Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by European antitrust regulator

Discussion in 'HTML' started by cwdjrxyz, Feb 28, 2008.

  1. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Microsoft was just fined US$ 1.35 billion by the European antitrust
    regulator. View the story at the NY Times at
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/technology/28soft.html , but simple
    free registration may be required. Microsoft has now been required to
    pay over 2.3 billion total as a result of this fight.

    I do not expect an antitrust ruling to be made in the US soon, as the
    current federal adminstration is quite big-business friendly. However,
    after the elections, all bets are off. In the past Microsoft was
    nearly required to break up a few years ago, but they were able to
    avoid this.
    cwdjrxyz, Feb 28, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Re: Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by European antitrustregulator

    On Feb 28, 12:45 am, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    > Microsoft was just fined US$ 1.35 billion by the European antitrust
    > regulator. View the story at the NY Times athttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/technology/28soft.html, but simple
    > free registration may be required. Microsoft has now been required to
    > pay over 2.3 billion total as a result of this fight.


    That is because the UE is useless bureaucracy at best and what better
    way to get money than to use the courts to steal it from a successful
    American company.

    > I do not expect an antitrust ruling to be made in the US soon, as the
    > current federal adminstration is quite big-business friendly.


    No, they are free enterprise friendly. there is a difference.

    > However,
    > after the elections, all bets are off. In the past Microsoft was
    > nearly required to break up a few years ago, but they were able to
    > avoid this.


    Yea, lets break up a successful company.... Governments (especially
    socialist leaning ones like many found in Europe) can only screw up
    business. (check out how well socialism and government control is
    working for France...) When governments try to make things "fair"
    they tend to **** something up. So how's that class envy, and
    redistribution of wealth working out for you?

    Whine, moan, and complain about how it's "not fair". Nothing but a
    bunch of lazy piss ants. Let sue, lets take them to court. Dumb
    fucking liberals. Get off your asses and try to better yourself
    rather than bring the successful down to your level.

    There, I feel better now.
    Travis Newbury, Feb 28, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. cwdjrxyz

    mrcakey Guest

    OT: Re: Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by European antitrust regulator

    "Travis Newbury" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Feb 28, 12:45 am, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    >
    > Yea, lets break up a successful company.... Governments (especially
    > socialist leaning ones like many found in Europe) can only screw up
    > business. (check out how well socialism and government control is
    > working for France...) When governments try to make things "fair"
    > they tend to **** something up. So how's that class envy, and
    > redistribution of wealth working out for you?
    >
    > Whine, moan, and complain about how it's "not fair". Nothing but a
    > bunch of lazy piss ants. Let sue, lets take them to court. Dumb
    > fucking liberals. Get off your asses and try to better yourself
    > rather than bring the successful down to your level.
    >
    > There, I feel better now.
    >
    >


    It *is* ridiculous that they should be fined like that. Much as I hate
    their guts I don't think they've done enough to deserve it in this
    instance - the fine was actually levied because they were charging too much
    to companies for trust information, even though the EU never set a price in
    their previous ruling beyond the fairly nebulus 'fair and reasonable'. That
    said, if you want to play in market, you have to abide by the market's
    rules. If you don't like it, you're free to sell your wares elsewhere -
    how's them free market policies for ya?

    Where the EU *should* be getting antsy with American software companies is
    the likes of Adobe. The scum charge £1600 for Design Premium here in the
    yUK; $1800 in the US, i.e. almost half the price. Even if you download it.
    They offer the most ridiculously specious excuses for the difference, but
    the truth is they're simply abusing what is a de facto monopoly - if you're
    a design professional there are simply no viable alternatives to Flash and
    Photoshop.

    And what is your problem with France? Their socialism and supposed
    government control (they're actually a lot more free than US citizens in
    Bush's climate of fear) leaves them with the 6th largest economy in the
    world. Or are you just down on them cos they didn't kow tow to your immoral
    oil hunt like our lily-livered leaders did?

    And stop using the word liberal as a pejorative. Liberalism is about
    fairness and freedom - two of the things your founding fathers were quite
    keen on.

    +mrcakey
    mrcakey, Feb 28, 2008
    #3
  4. Re: OT: Re: Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by Europeanantitrust regulator

    On Feb 28, 6:47 am, "mrcakey" <> wrote:

    > It *is* ridiculous that they should be fined like that...
    > And what is your problem with France?


    No problem with France specifically, only using them ans an example of
    socialism and government control running a muck and destroying a
    nation.

    Frances economy is in a shambles right now (google it) with
    unemployment running anywhere between 8 and 16 percent (depending on
    how you calculate it) Sorry, socialism and government control of the
    economy has never worked.


    > they're actually a lot more free than US citizens in
    > Bush's climate of fear


    How are they more free?

    > And stop using the word liberal as a pejorative. Liberalism is about
    > fairness and freedom - two of the things your founding fathers were quite
    > keen on.


    By strict definition that is true, in reality modern liberalism is
    nothing more that socialism, wealth re-distribution, and control.
    Travis Newbury, Feb 28, 2008
    #4
  5. Re: OT: Re: Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by Europeanantitrust regulator

    On Feb 28, 6:47 am, "mrcakey" <> wrote:
    > Where the EU *should* be getting antsy with American software companies is
    > the likes of Adobe. The scum charge £1600 for Design Premium here in the
    > yUK; $1800 in the US, i.e. almost half the price. Even if you download it..
    > They offer the most ridiculously specious excuses for the difference, but
    > the truth is they're simply abusing what is a de facto monopoly - if you're
    > a design professional there are simply no viable alternatives to Flash and
    > Photoshop.


    No argument there about adobe products being the way to go when design
    is concerned. Sure there are other products out there that try to do
    the same thing, and Flash SWF format is open source so you don't
    really need Flash to create SWFs, but none of the others are the
    quality of Adobe. Two thumbs up for producing/maintaining a great
    line of products. And I LOVE the way all the adobe products are now
    integrated. But....

    So it is actually less expensive for you to fly to the US and buy the
    software at a retail store and fly back home. I am interested in what
    they tell you the reason for the price difference is, even with the
    download. Can you share?
    Travis Newbury, Feb 28, 2008
    #5
  6. cwdjrxyz

    David Segall Guest

    Re: Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by European antitrust regulator

    Travis Newbury <> wrote:

    >On Feb 28, 12:45 am, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    >> Microsoft was just fined US$ 1.35 billion by the European antitrust
    >> regulator. View the story at the NY Times athttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/technology/28soft.html, but simple
    >> free registration may be required. Microsoft has now been required to
    >> pay over 2.3 billion total as a result of this fight.

    >
    >That is because the UE is useless bureaucracy at best and what better
    >way to get money than to use the courts to steal it from a successful
    >American company.
    >
    >> I do not expect an antitrust ruling to be made in the US soon, as the
    >> current federal adminstration is quite big-business friendly.

    >
    >No, they are free enterprise friendly. there is a difference.
    >
    >> However,
    >> after the elections, all bets are off. In the past Microsoft was
    >> nearly required to break up a few years ago, but they were able to
    >> avoid this.

    >
    >Yea, lets break up a successful company.... Governments (especially
    >socialist leaning ones like many found in Europe) can only screw up
    >business. (check out how well socialism and government control is
    >working for France...) When governments try to make things "fair"
    >they tend to **** something up. So how's that class envy, and
    >redistribution of wealth working out for you?
    >
    >Whine, moan, and complain about how it's "not fair". Nothing but a
    >bunch of lazy piss ants. Let sue, lets take them to court. Dumb
    >fucking liberals. Get off your asses and try to better yourself
    >rather than bring the successful down to your level.

    Here is a rather more objective comparison of the United States
    economy compared to the European "socialists". It dates from 20
    January 2001 till yesterday so that you can see where the currency of
    the current "free enterprise friendly" administration is heading.
    <http://tinyurl.com/ynpeua>.
    David Segall, Feb 28, 2008
    #6
  7. cwdjrxyz

    mrcakey Guest

    Re: OT: Re: Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by European antitrust regulator

    "Travis Newbury" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Feb 28, 6:47 am, "mrcakey" <> wrote:
    >> Where the EU *should* be getting antsy with American software companies
    >> is
    >> the likes of Adobe. The scum charge £1600 for Design Premium here in the
    >> yUK; $1800 in the US, i.e. almost half the price. Even if you download
    >> it.
    >> They offer the most ridiculously specious excuses for the difference, but
    >> the truth is they're simply abusing what is a de facto monopoly - if
    >> you're
    >> a design professional there are simply no viable alternatives to Flash
    >> and
    >> Photoshop.

    >
    >No argument there about adobe products being the way to go when design
    >is concerned. Sure there are other products out there that try to do
    >the same thing, and Flash SWF format is open source so you don't
    >really need Flash to create SWFs, but none of the others are the
    >quality of Adobe. Two thumbs up for producing/maintaining a great
    >line of products. And I LOVE the way all the adobe products are now
    >integrated. But....
    >
    >So it is actually less expensive for you to fly to the US and buy the
    >software at a retail store and fly back home. I am interested in what
    >they tell you the reason for the price difference is, even with the
    >download. Can you share?


    It was VERY tempted to do just that - romantic weekend in New York with my
    girlfriend and cheap laptop and software. We were both too busy though,
    plus I don't like flying plus it's just cleaner for the accountant to write
    it down as an expense when I have a UK receipt for it.

    Here then is Adobe's standard email response, or the part of it that relates
    to downloads anyway:

    It's understandable why customers would expect to be able to purchase
    the same product at the same price when ordering and downloading
    directly from the Adobe Web site at www.adobe.com. Today, however, we
    still sell the majority of our products through traditional retail
    channels, and we optimize our pricing for that way of doing business. We
    depend on our retail partners in local markets to help us reach as many
    customers as possible, and we have a policy of not undercutting them on
    price. In addition, the Creative Suite 3 applications are large and
    require significant time to download. For many customers, online
    downloads will not serve as a reasonable purchase option for some time.
    However, as bandwidth increases and customer expectations change, we'll
    need to investigate ways to optimize our pricing for this approach.

    Furthermore, some higher regional costs will remain regardless of the
    method of purchase. For example, customers will still read about our
    products through local press to whom we reach out; they will meet local
    Adobe sales people who conduct seminars, participate in user groups, and
    visit large customers; and they will rely on support resources that
    Adobe makes available in these markets. All of these efforts impact the
    business costs of securing the sale, whether that sale is delivered
    online or in a box. However, we always take customer feedback seriously,
    and we'll be considering customer input as we explore ways to adjust our
    pricing in the future. Any such changes would take considerable
    investigation and analysis, so we do not plan to modify our pricing
    approach for the Creative Suite 3 products.

    Adobe does not directly sell North American versions of its creative
    products to European or
    other customers. For example, the Adobe website in North America
    (www.adobe.com) only
    accepts credit cards with North American billing addresses. We limit
    online purchase this
    way to support local resellers in Europe and other regions who do not
    have access to the same
    pricing.
    However, nothing prevents European customers from purchasing North
    American
    products from other distribution channels. Should you decide to do this,
    please keep the
    following in mind:
    .. You must pay the correct import duties and local taxes to maintain
    legal software.
    .. You should be careful about buying from a reputable source to ensure
    that you receive appropriate
    software.
    .. You will not be eligible for support for the product. Your serial
    number maps to the region in
    which you purchased the software and determines your support
    eligibility. European customers
    who purchase North American versions may not use those serial numbers to
    receive support in
    Europe, nor are they eligible for support in the United States.
    Under certain circumstances, you may be able to convert a North American
    serial number to
    a European serial number to receive local support:
    .. If you can provide proof, such as an invoice, that you legitimately
    purchased the product from a
    European source.
    .. If you can demonstrate that you purchased the product while living in
    North America and are
    now moving back to Europe (this requires a proof of purchase and a proof
    of residency, such as
    a Visa or a photocopy of a North American driver's license).
    If you meet either criteria, you can then be issued a new European
    serial number that will
    enable you to get support locally in Europe.

    We hope this answers all of your questions.

    Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to
    contact us.

    Yours Sincerely,

    Joel Williams
    Adobe Customer Service


    +mrcakey
    mrcakey, Feb 28, 2008
    #7
  8. Re: Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by European antitrustregulator

    On Feb 28, 8:10 am, David Segall <> wrote:

    > Here is a rather more objective comparison of the United States
    > economy compared to the European "socialists". It dates from 20
    > January 2001 till yesterday so that you can see where the currency of
    > the current "free enterprise friendly" administration is heading.
    > <http://tinyurl.com/ynpeua>.


    The American socialists (read that both democrats and republicans with
    the republican being slightly less socialistic in their policies) are
    the cause of that with new regulations, taxes, controls, etc... They
    have hardly left the economy alone. The only way a free market works
    is if you leave it alone. The minute you start trying to regulate it
    you get the graph you shared.
    Travis Newbury, Feb 28, 2008
    #8
  9. Re: Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by European antitrustregulator

    Travis Newbury wrote:

    > That is because the UE is useless bureaucracy at best and what better
    > way to get money than to use the courts to steal it from a successful
    > American company.


    If I were to go to the US, I would not expect to have the freedom to
    ignore local laws. Likewise, if Microsoft wishes to do business in the EU,
    then it's fair to expect them to abide by European laws.

    > Yea, lets break up a successful company.... Governments (especially
    > socialist leaning ones like many found in Europe) can only screw up
    > business. (check out how well socialism and government control is
    > working for France...) When governments try to make things "fair"
    > they tend to **** something up. So how's that class envy, and
    > redistribution of wealth working out for you?


    Purely using nominal GDP as a measure of market success, the EU is the
    most successful market in the world.

    So it seems to be working out pretty well.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    [Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
    [OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 29 days, 18:45.]

    Bottled Water
    http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/02/18/bottled-water/
    Toby A Inkster, Feb 28, 2008
    #9
  10. cwdjrxyz

    David Segall Guest

    Re: Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by European antitrust regulator

    Travis Newbury <> wrote:

    >On Feb 28, 8:10 am, David Segall <> wrote:
    >
    >> Here is a rather more objective comparison of the United States
    >> economy compared to the European "socialists". It dates from 20
    >> January 2001 till yesterday so that you can see where the currency of
    >> the current "free enterprise friendly" administration is heading.
    >> <http://tinyurl.com/ynpeua>.

    >
    >The American socialists (read that both democrats and republicans with
    >the republican being slightly less socialistic in their policies) are
    >the cause of that with new regulations, taxes, controls, etc... They
    >have hardly left the economy alone. The only way a free market works
    >is if you leave it alone. The minute you start trying to regulate it
    >you get the graph you shared.


    Here is the same graph expanded to include the Democrat administration
    from 20 January 1993. <http://tinyurl.com/2hpj8x>. Note the drastic
    decline when the "slightly less socialistic" Republican administration
    took over in 2001.

    You said that the Euro was the currency of "socialist leaning ones
    like many found in Europe" and you agree that it is gaining value
    against the U.S. dollar. Are you now arguing that the Republican
    administration is more socialist than most Europeans?
    David Segall, Feb 28, 2008
    #10
  11. Re: Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by European antitrustregulator

    Travis Newbury wrote:

    > The American socialists (read that both democrats and republicans with
    > the republican being slightly less socialistic in their policies) are
    > the cause of that with new regulations, taxes, controls, etc... They
    > have hardly left the economy alone. The only way a free market works is
    > if you leave it alone. The minute you start trying to regulate it you
    > get the graph you shared.


    All markets *require* some form of regulation. You think they don't? You
    think that anyone should be able to sell anything at any price?

    What about me downloading a song for 99p from iTunes and selling it for
    20p to 100 different people? Copyright violation? That's a form of market
    regulation. What about selling milkshakes outside schools, with rat
    droppings in them? Public health? That's a form of market regulation.

    Market regulation is needed for five (that I can think of, possibly others
    too) reasons:

    1. To prevent monopolies and cartels. This is very basic free market
    stuff. Free markets rely on consumers being able to choose between
    competing providers of good and services.

    Consider the following three supermarkets: Megamart, PriceCo and
    Waterson's, which command 40%, 30% and 20% of the supermarket market share
    respectively.

    If the number Megamart buys out Priceco and Waterson's, then many
    consumers will have very little choice about where they do their weekly
    shopping, and the company can charge whatever they like for products of
    dubious quality. Theoretically a new supermarket chain could be started by
    someone aiming to undercut Megamart and/or offer better quality products,
    but the barrier to entry is enormous when entering a monopolised market --
    the massive advertising budget aimed against you alone will blow your
    start-up business out of the water. A situation like this is not just bad
    for consumers: it's bad for small businesses too.

    Maybe Megamart decides not to buy the other two chains, and instead their
    chairmen all have a secret meeting and decide to double to price of all
    canned goods. This is known as a cartel. Even though they're not
    technically a monopoly, as Priceco and Waterson's remain separate
    companies, they effectively form a single pricing bloc, so from a
    consumer's point of view they might as well be one.

    2. To ensure openness. To be able to make choices on their consumption,
    people need to accurately compare the products and services offered to
    them by competing businesses. Add a bit of market regulation and you make
    this possible.

    Say, you enforce a requirement for milkshake salesmen to publish full and
    accurate lists of ingredients on their product packaging. Then people
    could make an informed choice between a £1.20 milkshake that contained rat
    droppings and £1.50 milkshake that didn't.

    3. To protect consumers. Having a healthy economy is good, but it's not an
    end in itself -- we desire a strong economy to ensure people a decent
    standard of living: to be happy. Without protecting consumers from the
    small proportion of businesses that turn out to me unscrupulous, you end
    up sacrificing the population's overall happiness for a small amount of
    additional economic success, and then you're missing the whole point of
    why you wanted that success to begin with.

    Whatsmore, a consumer constantly worried about being taken for a ride by
    rogue traders will be more frugal with their money. The free flow of money
    is what keeps a market economy working.

    4. To protect employees. OK, in many industries strong unions are
    sufficient and government regulation is not required. But some sort of
    oversight is needed to prevent companies from paying poverty-level wages,
    sacking women who request maternity leave, sacking people once they hit
    50, sacking people for whatever reason they want really... hell, why don't
    we sack her for refusing to sleep with the managing director?!

    Again, this relates slightly to the second point -- if companies are
    forced to be open about their unethical treatment of employees, consumers
    can boycott them. But boycotts against Nestle and Nike have had limited
    effect.

    If a company increases their wages, yes it will effect their
    profitability. But not as much as you might think: happier workers tend to
    be more productive; whatsmore the business will have a lower staff
    turnover rate, so less HR and training costs. It is unlikely to effect the
    economy much as a whole -- these employees now being paid a decent wage do
    not represent a drain on the economy -- they're out there spending that
    extra cash!

    But a company on its own has no incentive to increase the wages for their
    lowest paid staff. Even if the managers really *want* to see their
    employees earning a decent wage, they have a responsibility to the
    shareholders to keep the bottom line down. With minimum wages enforced by
    government, the whole industry increases its wages at the same time, so no
    individual company loses out to a competitor paying lower wages.

    5. To create monopolies where they are desired. Yes, in contrast to the
    first point, sometimes monopolies are desired. If I have written a book
    and want to sell copies, I don't want my first purchaser to go and make a
    million photocopies and go and sell them for half the price. I want to be
    the only damn person selling that book.

    In these circumstances where a product requires significant effort in the
    design and preparation stage, but very little in the manufacturing stage,
    a limited form of monopoly needs to be granted. Otherwise there is no
    incentive to actually *do* that design and preparation -- I can just wait
    for someone else to do it and then start manufacturing based on their
    design. In principle, that is what copyrights and patents are.

    So to summarise, for a free market to succeed, we need:

    * For any given product or service, there must be independent
    competing suppliers;
    * Consumers must be able to make informed decisions between
    the suppliers;
    * Consumers must be protected;
    * Employees must be protected; and
    * Creativity must be rewarded.

    A market might be able to hobble along with four out of five, but a
    successful market needs all five. Government regulation has so far proved
    the only successful way to achieve this.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    [Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
    [OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 29 days, 21:53.]

    Bottled Water
    http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/02/18/bottled-water/
    Toby A Inkster, Feb 28, 2008
    #11
  12. cwdjrxyz

    place57 Guest

    Re: Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by European antitrustregulator

    On Feb 28, 10:43 am, David Segall <> wrote:
    > You said that the Euro was the currency of "socialist leaning ones
    > like many found in Europe" and you agree that it is gaining value
    > against the U.S. dollar. Are you now arguing that the Republican
    > administration is more socialist than most Europeans?


    You are taking quite a leap from what I am saying. PC is the new
    socialism and pitting those that have not against those that have. I
    am pointing out that if you leave free enterprise alone it will
    succeed. Proof of this is the American economy from 1776 until 1913
    when the income tax made law. This growth spurt of a nation has never
    been duplicated in all of history. The reason is the free market. If
    I worked hard, I can be rich. With free market this door is open for
    me. It is my option to open the door or leave it closed.

    Slowly from that point (early 1900s) our politicians realized that
    they could get voted in if they gave away a piece of the pie to the
    have nots. Since Reagan both liberals and conservatives let this get
    completely out of hand. To the point that the uneducated masses can't
    even tell you the difference between a profit and a profit margin.
    And now they all rally around taking the tax break away from
    corporations like Mobil. The masses that are all chanting "yea! teach
    those big corporations a lesson!!!!" (EU, fine those Microsoft
    bastards!) But little do they realize that THEY are the ones that will
    actually pay for those tax breaks going away. Do you think Microsoft
    is going to pay that fine? Hardly you and I will be paying it.
    Corporations don't pay any taxes or fines. We do. The people that
    buy the products pay the taxes and fines as they are embedded into the
    price of the product.

    Mobil loses a tax break, the price of oil goes up, the politicians
    blame the increase in price on the "evil oil company" and they tax
    them even more, which causes the lazy ignorant people to cheer for joy
    as their politicians "stuck it to big oil". Then the price goes up,
    and the politicians blame big oil, which... You get the picture.

    Keeping the masses ignorant, giving away pieces of the pie, and
    maintaining things like class envy will keep the socialists in power.
    But it will also destroy the ability for me, as an individual, to
    create a Microsoft. Eventually end up destroying everyone's economy.
    Socialism takes away the incentive for me to become rich. If I have no
    incentive to create a Microsoft, I won't. This is seen in virtually
    every communist or socialist nation.

    Socialism, makes everyone the same. I don't want a world where
    everyone is the same. And you may not realize it yet, but neither do
    you.
    place57, Feb 28, 2008
    #12
  13. Re: Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by European antitrustregulator

    David Segall wrote:

    > Here is a rather more objective comparison of the United States economy
    > compared to the European "socialists". It dates from 20 January 2001
    > till yesterday so that you can see where the currency of the current
    > "free enterprise friendly" administration is heading.
    > <http://tinyurl.com/ynpeua>.


    You may be interested in:
    http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/18/usd-eur/

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    [Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
    [OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 29 days, 23:09.]

    Bottled Water
    http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/02/18/bottled-water/
    Toby A Inkster, Feb 28, 2008
    #13
  14. cwdjrxyz

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <
    >,

    place57 <> wrote:

    > Mobil loses a tax break, the price of oil goes up, the politicians
    > blame the increase in price on the "evil oil company" and they tax
    > them even more, which causes the lazy ignorant people to cheer for joy
    > as their politicians "stuck it to big oil". Then the price goes up,
    > and the politicians blame big oil, which... You get the picture.


    Not quite. You mean big companies are inviolable, punishing them
    for anything is punishing ourselves? Are you not forgetting that
    if their prices become painful to us, other smaller companies are
    thereby empowered?

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Feb 28, 2008
    #14
  15. Re: Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by European antitrustregulator

    On Feb 28, 3:39 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > Mobil loses a tax break, the price of oil goes up, the politicians

    > Not quite. You mean big companies are inviolable, punishing them
    > for anything is punishing ourselves? Are you not forgetting that
    > if their prices become painful to us, other smaller companies are
    > thereby empowered?


    If the governments of the world would leave industry alone, the free
    market is self regulating via the purchasing power of the consumers.
    BUT because government is greedy and any administration's (or party)
    primary goal is to stay in power, they don't let that happen.
    Travis Newbury, Feb 29, 2008
    #15
  16. cwdjrxyz

    Ed Jay Guest

    Re: Microsoft just fined US$ 1.35 billion by European antitrust regulator

    place57 scribed:

    >On Feb 28, 10:43 am, David Segall <> wrote:
    >> You said that the Euro was the currency of "socialist leaning ones
    >> like many found in Europe" and you agree that it is gaining value
    >> against the U.S. dollar. Are you now arguing that the Republican
    >> administration is more socialist than most Europeans?

    >
    >You are taking quite a leap from what I am saying. PC is the new
    >socialism and pitting those that have not against those that have. I
    >am pointing out that if you leave free enterprise alone it will
    >succeed. Proof of this is the American economy from 1776 until 1913
    >when the income tax made law. This growth spurt of a nation has never
    >been duplicated in all of history. The reason is the free market. If
    >I worked hard, I can be rich. With free market this door is open for
    >me. It is my option to open the door or leave it closed.
    >
    >Slowly from that point (early 1900s) our politicians realized that
    >they could get voted in if they gave away a piece of the pie to the
    >have nots. Since Reagan both liberals and conservatives let this get
    >completely out of hand. To the point that the uneducated masses can't
    >even tell you the difference between a profit and a profit margin.
    >And now they all rally around taking the tax break away from
    >corporations like Mobil. The masses that are all chanting "yea! teach
    >those big corporations a lesson!!!!" (EU, fine those Microsoft
    >bastards!) But little do they realize that THEY are the ones that will
    >actually pay for those tax breaks going away. Do you think Microsoft
    >is going to pay that fine? Hardly you and I will be paying it.
    >Corporations don't pay any taxes or fines. We do. The people that
    >buy the products pay the taxes and fines as they are embedded into the
    >price of the product.
    >
    >Mobil loses a tax break, the price of oil goes up, the politicians
    >blame the increase in price on the "evil oil company" and they tax
    >them even more, which causes the lazy ignorant people to cheer for joy
    >as their politicians "stuck it to big oil". Then the price goes up,
    >and the politicians blame big oil, which... You get the picture.
    >
    >Keeping the masses ignorant, giving away pieces of the pie, and
    >maintaining things like class envy will keep the socialists in power.
    >But it will also destroy the ability for me, as an individual, to
    >create a Microsoft. Eventually end up destroying everyone's economy.
    >Socialism takes away the incentive for me to become rich. If I have no
    >incentive to create a Microsoft, I won't. This is seen in virtually
    >every communist or socialist nation.
    >
    >Socialism, makes everyone the same. I don't want a world where
    >everyone is the same. And you may not realize it yet, but neither do
    >you.


    You seem to be confusing socialism with pure communism. I don't see how
    socialism impedes capitalistic incentives. I can see where some attributes
    of socialism create an environment in which the have-nots are treated as
    equal to the haves, but it is not universal.
    --
    Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
    Ed Jay, Feb 29, 2008
    #16
  17. cwdjrxyz

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <
    m>,
    Travis Newbury <> wrote:

    > On Feb 28, 3:39 pm, dorayme <> wrote:
    > > > Mobil loses a tax break, the price of oil goes up, the politicians

    > > Not quite. You mean big companies are inviolable, punishing them
    > > for anything is punishing ourselves? Are you not forgetting that
    > > if their prices become painful to us, other smaller companies are
    > > thereby empowered?

    >
    > If the governments of the world would leave industry alone, the free
    > market is self regulating via the purchasing power of the consumers.
    > BUT because government is greedy and any administration's (or party)
    > primary goal is to stay in power, they don't let that happen.


    If the governments of the world left industry alone (what a
    laugh, considering that almost all governments are corruptly
    dependent on them for their own survival!), you would have
    consequences that even 'Laissez-Faire Travis' would turn into
    'Regulation Travis' Do read Toby Inkster's little tract (thank
    you O Lord, that someone took the trouble to remind folks about
    some of the issues).

    One of the very biggest reasons for intervention are the evils of
    monopoly - there are various related forms of the disease, from
    cornering by one person or group to cornering by a colluding
    bunch of interests. By stomping on this trend, competition is
    enhanced. Better to have a sustainable vibrant capitalism that is
    fairer to more people in the long run in spite of not having the
    impressive spikes of low prices (that are used to create huge
    monopolies).

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Feb 29, 2008
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    885
  2. Tim Hochberg
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    275
    Tim Hochberg
    Aug 10, 2004
  3. Ark Khasin

    Is it just me or just Microsoft?

    Ark Khasin, Jul 15, 2007, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    740
    Lionel B
    Jul 16, 2007
  4. Ark Khasin

    Is it just me or just Microsoft?

    Ark Khasin, Jul 15, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    42
    Views:
    1,123
    user923005
    Jul 17, 2007
  5. å°é›¯ ä½™

    Vacheron Constantin Malte Dual Time Regulator 42005/000g-8900

    å°é›¯ ä½™, Aug 5, 2009, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,403
    å°é›¯ ä½™
    Aug 5, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page