Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses EU The Almighty Buck United Kingdom United States

Ends, Means, and Antitrust (stratechery.com) 97

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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ends, Means, and Antitrust

Comments Filter:
  • Control group (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Hognoxious ( 631665 )

    In other words, as long as prices do not increase -- or even better, decrease -- there is, by definition, no illegal behavior.

    This is utter twaddle. Without any shenanigans they might - due to technical advances - have decreased even more.

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      In other words, as long as prices do not increase -- or even better, decrease -- there is, by definition, no illegal behavior.

      What is dumping [wikipedia.org]?

    • Re:Control group (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jonsmirl ( 114798 ) on Friday June 30, 2017 @06:59PM (#54722821) Homepage

      Google should simply make this whole block a biddable AdWords item.
      Search image [stratechery.com]

      Then if the external shopping engine's bid exceeds the total of the bids for the five items, the external engine gets control of the entire block.
      "Shop for adidas boost on Google" would be replaced with "Shop for adidas boost on Price Grabber". And the five ads would be sourced from the external engine.

      This is a win-win solution. The external engines can achieve exactly the same ad placement Google does, and Google gets compensated for generating the traffic if someone clicks. External engines still make money because they are after affiliate commissions which are far high enough to cover the cost of the clicks.

      Solutions where these external engines get fed valuable, easily monetizable traffic for free are a non-started with me. Google has invested a lot of effort in generating this traffic, Google deserves some compensation if they pass the consumer to the external site.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Shitty for consumers though, who just want the lowest price from a reasonable retailer. As consumers we should look for ways to achieve that.

        • Affiliate commissions are why these external sites are complaining. They want to be fed a giant free stream of easily monetizable traffic which they then collect affiliate commissions from anyone buying. AFAIK Google does not collect the affiliate commissions, they only charge standard click rates.

          And a $2.7B fine is just ridiculous. I suspect prices will go up, not down if Google is forced to pass traffic off to these sites since they will only be displaying stores that offer affiliate commissions. Stores

  • 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.

    • by lucm ( 889690 )

      Tell that to the 22 million health care consumers who are going to be cut to give a tax break to millionaires.

      When you talk about millionnaires, do you mean Big Insurance crooks who will no longer be able to buy Gulfstreams and Teslas with the money stolen from small business owners?

      It was basically the same as when the mafia would take protection money from small business owners, except this time the cops and the thieves were on the same side of the law.

    • The summary is just talking about the approach to anti-trust laws, not a general philosophical ethos.
      • Bullshit, Read it again. It made a general statement that the US is primarily concerned with consumer welfare. That covers far more than antitrust law. And it certainly takes nothing away from my point, because if antitrust laws were properly enforced, insurance premiums would be way lower.
  • Corporatism (Score:5, Interesting)

    by labnet ( 457441 ) on Friday June 30, 2017 @06:13PM (#54722629)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by iggymanz ( 596061 )

      really, my relatives in Europe hate the healthcare system, waiting months for what should be urgent surgery. they make a lot less money too. We have a couple inner city subcultures (which are economically dependent by the socialism we do have here) that commit most the crime, that isn't a "poor" problem. By the way, some of those european countries are also recently dealing with their newborn criminal classes making violent crime.

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Do they maybe live in the UK?

      • really, my relatives in Europe hate the healthcare system, waiting months for what should be urgent surgery.

        [citation needed]

        And no, not a random anecdote, either. Show some figures.

        they make a lot less money too.

        If their middle class is not disappearing, then the median income must be significantly higher. Ours is going away.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        I won't pretend that healthcare is perfect in the EU, but compared to the US... People aren't worried they will die because they ran out of money and went bankrupt, screwing over their family in the process. People aren't made homeless by preventable diseases that they couldn't afford the medicine to prevent.

        And for the most part, the system works pretty well for the majority. If you have the money you can still pay a private doctor too.

    • Re:Corporatism (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Friday June 30, 2017 @07:20PM (#54722893)

      Pretty accurate. Building infrastructure and safety-nets is not socialism in any way. It just shows the level of ignorance of most US citizens that they think it is.

      • Most conservatives in the US do not have a problem with infrastructure and safety nets. What we have a problem with is stupid spending on infrastructure (spending money on a high speed train - with no defined path - when we have crumbling bridges, roads and dams) and letting people live their lives on the safety net - which is supposed to be there to catch people who occasionally slip.
        • by GNious ( 953874 )

          ... and letting people live their lives on the safety net - which is supposed to be there to catch people who occasionally slip.

          That would mean that there's a way up from the safety net

          43-48 million Americans live in poverty
          564 thousand Americans are homeless (44% have some paid work)
          20-odd million Americans pays more than 30% of income on rent, and almost half of renters are at risk of not being able to pay next month's rent
          643 thousands go bankrupt from medical expenses, every year

          There are just holes too deep for many Americans to dig themselves out of, and the system is seemingly not geared to help them.

        • What we have a problem with is stupid spending on infrastructure (spending money on a high speed train - with no defined path - when we have crumbling bridges, roads and dams)

          But if I might note, here in soggy Pennsylvania, we have gone on a big spree of road infrastructure repair. They are doing a darn good job as well. That's the good part. But in one of those weird twists of reality, it took a tax increase on fuel to do it. It wasn't the so called liberals who didn't understand that it takes money to do things.

          and letting people live their lives on the safety net - which is supposed to be there to catch people who occasionally slip.

          I hate and loathe lazy people. That fact out of the way, what is the path forward? If you are working a minimum wage job, you are still eligible for government benefit

          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Well, disregarding your comment about lazy people (am a lazy person, but my finances are in a pretty good state and all that from real work, no speculation, sales or other ways to rip off people or society), I do agree on most things you say. In particular unskilled and low-skill jobs are vanishing and they do so globally. And there is a large group of people that cannot do anything else and it is not due to a lack of education. The talents they have just do not stretch to anything more complicated.

            The idea

          • I wish out here in California (State Motto: we haven't taxed enough until everyone is on the public teat), we're spending hundreds of billions on high speed rail with no plan for a route, ensuring that people here illegally get better benefits than legal State residents, and for every dollar you spend on roads we spend $4.70 [cnsnews.com]. Even though our gas tax is supposed to be used exclusively for roads, much of it is spent on non-transportation issues. So we also raised our gas taxes [latimes.com] but I fear we'll see most of t
        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          You misunderstand what the purpose of a safety net is. Probably because you are arrogant and stupid enough to think that _you_ will certainly not need one long-term and those that do be damned. Well, I can only wish for you to actually need it and if you do, then think of this exchange. Also reminds me of Ayn Rand that preached any kind of dependency on welfare was the devil....until she needed (and took) it herself.

          You people do not live what you preach. You are liars and delusional. And you are evil becau

          • Hi there. Been bankrupt. Been homeless. Only one in my entire family (from four immigrant grandparents until today) to graduate from high school, let alone college. Oh, I know about safety nets. I also know that most of my family are below average income - but still provide for themselves. Yes, it can be done. It was a ton of effort and work to get back to where I am - a nice home in Ventura, a car, a motorcycle, and a nicely growing 401K. But it can be done.

            You people dp not believe what you prea

            • by gweihir ( 88907 )

              Fascinating. I do agree that for somebody as mentally deranged as you apparently are, it is quite an accomplishment to be economically self-sufficient. And no, I have zero ambition to be anybodies "hero" in this repulsive fashion, i.e. by "keeping them down". And while I have not been formally bankrupt, I have had a "close to zero money and no paying job" situation as well two times in my life. I _know_ how easy it is to get into that situation. I also have some very valuable skills, so it was easy to get o

    • Re:Corporatism (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BitterOak ( 537666 ) on Friday June 30, 2017 @07:47PM (#54722983)

      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.

      You may regard America as being immature (teenage, as you call it) but it's worked remarkably well. Look how much of the technology and innovation that is used today all over the world has come from America, a relatively small country as a fraction of the world's population: electric lighting, telecommunications, audio recording, motion pictures, aircraft, solid state electronics (transistors, integrated circuits, microchips), electronic computers, GPS, mass produced consumer priced automobiles, the Internet. And companies like Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, which although not perfect, have changed the way people live all over the world. All this from America. I guess it's pretty amazing what "teenagers" can do and I for one hope that America never grows up!

      • Re:Corporatism (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30, 2017 @08:52PM (#54723201)

        Radio came from Europe.
        Aircraft came from Europe (and Richard Pierce in NZ was possibly the first with Powered Flight)
        Rail came from Britain
        The Jet Engine was British
        The computer came from Britain
        The Web came from Europe
        Printing press Europe
        etc etc etc etc etc.

        The USA did well from the 1940-1970s because their cities and infrastructure were not bombed during WWII, they made money selling weapons and then made money selling everything needed to rebuild europe/Asia. The USA was able to progress while other countries rebuilt. That is not an indication that the USA was "great" but simply lucky.
        During the 1950s the US accounted for over 50% of the worlds GDP, now its about 20% and falling.
        Not because the USA has done anything wrong, its because other countries have modernised and are no longer dependant on the USA for food, technology, medicine, etc etc etc.

        The USA is not the centre of the universe, the centre of everything good, or anything else.
        When it comes to Health, Welfare,education, honesty, law and order, social mobility, "happiness", etc etc the USA does not do that well.

        • they made money selling weapons and then made money selling everything needed to rebuild europe/Asia. The USA was able to progress while other countries rebuilt

          On top of that, the US and the USSR split the german scientists between them and US universities were in a position to offer top researchers from European cities much more resources if they relocated. Some left when the second world war looked inevitable, a lot more left after it finished when they got much better offers in the US and no longer had a sense of being unpatriotic abandoning their country in a time of war. Throughout the cold war, the US actively pursued a policy of encouraging the best minds

      • Re:Corporatism (Score:4, Interesting)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Friday June 30, 2017 @09:05PM (#54723243) Homepage

        They are not immature or teenage with no reason. Basically US society poisoned itself with lead (lead in petrol, lead water pipes WTF and firing lead at rifle ranges), the current decision markers being the worst of the lot. Millennials with much lower levels of lead seem to be pretty much on a path to recovery and the problems will resolve itself as they become the decision makers. Other countries decision markers also suffered, just not as badly as the US and their millennial generations are also making improvements.

        Lead poisoning, lower IQ, reduce morals and reduce thoughtfulness (higher crime at all levels). Basically those in charge are full of lead and full of shit, just lying about everything, cheating as a rule and stealing when ever they think they can get away with it. They have not the slightest qualm about screaming lies into your face over and over and over again, even when they know, you know they are lying, they don't care, they just scream the same right wing lies until you give up and walk away (the idiots think they have won but you just ignore them from then on it and work around them). Coming from the lead addled generation, I know I can not change what my generation is doing, all I can do is mitigate the harm they cause (if you have some to spare, you don't suffer that badly, not that I appreciate the theft of intellect committed by greedy fuckwit dead dog dick sucking arse holes, who should be condemned to the hell of strangling beads). People should be really pissed off, between 10 and 20 IQ points stolen across the whole of society to feed the greed of a fuckwit minority, only morons would not be infuriated by the thought of 20 IQ points be destroyed, smart people know exactly the impact of 20 more IQ points and how it advantages them.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        How much of that is due to not being bombed during the second world war?

        Also, the British made the first electronic computer and invented the World Wide Web, and we had ARM... We invented television too. Considering our population is only a fraction of the US... I'd suggest that this method of measuring success is flawed.

        • by chihowa ( 366380 )

          The second world war that was started by Europeans (who narcissistically saw themselves as "the world"), after how many centuries of endless wars?

          Historically, you guys not being bloodthirsty warmongers and colonial oppressors is just a recent and short downtick. It's good to see that you haven't let yourselves get all self-righteous about it!

    • Puritans were a very small minority in the colonies. But because much of the history the Europeans in America were very often on the frontier, they had to be independent and interdependent only in a small communities, and this probably had more to do with bringing about the modern work ethic than the Massachusetts colony.

    • I wouldn't say it was purely the Puritan work ethic, but something much simpler: nearly *everyone* (save the tiny % of native Americans and the small population of slaves) that came to the US chose to 'roll the dice' on their future, or is descended from such people. I think the outlook, even perhaps genetically, is for an inherently greater tolerance of risk for a potentially better outcome. Is a penchant for gambling an inheritable characteristic?

      The result is that the even American families at the pove

      • The result is that the even American families at the poverty line live better than the European average.

        But do you have a credible citation? Forbes regularly posts unfounded FUD, and they also have been known to distribute malware from their site so no self-respecting Slashdotter would even go there to begin with.

    • People came to the USA for independence, there is the *independence day*, there is no *interdependence day*

      I lived in many countries in my life, I value independence and individualism above all else and I am far from a Puritan.

      AFAIC freedom trumps convenience and any feeling of safety. I do not cooperate by decree, I do not collaborate by force, I do not see you as anything but a trade partner if you can offer me something of value to me on voluntary basis. I am not part of anything greater than myself an

  • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Friday June 30, 2017 @06:15PM (#54722637) Journal

    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.

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Funny. All your rant shows is your ignorance.

  • by Snotnose ( 212196 ) on Friday June 30, 2017 @07:17PM (#54722881)
    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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'

    • I think the case was started under President Carter and the resolution proposed by AT&T itself, but the comment is insightful. As I recall, and I'm that old, it had become clear that the monopoly was holding up progress, keeping prices high in the face of face of falling costs, and restraining technical advances. The Carterfone (no known relationship) case comes to mind.

  • 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."

    • by vakuona ( 788200 )

      Google and Facebook's service do not cost money to their direct users. They cost money to advertisers. Google and Facebook build audiences, and then sell access to them.

      If they get this wrong, and show their audiences the wrong sort of adverts, they do not make any money.

      Prices won't drop because of technological improvements. What is being sold is finite real estate - space on user screens. This is basically being auctioned, and therefore prices will nearly always remain high. The only reason for prices to

  • 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.

The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else doing it wrong, without commenting. -- T.H. White

Working...