Really? They gave kickbacks for not stocking AMD, not giving discounts to sell Intel. They also gave kickbacks to manufacturers that used their chips, maybe not a crime but when you have a 70% market share it falls under anti-monopoly laws. I think the EU did protect the consumer, as if Intel was allowed to run rampant the only choice we'd have in 20 years would be overpriced and underperforming Intel chips. With no competition only Intel chips would be available and they'd have no motivation to design and build better chips or lower prices. AMD could make thye same arrangments and since they don't have over 70% of market share they might well get away with it. However does that give the green light for commiting and illegal and some might say immoral act? That's a moral question but the fact is what Intel did was illegal, the law is the law and shouldn't be changed to excuse the wealthy to the detriment of others which is what you're suggesting. However this simple fact remains click.
So exactly what percentage of the market does our lords and masters allow their servants to capture. 50% ? 60% ? We must always punish the evil corporation for being successful of course. What bullshit. Is it OK to have abusive practicies if you're sponsored by your locak government or produce such crap you only have 5% of the market? Apparently so since that is often the case. You know, like every national air line in Europe? Of course it's of vital national interest that every country in Europe have it's own state sponsored air line. There's nothing illegal or immoral about giving you customers a discount for carrying your product exclusively, unless you're intel or actually successful at what you do of course.
I'm certain Intel made a similar speech in court, although probably alot more eloquent than yourself. If you have a large market share or not you have to play by the rules, I'm not sure what European airlines have to do with it since every country has a national airline. There is something immoral about giving a discount when it's punitive or predatory pricing, atleast many find it immoral and immoral enough to make laws against it(Even in the U.S.A!). You seem to be very confused and believe Intel is dropping prices for the benefit of the customer?
Punitive pricing is not for the benefit of the consumer nor are any of the practices they've been fined for, they are for the detriment of competitors and it's an illegal practice in most civilized countries of the world. You seemed to be trapped in this notion that Intel did all of this so that you can have cheaper CPUs. In the short term yes it may work out that way, in the long term you'd be paying a crap load more and for less with little to no choice.
Since Subsidies have nothing to do with this case it seems to me you're just confused over the issue. The EU has anti monoploy laws, Intel broke them and had to pay. Just because you don't like what happened doesn't make it unjust, besides Intel are being/have been sued in Japan, South Korea and the U.S.A for doing exactly the samething.
Interesting use of emotionally loaded words... Certainly corps have to "play by the rules". But I suspect you do not understand what those really are. First and most important rule. Make CERTAIN that you have professional lobbyists in a given country, so that those in power have been properly bought off(don't bother with the old "bribery is illegal" dodge, that only works for the naive). If you track back the vast majority of "anti trust" and other such nonsense, you find that those in power had not been given a sufficient "piece of the action".
Next "punitive pricing", compared to what and in what context? If you are from one of the various socialist hell holes(as opposed to one of the fascist, such as the US) you may not understand that corporations are NOT in this for the benefit of the "consumer" or to play nice with their *competitors*(you do understand the nature of competition I trust?). They are in business(note the use of the word business) to make a profit and increase share holder value. Customer benefit is a side effect of that. At least it is in market sectors that government intervention does prevent market actions from making that a requirement.
Next, the use of the word "civilized" is highly subjective when you consider the real history of every significant government in existence. They are all based on coercion and the threat of violence for their daily operation and continued existence. That is simply the nature of government at its most fundamental. They have no resources that are not extorted from their subject populations(be that money or the life of that population, if they are still subject to the draft). One would have to have a VERY odd definition of the word "civilized" to be able to apply it to just about any countries government(or the societies that such produce for that matter).
So by your response I'd suppose you'd smpathize with the mob and drug smugglers? They are in business to make a profit, things like enforcing protection and so forth have consumer benefits as a side effect yes? However they are all frowned upon as unethical and therefore illegal forms of business by most goverments. I'm not questioning the morality of these types of business practices nor debating wether it should be legal to pay a retailer money not to stock your competitions products. All I'm saying is that in the EU it is a crime, punishable by hefty fines. Intel were not ignorant to that fact yet they still broke it and are now paying the price. Whatever your political or economic philosophy is, Intel commited a crime and were punished for it, fact.
Of course governments frown on mob operations. They hate competition in their territories(very evil grin). Look at the fundamental nature of government. Operationally, hows does a typical government differ from a mob? If you say that because some governments Dear Leaders are "elected" that makes them different, then you really do not under stand the fallacies of such systems. As for drug smugglers, would they exist in the absence of demand? Do you recall the first attempt at prohibition(Alcohol)? That was just as foolish as the current long running "War on some drugs". The main impact that it has had is to keep up the drug cartels profit margins, and has lead to wide spread corruption at all levels of government. Not to mention it has turned the prison system into a growth industry. Even China doesn't have as large a fraction of its population in prison as the US has.
As for what is and is not "illegal" governments determine such matters, and usually word such so vaguely that anyone who has not properly appeased the local powers that be, can be deemed to have violated such(and can then be ripped off...Err..."fined") for that violation. As for the crime that Intel committed, I'd say that their main crime was not properly greasing the necessary palms in the EU system.
Originally posted by mcharj11 Originally posted by tomaswilen Originally posted by Wraithone Originally posted by Gidion
Originally posted by mcharj11 It is also important to note that the UK and Germany are the only net contributors to the EU so it even shows it's leech characteristics there.
I call bullshit on this...
This may be of interest in that regard. It appears its not just the UK and Germany. But the Germans as of 2007 had the highest contribution(followed by the UK and France). http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/79/
From the summary in your first link i conclude that the following countries payed more than they got from EU in 2007, i.e contributed to the net: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and UK.
So Germany and UK being the sole contributors to the EU net is indeed bullshit.
Well then that has developed in recent years, still Germany and Britain put the most in and get the least back.
Actually your wrong again... Just for example, The Netherlands have spent roughly 140 Euro / person / year and Sweden 103 while the UK spent 40 and Germany 85.
Most of the countries that end up with more money from the EU then they put in are eastern European. And in my mind it is money well invested. If the eastern European countries grows their markets it raises the potential for western European countries to make money through export etc...
No i am not wrong, Britain and Germany put far more money into the EU than The Netherlands or Sweden do, we have far bigger economies, we have vastly more money and we do put a hell of lot more in. Going by per person is stupid because it makes small counties look like they are putting in more than larger ones when they are not.
Originally posted by mcharj11 No i am not wrong, Britain and Germany put far more money into the EU than The Netherlands or Sweden do, we have far bigger economies, we have vastly more money and we do put a hell of lot more in. Going by per person is stupid because it makes small counties look like they are putting in more than larger ones when they are not. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1087944/EU-costing-Britain-106K-MINUTE--thats-900-man-woman-child-UK.html Are you trying to tell me that The Netherlands and Sweden put that amount into the EU?
Why you don't think it's reasonable representing the cost of EU membership as per capita is beyond me. Even the article you posted represents the cost as / person. Per capita cost is the only way to compare how it affects you as an individual. I suppose the people in Luxembourg are dirt poor since they only have a gross domestic product of 38 billion dollars while the UKs GDP is 2,2 trillion.
And if you think your added cost do not come with benefits your kidding yourself. You have a bigger voice n decision making than most of the other countries. With a larger population and economy the UK also stands to gain a hell of a lot more if and when the eastern European countries start to really take of.
Originally posted by mcharj11 It's not reasonable becuase it makes it look like countries like The Netherlands and Belgium ect with population of less than half the UK population are contributing more than we are when they aren't. For many years Birtain and Germnay were the only net contributors so a lot of that money has probably strengthened Eu nations to the point wherennow they can and are contributing but Britain has gained nothing from it and that has been well documented and hotly debated in the UK. It is well known that Britain as nation doesn't benefit from being in the EU and the general concensus is that we should leave it altogether. The billions that we put in could be better spent on our own country, on things like the NHS or making sure our troops are properly equipped (but hen again labour never have done that) ect. Anyway the main policy of the EU these days seesm to be to flood it's member nations with African and Islamic immigrants and i don't want anymore of that.
I respect your position although i have a hard time understanding your reasoning. Also being a swede i can tell you that i do not know of any year where we've had a net profit out of our EU membership. It seems to me that you are dead set against the EU and i will not try to convince you otherwise. To be honest i am not knowledgeable enough about the subject to take a strong opinion for or against it myself. But then again i don't think you are either
Comments
For everyone who thinks Intel was just beeing "creative", learn economics.
And besides, the mafia is only doing "creative" business, aren't they?
Anyways, I only post here to say that some people got my respect for explaining this case to some short sighted people.
So exactly what percentage of the market does our lords and masters allow their servants to capture. 50% ? 60% ? We must always punish the evil corporation for being successful of course. What bullshit. Is it OK to have abusive practicies if you're sponsored by your locak government or produce such crap you only have 5% of the market? Apparently so since that is often the case. You know, like every national air line in Europe? Of course it's of vital national interest that every country in Europe have it's own state sponsored air line. There's nothing illegal or immoral about giving you customers a discount for carrying your product exclusively, unless you're intel or actually successful at what you do of course.
I'm certain Intel made a similar speech in court, although probably alot more eloquent than yourself. If you have a large market share or not you have to play by the rules, I'm not sure what European airlines have to do with it since every country has a national airline. There is something immoral about giving a discount when it's punitive or predatory pricing, atleast many find it immoral and immoral enough to make laws against it(Even in the U.S.A!). You seem to be very confused and believe Intel is dropping prices for the benefit of the customer?
Punitive pricing is not for the benefit of the consumer nor are any of the practices they've been fined for, they are for the detriment of competitors and it's an illegal practice in most civilized countries of the world. You seemed to be trapped in this notion that Intel did all of this so that you can have cheaper CPUs. In the short term yes it may work out that way, in the long term you'd be paying a crap load more and for less with little to no choice.
Since Subsidies have nothing to do with this case it seems to me you're just confused over the issue. The EU has anti monoploy laws, Intel broke them and had to pay. Just because you don't like what happened doesn't make it unjust, besides Intel are being/have been sued in Japan, South Korea and the U.S.A for doing exactly the samething.
Interesting use of emotionally loaded words...
Certainly corps have to "play by the rules". But I suspect you do not understand what those really are. First and most important rule. Make CERTAIN that you have professional lobbyists in a given country, so that those in power have been properly bought off(don't bother with the old "bribery is illegal" dodge, that only works for the naive). If you track back the vast majority of "anti trust" and other such nonsense, you find that those in power had not been given a sufficient "piece of the action".
Next "punitive pricing", compared to what and in what context? If you are from one of the various socialist hell holes(as opposed to one of the fascist, such as the US) you may not understand that corporations are NOT in this for the benefit of the "consumer" or to play nice with their *competitors*(you do understand the nature of competition I trust?). They are in business(note the use of the word business) to make a profit and increase share holder value. Customer benefit is a side effect of that. At least it is in market sectors that government intervention does prevent market actions from making that a requirement.
Next, the use of the word "civilized" is highly subjective when you consider the real history of every significant government in existence. They are all based on coercion and the threat of violence for their daily operation and continued existence. That is simply the nature of government at its most fundamental. They have no resources that are not extorted from their subject populations(be that money or the life of that population, if they are still subject to the draft). One would have to have a VERY odd definition of the word "civilized" to be able to apply it to just about any countries government(or the societies that such produce for that matter).
So by your response I'd suppose you'd smpathize with the mob and drug smugglers? They are in business to make a profit, things like enforcing protection and so forth have consumer benefits as a side effect yes? However they are all frowned upon as unethical and therefore illegal forms of business by most goverments. I'm not questioning the morality of these types of business practices nor debating wether it should be legal to pay a retailer money not to stock your competitions products. All I'm saying is that in the EU it is a crime, punishable by hefty fines. Intel were not ignorant to that fact yet they still broke it and are now paying the price. Whatever your political or economic philosophy is, Intel commited a crime and were punished for it, fact.
Of course governments frown on mob operations. They hate competition in their territories(very evil grin). Look at the fundamental nature of government. Operationally, hows does a typical government differ from a mob? If you say that because some governments Dear Leaders are "elected" that makes them different, then you really do not under stand the fallacies of such systems. As for drug smugglers, would they exist in the absence of demand? Do you recall the first attempt at prohibition(Alcohol)? That was just as foolish as the current long running "War on some drugs". The main impact that it has had is to keep up the drug cartels profit margins, and has lead to wide spread corruption at all levels of government. Not to mention it has turned the prison system into a growth industry. Even China doesn't have as large a fraction of its population in prison as the US has.
As for what is and is not "illegal" governments determine such matters, and usually word such so vaguely that anyone who has not properly appeased the local powers that be, can be deemed to have violated such(and can then be ripped off...Err..."fined") for that violation. As for the crime that Intel committed, I'd say that their main crime was not properly greasing the necessary palms in the EU system.
I call bullshit on this...
This may be of interest in that regard. It appears its not just the UK and Germany. But the Germans as of 2007 had the highest contribution(followed by the UK and France).
http://www.eu-oplysningen.dk/euo_en/spsv/all/79/
There is also this to consider.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/focus_page/034-31028-161-06-24-905-20080605FCS31027-09-06-2008-2008/default_p001c005_en.htm
From the summary in your first link i conclude that the following countries payed more than they got from EU in 2007, i.e contributed to the net:
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Sweden and UK.
So Germany and UK being the sole contributors to the EU net is indeed bullshit.
Well then that has developed in recent years, still Germany and Britain put the most in and get the least back.
Actually your wrong again... Just for example, The Netherlands have spent roughly 140 Euro / person / year and Sweden 103 while the UK spent 40 and Germany 85.
Most of the countries that end up with more money from the EU then they put in are eastern European. And in my mind it is money well invested. If the eastern European countries grows their markets it raises the potential for western European countries to make money through export etc...
... U.S.A did a few hundred years back ...
A few, implying several hundred years ago? Isn't USA only about 200 yrs?
No actually I mean few as in few not several.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
No i am not wrong, Britain and Germany put far more money into the EU than The Netherlands or Sweden do, we have far bigger economies, we have vastly more money and we do put a hell of lot more in. Going by per person is stupid because it makes small counties look like they are putting in more than larger ones when they are not.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1087944/EU-costing-Britain-106K-MINUTE--thats-900-man-woman-child-UK.html
Are you trying to tell me that The Netherlands and Sweden put that amount into the EU?
Are yout trying to say that people with more money should have lowered tax percentage?
(You see where I am getting at I assume.)
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
why would intel need to put people off buying AMD they are miles behind?, okay maye for budget systems they take the pie.
My blog:
Why you don't think it's reasonable representing the cost of EU membership as per capita is beyond me. Even the article you posted represents the cost as / person. Per capita cost is the only way to compare how it affects you as an individual. I suppose the people in Luxembourg are dirt poor since they only have a gross domestic product of 38 billion dollars while the UKs GDP is 2,2 trillion.
And if you think your added cost do not come with benefits your kidding yourself. You have a bigger voice n decision making than most of the other countries. With a larger population and economy the UK also stands to gain a hell of a lot more if and when the eastern European countries start to really take of.
I respect your position although i have a hard time understanding your reasoning. Also being a swede i can tell you that i do not know of any year where we've had a net profit out of our EU membership. It seems to me that you are dead set against the EU and i will not try to convince you otherwise. To be honest i am not knowledgeable enough about the subject to take a strong opinion for or against it myself. But then again i don't think you are either
Anyways, GL in life
There are many different games all over the global.It is all used to entertain the people like anything.
view games
"Freedom is just another name for nothing left to lose" - Janis Joplin
.jpg)