Slashdot Mirror
Ends, Means, and Antitrust (stratechery.com)
Analyst Ben Thompson on the European Commission's $2.7 billion fine levied on Google for anti-competitive behavior: The United States and European Union have, at least since the Reagan Administration, differed on this point: the U.S. is primarily concerned with consumer welfare, and the primary proxy is price. In other words, as long as prices do not increase -- or even better, decrease -- there is, by definition, no illegal behavior.
The European Commission, on the other hand, is explicitly focused on competition: monopolistic behavior is presumed to be illegal if it restricts competitors which, in the theoretical long run, hurts consumers by restricting innovation.
The European Commission, on the other hand, is explicitly focused on competition: monopolistic behavior is presumed to be illegal if it restricts competitors which, in the theoretical long run, hurts consumers by restricting innovation.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
the U.S. is primarily concerned with consumer welfare
Tell that to the 22 million health care consumers who are going to be cut to give a tax break to millionaires. If they really cared, and cared about lowest cost, they'd bring in single payer universal healthcare. The cutbacks to the EPA that will result in dirtier air, higher fossil fuel consumption and pollution, and less water quality monitoring. And if you're going to use price as a proxy for caring, it's pretty damned obvious that the US is not considered with the rate of inflation of education leaving students looking at a lifetime of debt.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
What do you expect - the author is an analyst == he needs to get the word out that he's willing to ignore realities that are unfavourable to what potential corporate customers want to here.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The USA has a unique culture that was bought by the Puritan work ethic that promoted individualism and self improvement.
A good explanation is the three stages of maturity.
Dependance (child), Independance (teen), Interdependence (adult)
The USA seems to revere Independence, where Europe, Oceania focus more on interdependence.
Americans confuse this with socialism/communism and have a great fear that someone may undeservedly benefit from their labor. I can assure you being in one of these 'socialist' countries, that the benefits outweigh disadvantages.
Universal healthcare is terrific. Proper limits on monopolies. Much better support for poor people so they don't resort to crime. Higher minimum wages so low socioeconomic people can afford to live and spend it into their communities. Running prisons to reform rather than profit. Even better public transit systems.
Unfortunately, I don't see any cultural changes on the horizon.
46137
But you can't measure the difference between price in the case of a monopoly and price in the case of a competitive market. One or other won't exist. Of course, that's probably the objective of using price as the measure.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It's not about switching search engines. It's about misusing your dominant position in search to give you an unfair advantage in other areas.
Google isn't forcing anyone to use their services. It's just that the EU is bankrupt, morally and financially, so they're just looking for a way to steal money. Who can blame them? It's how they are. Europe has always the world's troublemaker. If not for the USA they would still be in constant feudal warfare... Thank god for America! Still the greatest country in the history of the universe. But they've let this go on too long. It's time to finish the war.
Fits.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
That tells you competition is vital, otherwise companies raise prices as high as they can.
In other words, the EU is correct, the US is wrong (again).
EU is influenced by German ordoliberalism, which considers that the market is the goal.
US is much more pragmatic and just want to fix one of capitalism's flaws that promotes its self-destruction.
The break up of AT&T happened under Reagan. And it certainly could not have happened because of prices. There was nothing to compare the prices to. AT&T had absolute monopoly on the phone lines. Phone call prices were not rising faster than the rate of inflation. And yet the company was broken up because it was a monopoly. The fact that is subsequently nearly remerged is irrelevant, by the way. It still goes contrary to the premise of the article, which contends that it is the US regulators' actions were driven exclusively by prices.
1) Some services cost no money but are still a monopoly instead they cost other things, such as privacy. Prime example: Facebook.
2) When technology is advancing fast, prices drop. Or they do if their is competition. But a monopoly could simply maintain their current price and claim "Hey, we aren't anti-competitive, our prices haven't changed. We still sell our phone with a 1 MP camera, 2 inch display, and 5 whole megabytes of memory for a mere $749, just like we did in 1999."
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
How much did the Microsoft proxies spend on this campaign, as we all know who's really back of it. Microsoft has been desperate to catch up to Google for ages.
"It's not about switching search engines. It's about misusing your dominant position in search to give you an unfair advantage in other areas."
Who is forcing us to use Google and isn't Microsoft already hijacking search on Windows 10, and giving it's own search engine prime place on the desktop, bottom left right next to the START icon, why is no one complaining about that to the EU.
Who is forcing us to use Google
You just quoted the previous guy telling you it's not about switching search engines. The charge isn't that you're being forced to use search. The charge is that you're being forced to use shopping because you already use search. It's irrelevant why you use search.
You can go ahead and think *that* rule is bullshit but it never had anything to do with switching search engines, it had to do with shopping. It's not illegal to have a monopoly or dominant market position, and therefore it doesn't matter how easy it is for somebody to skip participating in the monopoly, the fact is that they have a dominant market position regardless.
why is no one complaining about that [Microsoft 'hijacking' search] to the EU.
First, they are -- it's not working though , for all the reasons you just finished describing -- you just finished asking who is forcing you to use Google, implying that people are able to choose Google, implying that Microsoft is not able to stop them, implying that Microsoft either does not have or is not abusing a dominant adjacent market. If you see Bing become dominant and you can provide evidence that a dominant share of searches come from Microsoft-aligned products (hint: Android phones mean they don't), then you might be able to build a case.
These are frustrating conversations to me. I don't really like the incarnations of antitrust law in either the US or the EU. They have some cure-worse-than-the-disease properties. But it's clear most people haven't taken the time to even understand the argument, since a zillion people will point out that it's easy to switch away from Google by typing some other made-up word into the address bar, as though that matters at all.