Earlier this year, the European Commission imposed a massive fine upon Intel for its anti-competitive practices in the OEM space. Intel has been given the opportunity to respond, as is usual in cases like this, and the chip maker is claiming that the fine should be thrown out, because the EC did not prove that Intel’s practices hurt the competition.
Dutch EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes was quite clear back in May why the massive fine was imposed upon Intel. “Intel has harmed millions of European consumers by deliberately acting to keep competitors out of the market for computer chips for many years,” she said, “Such a serious and sustained violation of the EU’s antitrust rules cannot be tolerated.”
More specifically, Intel was found guilty of giving discounts and rebates to OEMs under the condition that they kept 80% of their product portfolio powered by Intel processors. It also paid an OEM to delay products using processors from AMD. Now, Intel is claiming that these practices – the chip maker does not deny they took place – did, in fact, not harm consumers.
“[Intel] contends that the Commission errs in law by failing to analyse whether Intel’s rebate arrangements with its customers were implemented in the territory of the European Community and/or had immediate, substantial, direct and foreseeable effects within the European Community,” Intel writes.
Intel also touches on the peculiar case of the lost Dell evidence, which was uncovered in a report by the European Union’s ombudsman. The chip maker claims that this loss of evidence infringes on Intel’s right to defence. “[The EC] to make a proper note of its meeting with a key witness from one of Intel’s customers, who was highly likely to have given exculpatory evidence,” the appeal reads.
The appeal is currently being handled by the Court of First Instance.
… Yes, we know there are probably 15 different ways of describing consumer harm done and blah blah blah.
Of course Intel is going to try *everything* possible to get the case dropped or the fines at least lowered. It is to be expected.
Carry on.
Isn’t AMD a European Own Company? I remember 5-6 years ago AMD was actually beating Intel in PC Sales. A lot of PC’s proudly had AMD stickers on them, and they were doing quite well until the Intel Core Dues came out. And they performed better and cheaper then what AMD had to offer. The strange thing about competition is sometimes you can loose.
“Isn’t AMD a European Own Company? I remember 5-6 years ago AMD was actually beating Intel in PC Sales.”
No, AMD is American. It wasn’t beating Intel either. Intel had much more sales. However, it posed a tough threat to Intel between 2003-2006.
“A lot of PC’s proudly had AMD stickers on them, and they were doing quite well until the Intel Core Dues came out.”
True. AMD was fairly popular between 2003-2006, and many bragged about having AMD CPUs in their computers. Before the Core 2 blew them out of the water, they were the better value, offer superior performance at a lower price. Also, Intel’s rather abusive monopoly power was slipping at the time.
“And they performed better and cheaper then what AMD had to offer.”
Yes, the Core 2 really outclassed AMD, and they couldn’t keep up with intel on the high end performance wise. Thus, they had to lower their prices greatly to remain competitive. However, it didn’t work that well. Their share slipped and Inetl beat them fair and square with the C2D.
I disagree at least partly.
AMD always offered competitive performance for the money you had to pay.
In the lower price / lower performance area AMD always was better than Intel, even when the C2D arrived. Before C2D, AMD was competitive performance wise, and only marginally cheaper.
I bought a 45W peak Athlon x86-64 2.2 GHz single core CPU this January, and it costed EUR 36,-. At that point in time the least power-hungry Intel CPU of similar performance that was available in stores costed approximately twice as much and consumed 65W TDP (not peak!!!). It was a dual-core CPU, that is the reason why it was more expensive and consumed more power. But all I wanted was cheap and low-power.
Dual-core does not increase the performance of a typical Desktop-computer. I have one Intel quad-core 2.8 GHz, 16 GB RAM machine for FE-calculations, and that machine is not really much faster than the 2.2 GHz Athlon 4 GB RAM single core machine. At least not by a factor of 5 (the Factor must be somewhere near 1.1).
Regaurdless of if the fine is changed to a lower amount or not will it really help undo the damage done to AMD? Will some of the money go to AMD as a, “here you go. we realize that you probably would have made more money had Intel not have done what it did, here’s a big ol’ bag of cash.”
If AMD gets nothing out of this then it seems unfair that the EU can set a superfluous number like that and keep the money. But then again, if i were out to rake in the cash I would start bullying companies and issuing fines left and right, that is if i got to keep the fine money. good thing the EU doesn’t do that to other big companies like Micro… oh wait.
:edit: it should be noted that I am not nearly as farmiliar with the legal and regulitory system imposed by the EU as I am with the US’s.
Edited 2009-09-15 22:28 UTC
So when the US gov finds a corporation guilty of anti-competitive actions harming the market, technology and consumer but does nothing it’s ok. When a non-US gov finds a corporation guilty of anti-competitive actions harming the market, technology and consumer and does not roll over, it’s a money grab? This seems to be a reoccurring assumption.
I don’t personally know the intimate details of US or EU corporate law either but given the information I’ve read, the cases seem valid. If I sell apples and offer discounts to grocery stores provided they buy only 20% or less from other vendors regardless of if they have better fruit for my customers needs, that’s benefiting me at the expense of the consumer and fruit market.
Back on the technology side, I bought an Intel quade core because it was the better chip/price for my needs at the time but even with Intel being “my horse”, I wouldn’t want it driving off competition through politics and “business strategy” rather than it’s own product technological attributes. I don’t benefit from stifling a competitor who could potentially provide a better chip for my next upgrade.
Now, if the EU makes a habit of clearly questionable cases against companies then it would be a different discussion.
Besides that there is always a way to avoid the fines, pull out of the EU, the main problem is that the EU currently is the worldwide cash cow due to the low dollar and the artificial inflation.
The EU just does properly what the US government by law also should do but usually never does.
This is actually one thing I am happy with in the EU the anti monopoly laws are enforced pretty well here.
Some might say(me included), that the fact that AMD had a superior product line lead to Intel developing Core and Core 2, do you remember how “horrible” Pentium 4 chips were?
competitor makes a better chip which challenges the status quo.. vendor responsds through its products with a better chip than the competitor.. this is absolutely how it should be. The issue is not competition between products based on there attributes. The issue is using shady deals like the deep discounts for EOM customers if they agreed to insure that 80% of purchased ships where from a specific vendor rather than selecting the chip that best fits the production needs.
I am starting to get tired of this, it has been posted already soooo often:
The EU does NOT profit from the money they get from the fines.
The EU Budget is financed by it’s member states, and is a fixed sum every year. If 2% of the budget is brought in by fines, the member states have to pay less by those 2%. Not one Cent EU Budget increase arises from those fines, only the member states profit from the fines, and they have zilch, nada, null influence on EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes.
And please take a look at which companies already have had to pay record fines: Saint-Gobain, Asahi, Pilkington, Soliver, Intel, ThyssenKrupp, Otis, KONE, Schindler, Microsoft, Roche, BASF, Aventis, Solvay, Merck, Daiichi, Eisai, Takeda, Siemens, ABB, Alstrom, Areva, Fuji, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Schneider, Toshiba, Shell, Sasol, Repsol, ExxonMobil, ENI, Tudapetrol, MOL, RWE, Total, Hansen, ENI, Bayer, Shell, Dow, Unipetrol, Trade-Stomil.
Does not look like the who is who of US companies, if you ask me. Lots of Japanese companies, lots of eastern Europe companies, and by far the most are EU – companies. US companies are a small minority.
It also does not look like the EU is trying to protect EU companies and is trying to do in foreign companies. The EU is doing what the US government should be doing, but refuses to do: Slap bad companies with fines, until they change anticompetitive behaviour.
You forgot the most “interesting” case. Where Intel’s fine is actually smaller.
“Antitrust: Commission fines E.ON and GDF Suez €553 million each for market-sharing in French and German gas markets”
This is given to a cartel, totaling 1.16 bilion Euros.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1099
I’m really against this type of enforcement.
CPU, or Operating systems are not ‘natural’ monopolies like telecom or eletrical distribution. I say let them make whatever deals they can with businesses.
I can’t think of a time these anti-trust actions actually mean a damn. Everytime, the real competition actually comes in on its own merits.
Microsoft wasn’t done in by anti-trust suits. It was done in by missing mobile and the web… hint hint…trying to hold on to its old Windows and Office caused it to miss these new markets.
When AMD came out with better products, it started to do in Intel… until Intel fired back with superior products.
You simply can’t practically stifle all competition. Even if say MS/Intel made special deals with Dell or HP. Other companies would come in to undercut that collusion. Google, or some Asian competitor… So I say let them make all the deals and strongarm tactics they like. I really don’t see the wrong in it.
Your whole Universe is distorted. Here I am to fix everything.
When it comes to operating systems, any distinctions between “natural monopolies” and “peer-pressure monopolies” are meaningful only to geniuses of software abstinence like the free software evangelists (which I greatly respect, as any cause needs its superheroes, but I am busy fighting another war ATM). For us mortals, the urge to use Windows is just as natural as the telecoms or the sex drive. We can’t just dump Windows and lose access to the huge software diversity it makes possible as a (socially) natural monopoly.
This is naive idealism. It may work “everytime” in real capitalism, but not in our current economic systems.
Saying that the purpose of antitrust suits is to set things straight is hypocritical. All lawsuits are meant to scare misbehaving bastards into cooperation or subordination.
Here I can smell a vicious circle, but it’s too sophisticated to explain in my short post.
Of course you can’t. That’s why not everybody gets to become a monopoly. You need tough monopolistic strategy (stifling all *relevant* competition is much easier).
There’s actually three “special deals” out there. And they make a web of special deals possible.
Monopoly is a cult. No monopoly can survive without what I’d call “respect”. Respecting other monopolies and learning not to upset them is one of the most basic survival skills. This is how mafias or international politics work. So I’m not sure about the real relationship between Microsoft and Google, but I’m sure you shouldn’t be sure either.
Competition, like politics, is just the soap opera that we call “News”. There’s intense activity behind the scenes. You can’t simply ignore it and think you’re doing justice.
What my post wants to suggest is that “maybe” Intel and the European Union deserve one another.
We live in “real capitalism”, what you meant is “ideal free market economy”. Capitalism can exist without free market and vice versa. (See any monopoly)
Just as we live in “real democracy”, which of course is different from individual freedom.
You mean like how Windows has always been the better OS?
Or how Internet Explorer has always been the better browser?
I’d say they were because when one company designs a new proprietary protocol or architecture which outsells the competition (maybe due it being a superior product or maybe just because said product is backed by a superior marketing team), it inherently locks out the competition thus tieing their customers further into their products.
Plus often these systems are dificault to reverse engineer and/or patented making it difficault for competitors to level the playing field or provide packages that support said products.
I wasn’t aware MS was “done in”
Easier said than done when you’re competeing against companies that can afford to make huge losses on any particular product just to keep their market share.
“I’d say they were because when one company designs a new proprietary protocol or architecture which outsells the competition (maybe due it being a superior product or maybe just because said product is backed by a superior marketing team), it inherently locks out the competition thus tieing their customers further into their products.”
And I see nothing morally wrong with vendor lockin
It’s a little naive of people in industry to think they should only compete on the latest and greatest innovation. There has never been the ‘good ole days’ when tech was open. Before the current lockins, we had the old telecom monopolies. That provided the cashflow to fund C and C++ development. So we broke up those monopolies. Now, all the ISPs do little in terms of R&D.
So now you have the equipment manufacturers doing all the R&D and work, and they all try and use lockin tactics to make sure they have constant cashflow. Either by mucking up their interop or by strong arm sales tactics.
It’s one of the few tools the industry has to keep the cash flow going. If you fear vendor lockin, then you don’t adopt those solutions and go with someone who uses more standard solutions.
If you can lock in your customers without angering them (if you anger them, they will want to leave), then you’ve done a good job in your business.
Quite frankly. Maybe if we lived in a utopian free-market state, we could make a case against these. Yet in a world with public sector education (read as no competition), professional societies (doctors/lawyers) that limit their numbers and lobby for legal advantages to make sure they stay well paid, what the tech sector does to protect its cashflow seems like nothing.
Best of all, what the tech sector does is not legally binding or enforced by the government.
I hate the EU’s method of ‘hearsay litigation’ which MOST of their legal cases against companies seem to boil down to – Notice Intel’s filing points out a damned near complete lack of evidence.
Intel broke the law – fine, run them through the courts. Having the ‘commission’ be able to levy fines without production of evidence pretty much at their whim, so it’s only natural Intel take this where it BELONGS, the court system.
For those of you here in the Colonies, the Commission handing out fines would be like the American executive branch being able to do same. This **** should be coming from the ECJ, not from the Comission – and if the layout of the EU was not a stepping stone to totalitarianism, it would. The Commission seems to want to be able to hand out multi-billion dollar fines like they were parking tickets.
But then, don’t ask for innocent until proven guilty in Europe. They still run it like post apocalypse Star Trek – “Bringing the innocent to trial would hardly be fair.”
NOT that equality of law or procedural rule is anything to expect out of your anti-trust whackjobs – Especially so far as the EU is concerned since so far their cases have been more about slapping down companies for being successful – quite often while allowing the competitors to continue the same ‘evil’ practices. For a law to be fair it MUST be applied equally, failing to do so is nothing more than petty favoritism.
Sad part is it’s not just the computer industry under attack with multi-billion Euro fines – Peugot, Daimler-Chrysler, Auto Glass sellers, Austrian Banks, the past four years they’ve issued almost as much in fines as they collect in TAXES.
Enough to make one wonder if the Brits weren’t right in keeping their own domestic currency in addition to recognizing the Euro… But what does one expect when half the nations in the union are still under what is for all intents and purposes socialism in democracy’s clothing.
Probably why if I ran Intel or Microsoft, I’d just cut my losses, give Europe the finger, and close shop liquidating assets in the entire region. No matter how large the target audience is, there are times where it’s just not the hassle – and the EU seems to want to convince international corporations that they are not worth dealing with.
As you mentioned, this is just like dealing with parking tickets. If you plead guilty, you pay it. If you disagree, you fight it in court. Where exactly does the defendant lose his rights for a fair trial? The system works and it works fair.
Your comparison to totalitarianism is unfounded and your fear for anything that remotely looks like socialism is based on ignorance. I recommend you to check for “social democracy” on wikipedia, especially the ideology section which gives you a nice overview. It doesn’t sound that bad now, does it?
Capitalism has one big flaw: it encourages companies to crush the competition. This would be a good thing if that happened by simply creating a better product. However, sometimes huge companies with a lot of cash and power are using their weight on the market to destroy the competition in a different way. Not by delivering the best product, but simply by using their cash to keep the others away. That is what the EU is trying to prevent and as a concerned citizen, I applaud their efforts and I trust the justice system to keep the government in check. If your companies were indeed punished for being successful, they would have won in court and wouldn’t have had to pay any fine at all, but apparently that wasn’t the case. Those companies were fined for abusing monopolies or for creating cartels to divide the market and to lock out any smaller competition.
I don’t mind you preferring an economic model that favours corporations above consumers, but at least make sure you are informed about its pro’s and con’s because right now it looks like you’re blindly giving up your rights as a consumer only because that’s the system you grew up with. It’s the same thing for your healthcare system by the way. So many Americans swallow all those ridiculous rightwing ideas and plain lies about the new healthcare system. I feel sad for all those people who are just brainlessly repeating their leaders while those only care about protecting the insurance companies’ greed. You know, in the new system those companies will actually have to pay for once.
Ultimately, you may want to ask yourself these questions:
– Do we serve the government, or is the government created to serve us?
– Do we serve companies, or are companies created to serve us?
Give the second one a thought as well.
Edited 2009-09-16 03:26 UTC
– Do we serve companies, or are companies created to serve us?
Fining Intel does not serve the consumer. It does not serve the citizens of the EU. It only serves the EU bureaucracy, who get to levy the fines and pick the winners.
I am employed by a company. Are we now subject to your arbitary definition of ‘service’?
If Intel and perhaps other companies, due to the fines imposed, are henceforth keen to avoid paying third parties not to use a competitor’s product, then indeed the consumer and the citizens of the EU are very well served by that outcome.
In any democracy, theoretically at least, the interests of the majority rules.
The interests of the majority are best served if companies have to compete. They are not served if companies are allowed to make underhanded deals in attempts to destroy competition and create a monopoly for themselves.
If you personally happen to be employed by a company that was illegally trying to create a monopoly for itself, that is your misfortune, which is regrettable, but there is no way that the interests of the vast majority of people (i.e. consumers, citizens etc) should be compromised in order to mitigate your misfortune.
Edited 2009-09-16 05:28 UTC
How? The money given to OEMs lowers their costs, ultimately passed on to the consumer. OEM profit margins are cutthroat.
The majority can decide every day, at the store, with their wallets.
Are you sure this true? If I am the only company manufacturing linux-powered fridges, should the government mandate that other companies produce them too, so that I can have competition?
I have worked for the government, the ultimate monopoly.
The fine is passed on to the consumer and the competitor has more possibilities in gaining some market share.
Would you decide against buying food, clothing or roof over your head?(Same basic principle applies here – PQ curve elasticity)
100% free and unregulated macro market is utopia, as much as communism.
Good one, on missing the point there. It’s ok to be where no one else want to be, alone. But making sure no one else can enter the market, that is where regulation is applied.
“- Do we serve the government, or is the government created to serve us?
– Do we serve companies, or are companies created to serve us?
”
The answer is neither and the question is a bit odd.
First of all, who is this ‘us’ you speak of.
Both government and companies are composed of people… Yep, the guy in the cube next to me looks human. Regular people living regular lives.
People look out for their own interests.
Ask me of government and I’ll tell you that government serves those in government.
Given the power in government, who could resist using government for their own benefit?
Last I checked, companies are composed of people.
So of course those in companies look out for their own interest. They will try and charge the most for the product and have as little competition as possible.
It helps the people in the company. They are some of ‘us’
The difference being of course that you voluntarily give money to companies whereas government just takes it.
And of course great legal battles help lawyers and bureaucrats. Not hating on them, they are also part of ‘us’. They will do the most to secure their benefits by convoluting the law, creating crimes where none exist (war on drugs…).
In short… there is no ‘us’. Just independent people who form groups who then try and maximize their gain and power in society.
The only ideal case for ‘us’ is for no group to have ‘power’. especially government back legal power. Which means more of a libertarian society.
Absolutely terrifying actually, since it puts too much power into the governments hands and is exactly the type of asshattery that made the people of the Soviet Union live as if they were in a developing country inside what was ranked as an industrialized nation just because of it’s military might.
Socialism in all it’s forms generally penalizes the successful. Rah, rah, fight the power, down with the big evil corporations… At which point socialists should do the rest of us a favor, go back to the drum circle and rant about how their crunchy groove is really going to show those Eichmann’s.
It is why Marx’s statement of Capitolism leading to Socialism leading to Communism should be taken more as a warning, than a path we should voluntarily follow.
… and this applies to Intel how exactly? Core 2 pretty much left AMD in the dust, and frankly AMD is still eating dust at the product level. This is much like the EU going after Microsoft for media player when in terms of product quality the ‘competition’ – Quicktime and Realplayer, were and remain inferior products (at least on windows). We were supposed to believe that it was entirely because it came bundled with the OS? How about that the alternatives both hijacked the host OS, locked you into their product to play their formats with no alternatives even CONSIDERED – but no, instead of making their products not suck they go pissing and moaning to the government “We suck, make them suck too!” – and we give them all trophy’s.
“Social Democracy” – it’s much like the FSF’s rheotoric of taking about freedom without understanding the word… Using the words liberty, freedom and injustice while abusing contract law, levying fines, taxes and imposing far-reaching laws and legal precedents – well, does the term ‘snake oil’ ring a bell?
I’m reminded of the words of Edward Rutledge – A poor man would rather stay poor, than lose the opportunity to ever become rich. – in the end socialist overregulation ends up little more than that – penalizing anyone who dares become more successful than their competitors.
Assuming you trust the courts to be anything more than a rubber stamp for your government… I’m a Libertarian – we don’t trust ANY government – EVER. Hell, my ancestors came to this country to get the **** away from European governments. As we say here in New Hampshire, name for us one thing a government got involved in that didn’t turn into a colossal money pit that only made things worse.
Something I love to point out to the CESM’s and Hun, my ancestors came here to get the *** away from your ancestors… Especially the frogs since I know we actually had to fight through them in North Africa to get at the damned Hun during Torch.
Maybe that it’s I observed REAL abuses first hand when I was in the Air Force, visiting first world nations that should have been downgraded to developing nation status. You will excuse me if having travelled outside the tourist zones contintental europe didn’t exactly blow my skirt up on the concepts of sound economics, quality of life, or even basic sanitation. Lands sakes I saw better integration of such concepts in southeast asia than I did in France, Spain or Greece… All three of which need to hand over their developed nation status.
Which is why people from all over the world flock to Boston to learn medicine, and clamor to get to Boston, Texas and Maryland for care…
Well, you might have me on insurance – since I’m anti insurance. I believe insurance in all it’s forms should be illegal since it is little more than gambling. You are betting the insurance company you will pay them less money now than they will pay you in the future… Am I the only one that thinks this screams SCAM from top to bottom? “Oh, but I need fire insurance!!!” – no, you need to stop smoking in bed, leaving the stove on unattended, and thinking that 10 amp outlet can handle having ten or so two dollar power strips daisy chained off it. “Oh but I need car insurance” – no, people need to slow down, stop drinking and driving, and pay ***** attention to what they are doing and where they are going. (Ever notice non-manditory insurance states have lower collision rates than the manditory ones?)… “But what about my children? I need life insurance!” – no, what you need to do is pay off your debt and put money in the bank so your children actually get something instead of having the insurance go entirely into paying off your two mortgages, your car, your eight grand in credit card debt, and the lawyer fees for settling all of the above.
Which of course brings us to where a REAL problem is – Credit. Obama has the unmitigated gall to call credit the “Lifeblood of the Economy”, fully illustrating he doesn’t know enough about economics to even open his mouth on the subject. Peter Schiff rightly took him to task for this as credit is NOT the lifeblood, it’s Cancer.
That people are even DUMB ENOUGH to pay more later for something they cannot afford now, usually for WANTS and not NEEDS is why the economy is being flushed down the toilet. Can’t afford that 42″ Plasma? CREDIT! Can’t afford a new car? CREDIT! Can’t afford a home? CREDIT! Can’t afford a war on two fronts and health care reform? Well…
Instead of building up a savings to use as a ‘what if’ fund, people turn towards their credit limit, and it’s gutting the economy as people who produce nothing to add to the GNP (bankers/insurers/creditors) leech off the top… Worse, paying more for something than it’s outright cost inherently CREATES INFLATION!
Want to save the economy worldwide? STOP buying things you don’t need on credit, STOP using credit like it was a savings account, and actually start building a REAL savings… Hell if people did that we could probably go back to having savings banks pay five cents on the dollar instead of the pennie and a third they do now…
Oh, and if you have a savings AND a debt, you’ve already ****ed up.
Companies are created to serve their owners and/or shareholders – though it is in their best interest to serve us, otherwise we might go off and use some other company.
While otherwise I quite admire a lot your points. Please do stay away from how we run things in Europe. Really, you ancestors moved away for that reason, so just don’t return, we are not missing you guys.
As for appalling state of some places in rural France, I trust you know how bad US rural south looks? There are really bad places in the northern states also. That does not imply that a country, any country, should be “downgraded to developing nation status”. The only countries that would not need “downgrading” would be the socialist scandinavian countries.
Uhuh, with the subtle difference that unlike in the Soviet Union you can still vote for any party you like, it just happens that most people prefer a balanced mix between socialism and capitalism. It’s ironic that you mention the military, that sounds pretty much like the USA.
The IKEA founder is richer than Bill Gates…
The euro is doing a lot better than the dollar…
Yeah, it really kills the industry.
Stop thinking anyone wants communism here. The world is not black and white. I really like JAlexoid’s quote: capitalism as an utopia just as much as communism is. You just need to find a good balance so that you reward the successful to a certain extend and still provide a minimum quality of life for the less fortunate.
There was a time AMD was beating Intel in quality. If Intel had fought back only by improving their product, there wouldn’t have been a problem at all. However, they also cheated the market by abusing their monopoly and that is what they are punished for. This has got nothing to do with the Core 2.
No, it was the EU giving them a chance to compete by making sure Microsoft does not abuse their monopoly. That way people have to choose the better product, if they still prefer Microsoft’s because it’s superior, then so be it.
Excuse me? As far as I know, capitalism in your country failed. Banks went bankrupt because they created an environment which rewarded the “successful”. They went for a short term profit which pleased their shareholders who could then sell their shares again for profit. CEO’s received personal bonuses to increase those short term profits. They achieved this by taking greater risks and by giving rewards to the people below them to do the same. In the end, the system imploded and the customers who trusted the banks with their money have lost. Meanwhile the people responsible get away with a lot of money, earned by those bonuses for being “successful” and completely screwing over everyone else. And due to that bailout from the government, they actually screwed everyone over TWICE. How exactly can a system that encourages this behaviour be perfect? Talking about injustice and what freedom exactly? The freedom to get screwed over?
You know, in a REAL democracy, the people get to choose a government they trust. That says a lot more about your country than mine.
That is pretty much my experience in most of the USA, except for a few places like Portland (Oregon) which really impressed me I must admit. And I’ve crossed from north to south and east to west, in case you’re wondering. I don’t want to be negative about the USA because in fact, I quite like it but I really wouldn’t want to live there.
And your evidence is? Personally, I’ve never heard of anyone going to the USA for his healthcare, except perhaps for some who are desperate and need a very special, rather experimental, treatment.
Is that the libertarian speaking? Joking aside, insurance boils down to investing a payable amount of money every month so you can plan your expenses while knowing you won’t lose everything in case something goes terribly wrong. People like to have a backup plan. Of course, you need decent insurance companies for that, companies that don’t try to sneak out with the money while leaving you in the dark.
I agree with you about the debts. People are insane to buy goods and services they can’t afford. Fortunately we have a government instance that can help them with their bookkeeping and with planning their expenses if they are unable to do so on their own.
No, ultimately, they exist because the people let them exist, just like they let the government exist. People recognise both government and companies because they increase order and welfare, as long as they achieve that without damaging your rights (which are subjective of course). As soon as a government starts taking away your freedom, it should be held responsible and punished. We do that by parliament and elections. As soon as companies start taking away our rights and freedoms, we hold them responsible and punish them through government. Since people in Europe consider consumer rights important, the EU punishes those companies for violating them. It’s good that way.
Edited 2009-09-17 00:03 UTC
Could I have a URL? Google doesn’t seem to know anything about this quote.
Could I have an URL? Google doesn’t seem to know anything about this quote.
Where does this sort of attitude come from?
If business was actually democratic … what would be wrong with simply producing some good quality goods and offering them for a profit to the public at a reasonable and competitive price? Intel would get well ahead in the market by simply doing that (at current prices). Why does Intel seem to have found it necessary to pay other busnises to not use AMD?
That is the $64 million question.
Would it possibly be that Intel is looking to be a monopoly supplier of x86? Perhaps to force AMD out entirely of business through lack of sales?
If people could only buy x86 architecture chips from Intel and nowhere else, what do people imagine would subsequently happen to the price?
If that all happened, exactly how “democractic” would it be?
Edited 2009-09-16 03:25 UTC
Probably why if I ran Intel or Microsoft, I’d just cut my losses, give Europe the finger, and close shop liquidating assets in the entire region. No matter how large the target audience is, there are times where it’s just not the hassle – and the EU seems to want to convince international corporations that they are not worth dealing with.
As much as many people would like it, the likes of Microsoft (especially them IMHO) & Intel won’t give Europe the finger as you so eloquently put it.
Why?
The market for their goods in the EU is bigger than in their home territory. Yes folks, there are more potential customers in the EU than in the USA. Couple that with the 1 Euro == 1 GBP == 1$ exchange rates they seem to use (on the FX market, 1GBP = approx $1.60) and guess what, there is a lot of profit to be made in the EU.
How would you like to explain that at the next shareholders meeting eh?
Bill Gates != John Galt
And the law states, that there is no need for a court.
Last time I checked, police force in US is also executive branch, and can hand out fines. Witch you later on can dispute in the appropriate court. The exactly same thing here.
And don’t throw totalitarianism into the mix, since you have not lived or ever been close to one, so you don’t know any non democratic regime when it’ biting on your own ass.
A) Multi-billion? Was it painful getting that number out of your ass? Highest ever was just over one billion euros.
B) Cartels are as bad as monopolies and last time I checked, US had a law against cartels. So far only the US companies actually create this hype over fines.
A) Last time I checked UK was not in the monetary union, so what do you mean of recognizing Euro is beyond my comprehension.
B) Brainwashed chimpanzees over the pond, think that socialism is somehow related to non democratic regimes. See Sweden, where people, arguably, get more representation and voice in their country than in US.
Or Switzerland, where they practice almost direct form of democracy.
That is exactly why you do not run any big corporations.