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.
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.
Control group (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Shitty for consumers though, who just want the lowest price from a reasonable retailer. As consumers we should look for ways to achieve that.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
You've got to be kidding (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is because you view health care as a product and not as a human right.
Re: (Score:2)
It is. Just because you think otherwise doesn't change reality.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't a statement about reality, it's a statement about ethics. And therefore, the fact that he thinks it is *does* make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you ever use roads and sidewalks without paying a toll for each use? Drinking water and toilets? You want to look at what a country without a public sanitation infrastructure looks (and smells) like, go to India, where 600 million don't have toilets, where people shit on the sidewalks. Constructing infrastructure for use by all, irrespective of their ability to pay, means we don't have half the population taking a dump wherever they want.
And you spent years of your life leaching off others (you were li
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is true. Or near enough to mean the same. But that ruins his narrative of "evil rich white men".
Re: (Score:2)
Liars. 14 million are working poor, the ones who, without government subsidies, will have to opt out because they simply won't have the money for the premiums. It won't be a opt out when you're forced out. Same with most of the 1.4 million seniors in retirement homes that are going to end up on the street. Same with the disabled.
And anyone with pre-existing conditions will be shut out. Cancer? 140,000 per year premium. Pregnant women? Costs will rise by $17,000.
For what? The tax cuts don't go to people ma
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Corporatism (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
quite true, all of Europe is not the same. But the post I was replying to was implying all European places with their socialism were just peachy. Maybe something else makes a place peachy, or not.
Re: (Score:2)
And where are your relatives living with their 'socialism' ?
Re: (Score:2)
three countries which I will not name, instead point out that merely having "socialism" for public healthcare does not make for a better situation than the USA. As aside, so interesting "Obamacare", based on a Republican plan, had no robust public option
Re: (Score:2)
"three countries which I will not name, instead point out that merely having "socialism" for public healthcare does not make for a better situation than the USA"
If you do not name the countries or define what you mean by "socialism health care", then what is it that "does not make for a better situation than the USA".
Re: (Score:3)
Do they maybe live in the UK?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
... 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.
Re: (Score:2)
There are just holes too deep for many Americans to dig themselves out of, and the system is seemingly not geared to help them.
Just be rich. Its so simple, I don't know why those lazy poor people can't figure it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
These numbers are pathetic. Sounds much more like the stats a 3rd world country would have.
Re: (Score:2)
All that safety net addition in the last Administration [ucdavis.edu] did nothing, apparently. Likewise during the Clinton years - it wasn't until welfare reform was pushed through that the poverty rate started to drop. You sound all nice and intellectual and high-minded, but the reality is that if you make it easy to stay in the safety net - a good percentage of people will choose to do so. When you make staying in the safety net harder - you'll find a lot leave it, and the only ones that stay there probably truly
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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: (Score:2)
Look how much of the technology and innovation that is used today all over the world has come from America
Rather, look how much of those were done by immigrants from the rest of the world who came to America.
Now thanks to the wave of xenophobia in the past two decade, and now Trump, it will dry up, the effect will be seen the coming decades.
I agree 100%. But those immigrants did all that great stuff after coming to America. There's a reason for that. I agree totally about the dangers of xenophobia and Trump's immigration policies. America is a nation of immigrants and that's in part what makes it a great country. I hope that isn't lost.
Re:Corporatism (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
First, you'd think someone whose been here a while would be more grown up than to toss around that bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Second, to your actual point:
https://mises.org/blog/poor-us... [mises.org]
http://www.dailywire.com/news/... [dailywire.com]
http://www.heritage.org/povert... [heritage.org]
"...The average "poor" American lives in a larger house or apartment than does the average West European (This is the average West European, not poor West Europeans). Poor Americans eat far more meat, are more likely to own cars and dishwasher
Re: (Score:1)
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
Unmeasurable (Score:3)
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.
Re: Trivial to switch search engines (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
The EU is full of shit (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how much the left adored Trump when he was a New York liberal, backing Democrats for office. Now that he is trying to fix the ruin left by the last few presidents, he is 'insane'.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny. All your rant shows is your ignorance.
So basically short-sighted vs. not? (Score:2)
Fits.
Look at the pharma industry (Score:3)
In other words, the EU is correct, the US is wrong (again).
Re: (Score:2)
It does help when the pharma CEO's daddy is a high ranking Democratic Senator.
Ordoliberalism (Score:2)
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.
this seems wrong-premised (Score:1)
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'
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The specific case started in 1974 (Ford), but the anti-trust drama started in 1956 (Eisenhower).
Problem with prices centered approach of US (Score:3)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
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
The EU $2.7 billion fine levied on Google (Score:1)