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 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.
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
China, if you try to distribute pictures of the tank in Tiannamen Square, you're very quietly taken off to goodness-knows-where and disappear.
Does the US need improvement? Quite possibly. Is it "so much better"? You'd better believe it, pal!
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
-----------
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
Unfortunately, the US is now only better in terms of allowing free speeches that nobody cares. See my previous comment about free speech in China. The good thing is that in China you are now allowed speak more and more freely while people care about what you have said less and less, just like here. For other matters in life, I found the differences are getting smaller and smaller -- the US is stagnant or declining while China is improving. That's why I pitch people I know in China not to immigrate here anymore -- it is just a waste of their times and money to re-adjust.