Slashdot Mirror
China Could Be Another Hurdle In MS Yahoo Bid
wattrlz points out a NYTimes piece on the clout China could soon wield on antitrust matters and the impact it could have on Microsoft's Yahoo bid. A new Chinese anti-monopoly law takes effect in August that will extend the nation's economic influence far beyond its borders. Nathan Bush, an antitrust law specialist in Beijing, said the law represents the ascendance of China "as another regulatory capital contending for influence with Brussels and Washington." The article makes it clear that no one knows how China will play its burgeoning antitrust influence — conciliatory or nationalistic.
....anyone who attampts to swindle me gets fined, payable to me, 10 x the amount they were attempting.
but if they succeed and I catch them, they get fined 100 x the amount.
Which country am I?
China wants payback for us blocking their UNOCAL buyout.
China will be perfectly happy with the new united Microhoo as long as Microhoo is as compliant in handing over dissident's information as Yahoo & Microsoft are as separate companies.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
The trouble with all of this is that any organisation that deals internationally (ie have a web site visible globally) needs to check that it is compliant in all 195 countries in the world - both in terms of web-site/mail-order/dealing-with-customers/... and in terms of corporate governance [think accounts, anti-monopoly, reporting, ... legislation].
We could really do with agreed international standards - so that I know that if I am compliant by one set of rules that I can download/read/... then I am OK everywhere.
OK: it would be a long haul, but we could start with web sites & web trading. One size would not fit all, but if I could to choose from a half dozen or so standard terms and conditions that I could display/link on my web site (with standard/authorised translations into all languages) then: I would know where I stand as would my customers. Be honest: do you always read/understand the terms and conditions from every web site that you visit ? I have refused to deal with some places (eg ebay) because the T&Cs were too long/complicated.
The main people to loose would be charlatans and solicitors - neither of who I care much about; both are usually scum.
The chances of this coming to be in my lifetime are small. unfortunately.
Nobody knows, because it is impossible to know something before it has happened. But everyone can guess.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that China, which has a totalitarian one party politcal system (the ULTIMATE monopoly) is implementing anti-monopoly laws?
No, keeping "monopolies" under "control" *destroys* the free market (ie, a market of freedom, not your rationalistic "perfect information/perfect competition" crap).
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
The United States of Whatever.
Perhaps instead of focusing on anti-monopoly laws, China should make it illegal to slaughter 1.2 million Tibetans?
Perhaps the penalty for a violation of this law could be a boycott of their Olympics?
Fuck you, nobody pays for our software over there anyways.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
We have NO free market here in the US. Why? Because now you can practically get a patent for breathing, and copyright doesn't expire till the next geologic age. Gone are the days that you can easily start up a new tech-based company like Apple did without a really good lawyer because of the patent trolls, this along with such laws like the DMCA. We have no free market, we have a somewhat free market, but a "Market of Freedom" you have to be joking.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
Over here, we pay what things are worth.
Sincerely,
China
The extreme perspective on something is usually the least useful one.
I would rather have a somewhat "broken" free market than one that allows a misuse of monopolies. In the long run, no one benefits from monopolies other than the monopolist. I don't think societies benefit unless there is viable comptition.
A monopolist who benefits no one but himself doesn't stay a monopolist for long. Say what you will about Gates and Microsoft (I certainly do, especially Gate's maligning of the system that enabled him to succeed and prosper), but by and large, they are in the position they are because customers choose to do business with them. Microsoft isn't putting guns in anyone's back, it's simply ensuring that they are the best choice to be made. So, in what is a completely voluntary effort on both sides to enter into a business agreement, what right does any coercive entity have to interfere?
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
you missed "and because they used strong-arm tactics to squash any attempt by their customers to go to their competitors" in there where you said "because customers choose to do business with them". As much as your free-market ideal claptrap is wonderful, it fails to take into account the negative effects of vendor lock-in in relation to past abuses.
Because the monopolist can set in a set of market conditions that make it extremely disfavorable, if not impossible for competition to form. Because the monopolist usually has deep reserves, they can sell below cost should competition arise, drive them out of business, then raise the prices again. So you have to wait until some competition comes along with even deeper pockets, assuming that ever happens. The monopolist would also have the power to set up long term exclusive contracts such that an entity can only deal with one company. If the contract isn't accepted, the entity is deprived of what they need, because there is no alternative. So they can't ride it out until competition arives, and if it does, they are either locked or no longer exist to take advantage.
The idea of free market should be a tool, not an ideological club, free market for its own sake is absurdity.
That's relatively good news. At first I read "China could soon wield on antimatter thrusts". That's a relief...
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
-----------
My Question: What is the "free market"?
I think a little historical background on the traditional U.S. view of the political economy would be helpful at this time.
The following quote is from James Madison's Federalist Paper #10 -
"A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operation of government."
Wage interests are not mentioned, because, to use the common phrase of the time,"people who earn their bread from their employer," did not have the vote. Working white males didn't fully gain the right to vote until around 1830. At the time of the U.S. Constitutional Convention, in 1787, most state governments had property requirements for voting and Madison spoke in favor of requiring one for voting in federal elections. Madison; as well as most members of the Constitutional Convention, believed that the only people who should have a legal authority, (the franchise) to influence the government, (vote for a representative) were property owners. However; members of the convention could not agree on exactly what property requirements should be required, and decided to rely on the states voting requirements to protect their political power. Madison accepted this but worried about the future.
The following Madison quote is from James Madison's personal records of the Constitutional Convention.
"Viewing the subject on its merits alone, the freeholders, (property owners without debt), of the Country would be the safest depositories of Republican liberty. In future times a great majority of the people will not only be without landed, but any other sort of property."
From Farrand's Records, [ MADISON August 7th. In Convention ]
My Answer: The "free market" is defined by whoever has the power to do so. In the U.S., the Supreme court is probably guided by the above historical tradition.
I_Voter
Political Power in the U.S.
http://tinyurl.com/2sdtvk
China or a Chinese company (Baidu?) should offer to buy out Yahoo. That would certainly make for some interesting headlines...
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
"Free market for its own sake" is simply a consistent application of a belief that human beings do in fact have the right to live their own lives and make their own decisions free from coercive interference. Call it an ideological club if you will; I will never reject the notion that I have principles and make every effort to apply them in a non-contradictory manner.
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
he article makes it clear that no one knows how China will play its burgeoning antitrust influence -- conciliatory or nationalistic.
Initially conciliatory and ultimately nationalistic. China's government isn't "conciliatory" on much of anything else, so I fail to see why they would start now.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
A truly free market would not have the same type of contract laws, regional and international commerce laws, patent laws, etc. ad infinum which keep smaller companies from prospering by using other's ideas mixed with their own to out-compete the larger companies.
You can't have a *free* market when you have protectionist laws on the books... either for or against competition. If you're going to regulate one aspect, you have to regulate them all.... or find a balance, which is what the US economy and government try to do (though with a lot of in-fighting and politics getting in the way).
A *free* market would allow for all sorts of cheating, stealing and lying... whatever it takes to make it to the top. Anything less and it's just *freedom* within a regulated system and in which case, everyone has to play by the same rules so there's really no difference as long as those rules are applied evenly to all participants.
OTOH if a company does well by gaming the rules system, what do you do? DO you change the rules to make things *more fair* or do you accept the fact that someone will always be able to do so and encourage others to compete on the same level (by gaming the system)?
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,437087,00.html
I also like this story:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/07/wwii-veteran-nazi-interrogators-denounced-bushs-torture-techniques/
Quick question: Any translators on Slashdot (unfortunately, I can speak but not write Chinese) that could interpret some of the English literature out there? I'm wondering how much awareness the Chinese public has about the sort of information you find at Groklaw and such.
Another official to bribe, besides, they just steal MS software anyway so consumers there are already fully protected.
You seem to be confusing laws that uphold the rights of individuals (contract and patent laws, per your example) with laws that deny them (commerce restrictions, and antitrust (not mentioned, but implied per the topic)). The government is acting perfectly fine when it is upholding the life, liberty, and property of its constituents; that is in fact why we have one. When it chooses instead to violate those rights (ie, to initiate force against individuals), then it is acting in an unjust manner. Those are the principles by which a proper and just government operates, not throwing random regulations around to create a "level playing field."
Jesus is coming -- look busy!
So, at what point does economic power won in a free market become a 'coercive interference'?
we welcome our Chinese, Microsoft-crushing overlords.
all our base are belong to you.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
The article makes it clear that no one knows how China will play its burgeoning antitrust influence -- conciliatory or nationalistic.
Nationalistic. Next question?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12585
Why They Hate China
Well, you have to hate someone...
Well, we sort of have a, "Market of Freedom". It's called the, "Legal System": In general, the more money you spend in it, the more free you are.
Since the link to TFA requires an account with the New York Times ... does anyone have a link to the story which we can actually read?
Why do editors keep posting links to sites which require a login?
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.