Last year the European Union fined Microsoft for being competitive, and now they've gone after Intel. The EU has just fined Intel $1.4 billion US. This is a record fine, and rather unfortunate as this is money that would probably be put toward resource and development and the creation of jobs.
Someone in Europe seems to think that the business world isn't about having the best strategy, but more about subsidizing failure. I suppose the idea is ensure the consumer has more choice. This just confuses me because when one company succeeds, its usually because the consumer is making a choice (unless its due to a subsidy from government).
You can read the GlobeandMail's article about it here.
The most hilarious part of this fine is that the European Union is ordering Intel to cease and desist some sales practices, but couldn't name the practices they wish to end. This is obviously a money-grab by a government that must be feeling the pain from the recent economic turmoil. We saw an example of this in Canada when the Ontario Securities Commission issued a record fine to Research In Motion recently for around $70 million for some poor accounting practices which they audited and fixed on their own 5 years ago. Be prepared to see much more such fines around the West as people wake up from their illusion of wealth and discover the rug has been pulled out from underneath them.
AMD's Europe president Giuliano Meroni made a hilarious joke when he said that the EU order “will shift the power from an abusive monopolist to computer makers, retailers and above all PC consumers.” I'm sorry, I though the market did that, and maybe you're just a little pissed they didn't pick you.
We need to ask ourselves, do we really want to live in a world where success is punished and failure is subsidized?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Why should we want to live in a world where competition does not exist, Josh? Monopoly has a huge deleterious effect on investment, so I don't see where you are going with this. Breaking up evn overly successful companies that have gained a monopoly from merely selling a better product IS A GOOD THING.
No. When they stop selling a better product at a reasonable price, their dominance in the market will decline on its own.
All this does is subsidize a less successful company and hurt success.
Less successful companies that have to pay entrepreneurs - excuse me, in your lame language "entrepreneurs = businessmen" - innovators more money to get the right to the products of their labor. In a monopoly it is harder for that innovator to get more money and hence innovate. Josh, I thought you were for innovators? Oh shit, that's right, you are for "investors".
Huh?
It's simple. The more competitors there are, the more chances there are for an innovator to sell his product to. This means there is a better change for the innvator to increase the price he would get for an idea, because there is more than one company.
"It's simple. The more competitors there are, the more chances there are for an innovator to sell his product to. This means there is a better change for the innvator to increase the price he would get for an idea, because there is more than one company."
Yes, that would be one of the supporting arguments for a free market. How does the actions of the EU support this?
"Yes, that would be one of the supporting arguments for a free market. How does the actions of the EU support this?"
Getting rid of a monopolist creates two companies. DUH<
A monopoly isn't simply a company everyone chooses to buy a product from. A monopoly is a company that has sole rights to a market, ie Nova Scotia Power.
Microsoft and Intel are not monopolies.
"A monopoly isn't simply a company everyone chooses to buy a product from. A monopoly is a company that has sole rights to a market, ie Nova Scotia Power.
Microsoft and Intel are not monopolies."
No, sorry, monopolies can be created by the market as well. They are not pre-defined as government. Microsoft IS a monopoly and should be broken up as such, no matter how many people buy its products.
Merriam-Webster:
"exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action"
Microsoft and Intell qualify under meanings 2 and 3.
The command the supply of what?
Post a Comment