From my Gmail account, owned by Google.

Suppress that thought – return to the story. Please look at the Youtube videos, which appeared at the beginning of this article. The title of this blog entry is a rip-off from the title of a great song. The Clash version from 1979 is the one I knew. The original was from 20 years before that. The third version here, a reprise done in 2003, is just priceless.

Oh yes – Youtube is owned by Google, purchased October, 2006 for $1.65 billion (U.S.) (Thaw 2006).

Not to worry. I’ll bypass both Gmail and Youtube. I’ll do an end-run around Google. I’ll contact my Facebook friends, and we’ll all soon be back in touch. Facebook isn’t owned by Google. It’s owned by that 20-something guy in the U.S. They did a film about him.

Oh yes – Facebook is about to go public – rumours are it will be a $100 billion affair, and will instantly create 1,000 millionaires (Bensinger 2012).

Welcome to the Corporate Web.

© 2012 Paul Kellogg


Bensinger, Ken. 2012. “IPO to Create 1,000 Millionaires; Facebook Tiny Stake Pays Off Big Time for Workers.” The Gazette, February 12.

Blogger. “The Story of Blogger.” Blogger.com.

Capital IQ. 2012. “Google Inc. (GOOG), Key Statistics.” Yahoo! Finance.

Google. “Google History.” Google Company.

Google Inc. 2011. Form 10-K. Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

Martinez, Michael. 2004. “Google IPO Irks Wall Street.” The Ottawa Citizen, June 29.

McCarthy, Shawn. 2004. “Less-hopeful Google Slashes IPO Price, Cuts Share Supply.” The Globe and Mail, August 19.

McIntosh, Neil. 2003. “Google Buys Blogger Web Service.” The Guardian, February 18, sec. Business.

Morochove, Richard. 2003. “Will Search for Revenues Destroy Google?” The Toronto Star, March 10.

Thaw, Jonathan. 2006. “Google Buys YouTube for $1.65B U.S.” The Gazette, October 10.

Yahoo! Finance. 2012a. “Google Inc. (GOOG), Historical Prices.” Yahoo! Finance.

———. 2012b. “Google Inc. (GOOG), Profile.” Yahoo! Finance.

The impact of feminism – or songs you thought you knew

Sometimes it is hard to credit progress when it happens incrementally over decades. Watching “Mad Men” (whose long anticipated Season 5 is scheduled to begin in March, 2012) provides a jolt of noxious memories from the 1960s – the restrictions on abortion, and the casual sexism which dominated gender relations, to name just two. It provides a useful reminder that between the 1960s and today, there have been several waves of feminism which have profoundly improved modern society. Popular music provides another interesting marker of these changes. Here’s a little story about two songs which indicate the impact of several decades of feminism and the women’s movement.

Start with the great anthem “Respect.” Aretha Franklin made it famous when she released her version in 1967, a 1960’s woman singing to a 1960’s man. “All I’m askin’, is for a little respect when you come home.” Watch “Mad Men,” any episode, any season, and you’ll know why some respect was demanded. Watch Franklin singing this song in 1990, and enjoy one of the great political songs of the 20th century, from one of that century’s greatest voices.

But what will surprise some, is that hers was a cover. The original “Respect” was released two years earlier by Otis Redding, possessor of another of the great voices of the 20th century. His version, the original, ends: “Respect is what I want; Respect is what I need.” As an African American man living in the United States in the 1960s, it should not be surprising that Redding might pen lyrics demanding respect. But listen to all the words of both versions. Franklin’s anthem is about a woman demanding respect from a man in a sexist society. Redding’s original has a whole different angle – it is a man singing to a woman.

Compare the lyrics. Redding sings: “What you want, honey you got it; And what you need, baby you got it.” In Redding’s version, the man is providing for “his” woman, her needs and her wants. And in return: “All I’m askin’ is for a little respect when I come home.” Franklin turns this on its head. The woman sings to the man: “What you want, Baby, I got; What you need, Do you know I got it?” In Franklin’s version, it’s the woman demanding respect from “her” man. “All I’m askin’; Is for a little respect when you come home (just a little bit).” A song which originated in a framework of the patriarchal male-female relations which dominated the 1960s, was transformed into a demand for women’s equality, a demand for respect. It was also a demand which implied agency. “I ain’t lyin’” sings Franklin. If there’s no respect: “When you come home … you might walk in … and find out I’m gone.”[1]

But changes in gender relations do not happen quickly. In 1969 – two years after the release of Franklin’s version of “Respect” – Led Zeppelin’s debut album contained a hugely popular hit song, “Babe I’m gonna leave you,” where the agency is all with the man. “Baby, you know I’m gonna leave you” sings the young Robert Plant. He has itchy feet: “I ain’t jokin’ woman, I got to ramble.” The rock and roll is fantastic, the message, not so much. This iconoclastic band is painting a very conservative image – the ramblin’ youth (male of course) sowing his wild oats; the woman a passing and passive moment in those travels.

But again, this is not the original. Seven years earlier, the radical folk singer Joan Baez released the first recorded version of the song – and its effect is extremely different from the Zeppelin version. First, and most importantly, it’s a woman’s voice. “Babe, the highway is a-callin’; the old highway’s a-calllin’; callin’ me to travel on, … callin’ me to travel on alone.” The lyrics don’t say that this is about a woman leaving a man. There are no gender references in the entire song. But when these words are delivered by Baez’ beautiful voice, the implication is pretty strong that this is about a woman, not a man, moving on. And in fact, the song was written by a woman, Anne Bredon.[2]

Many of us grew up on the Zeppelin version – a hymn to agentic men and passive women. The earlier Baez version, with its very different emphasis, was much less well-known. That is starting to change. A contemporary rock and roll star has definitively put this song into the camp of agentic women. Pink’s 2009 cover is a 21st century challenge to the gender-role stereotypes of the 1960s.

It’s a woman’s voice. It’s a rock and roll voice. And with a powerful band and her own incredible performance, she retains the gendered references from the Zeppelin version, and gives them a same-sex twist. “I ain’t jokin’, woman, I’ve got to ramble;” a woman’s farewell song to her girlfriend. It’s a great performance. And like Franklin’s decades-earlier “Respect,” her version asserts the equality of women in a world still steeped in sexism.

There’s a whole lot more work to get done before we get real equality in this world, a world which now houses seven billion souls. In the 21st century, in Canada, “women working full-time for the full year earned an average of $39,200, or 70.5% as much as comparable men.”[3] Stephen Harper’s now majority Tory government has a “no abortion overseas” policy when it comes to funding development projects.[4] Except in Quebec, childcare remains exorbitantly expensive for the vast majority of parents.[5] In the Global South, there has been a disastrous feminization of poverty, women accounting “for a growing proportion of those people who are considered poor … not only in industrial countries such as the United States, but also in the developing world.”[6]

But listen to these songs, listen to the lyrics – and you’ll realize that the organizing, demonstrating, agitating and movement building of the 1960s, 1970s and into this century have had an impact. We have a foundation from those years of activism on which to construct the gains of this century. So hats off to the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s – and hats off to this generation, occupying everything from Wall Street to Bay Street.

© 2011 Paul Kellogg

[1] There is an unfortunate mistake on lyrics’ web sites, as it concerns “Respect”. Franklin is often credited as saying, “And all I’m askin’ in return, honey; Is to give me my profits” – which doesn’t make any sense. Instead of “profits” it should read “propers.”
[2] Turn me on, Dead Man. “Babe I’m Gonna Leave You.” www.turnmeondeadman.net
[3] Canadian Labour Congress. “Women in the Workforce: Still a Long Way from Equality.” Ottawa: 2008, p. 1.
[4] Tonda MacCharles. “Planned Parenthood left in Tory funding limbo.” Toronto Star. Sept. 21, 2011.
[5] For a quick overview of the situation in Quebec – a product of the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s and a magnificent organized women’s movement – see Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care. “Quebec’s Universal Child Care System.”
[6] Mayra Buvinic. “Women in Poverty: A New Global Underclass.” Washington, D.C.: July 1998, p. 3