EU hammers Google with record $2.7 billion antitrust fine for illegal search manipulation

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 150
    ike17055ike17055 Posts: 121member
    clemynx said:
    ike17055 said:
    The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition. 
    You could not be more wrong. Google has a virtual monopoly of search (>80%) so they have to play fairly. Promoting their own products and services above those of a competitor is an abuse of that market.  That gives a freer and more equal market than otherwise.

    Google has a large share of search because people are lazy and not well informed. That doesn't make them a monopoly. Plus, idiots voluntarily choose to buy cheap Android phones instead of Apple, so they are 100% responsible for contributing to the fortunes of Google.

    This is just the same old EU blackmailing tactics they've pulled on Apple, Microsoft and others.
    It's just a matter of perspective. 

    You think that the American dream is real and that customers have a choice. I think you are naive, that the American dream has been shown to be a lie, that the US are a big scam, that consumers only have the illusion of a choice and that big companies prey on their consumers. 
    Those who choose not to visit Europe anymore because of all the pickpockets are more often than not, referring to the EU governments that prey on Americans, not the petty street criminals that prey of Americans .


    williamlondon
  • Reply 102 of 150
    ike17055ike17055 Posts: 121member
    clemynx said:
    It's just a matter of perspective. 

    You think that the American dream is real and that customers have a choice. I think you are naive, that the American dream has been shown to be a lie, that the US are a big scam, that consumers only have the illusion of a choice and that big companies prey on their consumers. 
    I live the the American dream everyday. The choices we have are truly astounding.the freedoms are incredible, if unfortunately under intense pressure of politicans who want us to be "more like Europe."  You have no clue what you are talking about. 

    williamlondonanton zuykovSpamSandwich
  • Reply 103 of 150
    bshankbshank Posts: 256member
    clemynx said:
    bshank said:
    ike17055 said:
    The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition. 
    Uh, that's actually the point of the ruling: Google was intentionally subverting competition by giving their own shopping links the priority within a general search. 
     It is Google's website after all. The first two links are sponsored, not the first two pages of search results.  Why don't you spend billions of dollars to create a website and let us all post whatever we want on there for free where ever we want?!  It seems like you're saying every website everyone builds is free to everybody to use however they want to use it.  Completely ridiculous logic 
    It's not ridiculous logic when you are used by the vast majority of people. 
    There are other options if people want to use them regardless of whatever ridiculous statement you want to make
    williamlondonSpamSandwich
  • Reply 104 of 150
    ike17055ike17055 Posts: 121member
    foggyhill said:
    You could not be more wrong. Google has a virtual monopoly of search (>80%) so they have to play fairly.
           Isn't it the case that Google achieved that 80%+ through hard work? So, what is wrong with them using their tools to their advantage?
    What you arguing for, is that if a small company competes against Boeing for building airplanes, then the gov-t should tell Boeing what to do in order to make it fair.
    And if Boeing has an advantage (of course they do - in terms of knowledge and R&D done), then, they should lay it off, since they are competing unfairly and by using their tools, they create an "unfair advantage" for themselves when they compete against that small company.
    Read up on monopolies and then comment. I don't want to have to deal with that level of ignorance.
    In Europe they just used to rely on bribes. Now, they have the EU acting as a mafia lawyer. For all the political corruption people note in America, it is still Europe's politicians who are most often caught engaged in bribery. 
    williamlondonSpamSandwich
  • Reply 105 of 150
    ike17055ike17055 Posts: 121member
    clemynx said:
    ike17055 said:
    wizard69 said:
    This is a prime example of the EU's obsession with successful American companies.    Frankly i think the goverment here in the USA needs to take a more active roll in adressing this harassment.   
    Google's success, and that of others, is in part how we can afford to continue paying the bulk of Europe's defense, while they sneer at us and laugh publicly at American admonishment for Europe's broken financial committment-- to itself. Trump gets a lot wrong, but he is right on this: if Europe wants to complain about how they cannot "depend" on America, perhaps they should stop shortchanging their own responsibilities, and quit always trying to play the U.S. for chumps, and begin to act like allies are supposed to act for once. 
    ???

    Europe would be fine without the US. YOU decided to put bases in Europe after the war. YOU can take them away we wouldn't care.

    Europe doesn't depend on the US for anything.

    The best way of being good allies is NOT leaving an international climate treaty and insulting basically every European leader.
    Then why are all the "leaders" of Europe whining about the lack of zealous and open-ended (over) commitment to NATO by new administration?  Even as the NATO countries shortchange the treaty that requires them to pay their fair share. (I mean, since you are so concerned with treaty obligations...)

    The u.s. Indeed Should leave its bases in Europe. Our future lies in our own hemisphere, and in East Asia. Frankly, with friends like EU, the Russians can have Europe...but too late, the Middle Easterners and Pakistanis pretty much got it all first. 

    Perhaps EU leaders DESERVE to be insulted.  Diplomacy has gotten us nowhere for decades. Pay for your own defense. We are foing broke propping up your nanny state ways. 
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 106 of 150
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,056member
    foggyhill said:
    clemynx said:
    foggyhill said:
    bshank said:
    BenC said:
    bshank said:
    gatorguy said:
    They won't be allowed to put Google Shopping at the top of the results page, which I'm sure was an effort to address eBay and Amazon product searches. Understandable Google would wish to do so, but also understandable that it could be seen as affecting competitors unfairly. If Google Search wasn't as good as it is, reportedly over 90% share in the EU (really??!), this would have probably passed muster IMO but the success of Google Search means they just can't do some of the some things a smaller competitor might get by with.

    While personally a $2B+ fine for favoring (I've seen zero evidence they were blocking anyone else despite Ms. Vestager's comments) seems just a tad excessive considering the goal is to force them to change the way they present product search results which the ruling itself does, it is what it is. The EU Commission is convinced they hold sway over companies no matter where they do business as long as some of that business is in Europe. (I'll have to do some reading to see how that came about as it seems very odd to me.) Google can well afford to pay it, and it doesn't have anything to do with general Google Search results as far as I've read so that should not be affected. But Google competitors do seem to have Ms. Vesteger's ear so this is just the first shoe to drop. 

    Anyway, if anyone is curious how Google displays Google Shopping and how it can be seen as anti-competitive do a search for some product, perhaps a toaster, and see how Google displays the results. The EU feels the same ranking rules that apply to other shopping sites should also apply to Google's own products, even tho it is their search product that's being used. Once you get to the point of being seen as dominant in your field the EU believes you should play by stricter rules, and in some way I tend to agree. 

    Now is the EU unfairly targeting big US techs? I've not really firmly formed my own opinion on that yet. The quick-take would be... maybe. The EU is still chasing Apple for a few $B, Facebook was fined there in recent months for misleading the EU Commission, Amazon had to change the way they market books there or face fines, and very recently Nike and Comcast also have had new antitrust investigations targeting their practices opened by Ms. Vestager and the EU Commission.

    There's also the so far rarely mentioned look by the EU into possible anticompetitive practices in the Apple App Store and Google Play where Ms. Vestager may try to make many of the same arguments she did in this case.  More fun to come. 
    Amazon is first in my Google search
    See that word 'Sponsored' in the top right hand corner? Those are paid ads you are looking at. The EU's point is that this comparison shopping service (i.e., that whole box of product photos, links and prices) is given unfair prominence over other comparison shopping services in Google's results.

    Whether you think that is fair or unfair is a matter of opinion. The EU is saying that under their rules it is illegal. Perhaps in the USA it is not illegal. No problem. Google is quite capable of (and indeed is obliged to) adjusting its product to reflect the regulations of the markets in which it chooses to operate.
    The ones under the paid ads are also not Google. They are Amazon. As for the 'Sponsored' ones, this is Google's website and they can charge people to place an ad. You think that they should give away ads for free?  Why don't you build a website, spend billions of your own dollars, and let us put whatever we want on it for no charge?  Google has also been doing this since the beginning. It was OK when they were smaller, but now that they're bigger it's not OK?! I'm worried about you guys over there 
    No they can't buddy, not if you're a god damn monopoly in search; that's the whole point of anti-trust legislation.

    If the search is not returning the best result, but the one the lines their pockets, it's actual fraudulent to their own stated purpose.
    Precisely. It's almost a breach of contract where Google lies about showing the most relevant results. 

    This is where the history of Google comes into play. When they first started out they were simply a search engine that happened to provide the best results. This is why other search engines failed - because Google wasn't just slightly better, they were far better.

    Google searches were so good that the word "Google" actually meant "to search for information". This is where the phrase "just Google it" came from. They were regarded as an "encyclopedia of the world" where you could search for anything and find what you wanted.

    This is the mindset of people when they think about Google - that it's simply a service that provides the most relevant information you ask it to. However, it no longer does this since they now modify rankings and promote some results over others. They did this without the majority of consumers even realizing it. People still think of Google as a reliable source of unbiased information, which is no longer the case.

    Once Google got the world "hooked" on using Google Search they proceeded to monetize it. I would consider that an antitrust issue.

    Google did something similar with Android. They gave it away for free and were "fast & loose" at the beginning as they wanted to get massive adoption from manufacturers. Now they're trying to reign Android back in and exert more control over it (which is also putting them under the antitrust microscope).

    It seems to be a pattern with Google.
    They're shoving their whole ecosystem down everyone's throat and not allowing anyone to fork and just keep the play store, without it.
    No one forces you to buy a product that has Android installed on it, isn't it?

    Wow, again showing your ignorance.

    Google doesn't force consumers to buy Android. They DO force OEMs to take an "all or nothing" approach to Android. You can't make an Android device and include Google Play while doing any customizing of which other Apps you might want to use instead of Googles.

    You also can't make a low-end Android phone with a customized Android fork, and also sell a high-end phone with Android and Google Play. Google doesn't allow you to do this - you have to pick one or the other.
    You seriously can't be THAT stupid... Google decides what they should include and should not, because it is their product. Ever heard of licensing your product to other business entities? Apparently, you didn't. Other companies that own a service/product do that too! How stupid you have to be not to get that simple notion that they can decide on how their product is used (because it is software, hence the use of licenses)?
    You constantly talk about ignorance, yet it is you who demonstrates it. How ironic...and hypocritical!
    edited June 2017 bshank
  • Reply 107 of 150
    anton zuykovanton zuykov Posts: 1,056member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    It is therefore impossible for the commission to even impose a law on any member state and to that end, the rest of the EU.
    Sure it is. Whatever you have to tell yourself to get to sleep at night. They write the fucking laws. They’re definitionally imposing them.
    The EU, by definition of its makeup is a very bureaucratic place…
    And mommy government would never go behind your back. Ever. “Sculpted from a finer clay” as it were…
    It isn't. They aren't.

    The commission could 'write' laws all day long, every day but as they can't actually pass any of them they would never come into force.

    For that to happen, other mechanisms come into force, as explained by Singularity.
    You don't need to do that, if you have buddies among ministers of various countries ...aka European Council.
  • Reply 108 of 150
    ike17055ike17055 Posts: 121member
    clemynx said:
    ike17055 said:

    In fact, it is You who could not be more wrong. "Freer" and "more equal" are essentially contradictory in the marketplace. The freedom to succeed, or fail, is dependent largely on individual or organizational abilities and desire to exceed and outperform the practices of all others, not equality. The power of the consumer to choose ultimately picks the winner, not socialist interventions toward equality. This is the fundamental piece of free markets that European decisionmake
    Agreed. But since any sane person would say that equality is more important than a "free market" that only makes companies richer, there is no doubt that the EU is doing the right thing.
    No, no sane person who understands the real world and cares about personal freedom would choose "equality" in the European sense over freedome of choice.   This attitude is why my ancestors and those of millions of others fled Europe. Nothing has really changed much.you still look to The State for your answers to everything. The free market provides for a lot more than making the rich richer.  It does that too, for sure. Often to a fault, but that is usually due to politically driven government policies, not free markets.
    SpamSandwichtallest skilanton zuykov
  • Reply 109 of 150
    ike17055ike17055 Posts: 121member
    MrJones said:
    Well, you wantend America first, we want EU first. 
    Thanks!
    Except we pursue our right to promote our national interests first through policy changes and electoral changes, not using the EU as a political prop for stealth protectionism. 
    SpamSandwichtallest skilanton zuykov
  • Reply 110 of 150
    ike17055ike17055 Posts: 121member
    avon b7 said:
    nht said:
    foggyhill said:
    nht said:
    foggyhill said:
    nht said:
    clemynx said:
    ike17055 said:
    The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition. 
    Nonsense. This decision is precisely defending European consumers. Nothing elite about it. Quit defending megacorporations instead of actual consumers. 
    And the US should defend US companies from unfair EU fines.  We need to curbstomp the EU and maybe they will stop targeting US companies with these excessive fines.  It's a blatant money grab.

    Brussels wants us to not protect our steel industry from Chinese dumping because it might hurt them (this after imposing their own 73% tariffs on Chinese steel) and threatens us with "retaliation" if we do but hits US companies with huge fines based on worldwide earnings at the same time.  Fuck them.  Hit Europe as hard as possible with steel tariffs but let UK steel in.  Frankly if the EU want to sell us anything they can go through the UK.  That'll make them understand not to be total douches during Brexit.

    Let them try their "nuclear option".
    Right... Unfair, you do know they fine their own company just as much hey bud.
    Stating some baseless claims doesn't make it true.
    No, they don't "fine their own company just as much" which is why they call it a "record-breaking fine" as opposed to "the usual wrist-slap fine".

    "Apple ordered to pay a record-breaking €13bn".
    "Google hit with a record €2.4 billion fine".
    "EU issues a record $1.45B fine to Intel".

    So yes, stating some baseless claim doesn't make it true.  The EU hits US companies with huge record breaking fines that aren't levied on EU companies. 
    One is a god damn tax thing, it's as much a snub on Ireland as apple and apple will likely never pay, so get  a clue and stop lying. The fine is proportional to the size of the company, if the company is a smaller company with a non monopolistic position, they get hit less. How the hell is that hard to understand.
    It's not hard to understand when you take it in the proper context:

    ""We don't want to become a digital colony of global internet giants," Montebourg said in May. "What's at stake is our sovereignty itself.""

    Döpfner warned: "Voluntary self-subjugation cannot be the last word from the Old World. On the contrary, the desire of the European digital economy to succeed could finally become something for European policy, which the EU has so sorely missed in the past few decades: an emotional narrative."

    The EU (via Juncker, Vestager and Oettinger) has declared war on US tech companies because EU tech companies are uncompetitive without an uneven playing field.  That hurts German and French sensibilities.
    Ehem. The EU hasn't declared war on anyone. It has taken decisions to give itself more homegrown technology and not depend as much on external technology

    That is why it is developing its own processors for initial use in supercomputing, but will further develop them for other uses.

    These are completely logical steps.
    Again, Europe is certainly free to pursue its national interest first and foremost.  In fact, that is the duty of every sovereign nation.  But please don't hide behind bogus EU rulings to do so.   You seem to be admitting that EU exists to bamboozle the world into thinking it is somehow "fair."

    So, if NATO is a sham to allow Europe to shortchange its defense by getting America to pay, and the EU is a sham to provide legal cover for protectionism, hmmmmm, why, oh why, would those Americans get the idea that a climate treaty that does not apply to the world's largest polluters is somehow, not on the up and up?? I wonder...


    anton zuykov
  • Reply 111 of 150
    ike17055ike17055 Posts: 121member
    foggyhill said:
    ike17055 said:
    MisterKit said:
    Nice to see a system that favors the people and not corporations.
    A favor? It is about as much of a favor as Chavez did to his people.
    In a truly free society, consumers decide who serves the people and they do so with their choices on where to spend their currency. Not an interventionist government that treats the endorsement of consumers as a crime. 
    What endorsement?

    If they control a service and you don't see the alternatives and drive them all out of business, they (or you) don't have a choice, they (or you) don't see the alternative.
    They can then gouge you, provide substandard service and there will be no alternative; you will be stuck.
    If they're big enough, in many countries with weak anti-trust laws or tootless ones, they can even influence government policy to keep others out.

    This is illusory free market that will stay fair and self regulate only exists in the mind of people's notion of economics stopped, at economics 101 were they simplify everything so you can grasp basic concepts.

    So, bring on some more of this libertarian tripe, go on.
    The consumers endorse a product or service by choosing it over other competitors...usually a direct relationship to its ability to satisfy consumer wants.  No one says it is self regulating, but having governments choosing winners and losers based on a sense of "equality" is completly foreign to a marketplace that functions correctly. It is prone toward manipulations and politics and lots of non-economic factors. Most "market failures" are not failures of the market at all...they usually result from market interventions that warp fundamental influences of a true market that governs through both the self-interest of buyer and seller.  Amazingly, ideas that are foundational to both political and economic freedoms began among European scholars, yet were largely orphaned there until eventually being adopted and nurtured by the Americans. 
    anton zuykov
  • Reply 112 of 150
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    gatorguy said:
    clemynx said:
    I fail to see how Android would be a strong anti trust case. What could Samsung actually sue Google for? It's not like Samsung or any other phone manufacture is being forced to use Android on their phones. No one is stopping Samsung from using Tizen on more phones. 
    It's a well known issue in fact. Google offers an OS but forces manufacturers to include all their apps if they want access to the Play store.
    My darn auto dealer won't let me add premium sound either without bundling navigation too. Dang it. 
    Wrong analogy of course. 
  • Reply 113 of 150
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    foggyhill said:
    They're shoving their whole ecosystem down everyone's throat and not allowing anyone to fork and just keep the play store, without it.
    No one forces you to buy a product that has Android installed on it, isn't it?

    Wow, again showing your ignorance.

    Google doesn't force consumers to buy Android. They DO force OEMs to take an "all or nothing" approach to Android. You can't make an Android device and include Google Play while doing any customizing of which other Apps you might want to use instead of Googles.
    So what?  None of that has to do with Android the OS.  And Amazon and the Chinese forked the hell out of Android without any of Google's stuff.  

    Why should anyone be able to force them to allow everyone to use Google services in any manner they want?   They got the OS for free, build your own damn services and app store.  Android itself isn't locked down at all.  20% of the Android ecosystem is composed of ASOP forks that don't use Google services.
    You also can't make a low-end Android phone with a customized Android fork, and also sell a high-end phone with Android and Google Play. Google doesn't allow you to do this - you have to pick one or the other.
    Samsung sells phones in China that are locked to the Baidu ecosystem rather than Google.  That's just touchwiz on top of ASOP.  HP makes a chromebook competitor in China based on the heavily forked YunOS which is also the 3rd most popular mobile OS behind Android and iOS.  And Baidu Yi is a forked Android. 

    If you really wanted to sell a low end android using a non-compatible Android fork like YunOS you create a company in Shenzhen that does it using Foxconn as the manufacturer.  Heck, maybe even Acer as the manufacturer given Foxconn is still a member of OHA.
  • Reply 114 of 150
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    ike17055 said:
    clemynx said:
    It's just a matter of perspective. 

    You think that the American dream is real and that customers have a choice. I think you are naive, that the American dream has been shown to be a lie, that the US are a big scam, that consumers only have the illusion of a choice and that big companies prey on their consumers. 
    I live the the American dream everyday. The choices we have are truly astounding.the freedoms are incredible, if unfortunately under intense pressure of politicans who want us to be "more like Europe."  You have no clue what you are talking about. 

    More like Europe would be great. Let’s take France

    Work 35 hours per week
    5 weeks of paid vacation per year
    Paid medical leave
    Paid maternity leave for 3 months and paternity for 2 weeks
    Paid retirement at 63 
    Free healthcare for all
    Free ambulances 
    College at 600$ per year
    Better trains and public transportation 
    Better food
    Basically it's a paradise compared to the US. 
  • Reply 115 of 150
    ike17055ike17055 Posts: 121member
    foggyhill said:
    ike17055 said:
    wizard69 said:
    This is a prime example of the EU's obsession with successful American companies.    Frankly i think the goverment here in the USA needs to take a more active roll in adressing this harassment.   
    Google's success, and that of others, is in part how we can afford to continue paying the bulk of Europe's defense, while they sneer at us and laugh publicly at American admonishment for Europe's broken financial committment-- to itself. Trump gets a lot wrong, but he is right on this: if Europe wants to complain about how they cannot "depend" on America, perhaps they should stop shortchanging their own responsibilities, and quit always trying to play the U.S. for chumps, and begin to act like allies are supposed to act for once. 
    So, a Trump lie huh, ok, now I know who to ignore.
    Dimwit, the fact is: Trump has pointed out what has been record for years. Europe agreed to meet NATO funding percentages, then ignored the commitments they made, happily relying on the Americans to continue funding an excessive percentage. It is Europe that is the "unreliable partner."  Now it seems, America will reset its committment based on the realities of its own budget needs, and the unwillingness of Europe (again) to sacrifice butter today, for the guns that protect its cuture and freedoms. This time, we will not be bailing you out.  The Russians which to dominate the continent, just as they have for centuries. Now, it seems, they will.  We are more concerned about South Korea and Japan now.  And that actually began under Obama with his "pivot to Asia." 
  • Reply 116 of 150
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    bshank said:
    clemynx said:
    bshank said:
    ike17055 said:
    The European elites continue to demonstrate that they have no real understanding of free markets and competition. 
    Uh, that's actually the point of the ruling: Google was intentionally subverting competition by giving their own shopping links the priority within a general search. 
     It is Google's website after all. The first two links are sponsored, not the first two pages of search results.  Why don't you spend billions of dollars to create a website and let us all post whatever we want on there for free where ever we want?!  It seems like you're saying every website everyone builds is free to everybody to use however they want to use it.  Completely ridiculous logic 
    It's not ridiculous logic when you are used by the vast majority of people. 
    There are other options if people want to use them regardless of whatever ridiculous statement you want to make
    No there are not precisely because Google impedes those options to appear as they should in their search results. 
  • Reply 117 of 150
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    ike17055 said:
    foggyhill said:
    ike17055 said:
    wizard69 said:
    This is a prime example of the EU's obsession with successful American companies.    Frankly i think the goverment here in the USA needs to take a more active roll in adressing this harassment.   
    Google's success, and that of others, is in part how we can afford to continue paying the bulk of Europe's defense, while they sneer at us and laugh publicly at American admonishment for Europe's broken financial committment-- to itself. Trump gets a lot wrong, but he is right on this: if Europe wants to complain about how they cannot "depend" on America, perhaps they should stop shortchanging their own responsibilities, and quit always trying to play the U.S. for chumps, and begin to act like allies are supposed to act for once. 
    So, a Trump lie huh, ok, now I know who to ignore.
    Dimwit, the fact is: Trump has pointed out what has been record for years. Europe agreed to meet NATO funding percentages, then ignored the commitments they made, happily relying on the Americans to continue funding an excessive percentage. It is Europe that is the "unreliable partner."  Now it seems, America will reset its committment based on the realities of its own budget needs, and the unwillingness of Europe (again) to sacrifice butter today, for the guns that protect its cuture and freedoms. This time, we will not be bailing you out.  The Russians which to dominate the continent, just as they have for centuries. Now, it seems, they will.  We are more concerned about South Korea and Japan now.  And that actually began under Obama with his "pivot to Asia." 
    Shame on you for talking like that. You are an ignorant person full of hate. 
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 118 of 150
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    clemynx said:
    ike17055 said:
    foggyhill said:
    ike17055 said:
    wizard69 said:
    This is a prime example of the EU's obsession with successful American companies.    Frankly i think the goverment here in the USA needs to take a more active roll in adressing this harassment.   
    Google's success, and that of others, is in part how we can afford to continue paying the bulk of Europe's defense, while they sneer at us and laugh publicly at American admonishment for Europe's broken financial committment-- to itself. Trump gets a lot wrong, but he is right on this: if Europe wants to complain about how they cannot "depend" on America, perhaps they should stop shortchanging their own responsibilities, and quit always trying to play the U.S. for chumps, and begin to act like allies are supposed to act for once. 
    So, a Trump lie huh, ok, now I know who to ignore.
    Dimwit, the fact is: Trump has pointed out what has been record for years. Europe agreed to meet NATO funding percentages, then ignored the commitments they made, happily relying on the Americans to continue funding an excessive percentage. It is Europe that is the "unreliable partner."  Now it seems, America will reset its committment based on the realities of its own budget needs, and the unwillingness of Europe (again) to sacrifice butter today, for the guns that protect its cuture and freedoms. This time, we will not be bailing you out.  The Russians which to dominate the continent, just as they have for centuries. Now, it seems, they will.  We are more concerned about South Korea and Japan now.  And that actually began under Obama with his "pivot to Asia." 
    Shame on you for talking like that. You are an ignorant person full of hate. 
    Which one of the participants is that meant for? :/
    edited June 2017
  • Reply 119 of 150
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,892member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    It is therefore impossible for the commission to even impose a law on any member state and to that end, the rest of the EU.
    Sure it is. Whatever you have to tell yourself to get to sleep at night. They write the fucking laws. They’re definitionally imposing them.
    The EU, by definition of its makeup is a very bureaucratic place…
    And mommy government would never go behind your back. Ever. “Sculpted from a finer clay” as it were…
    It isn't. They aren't.

    The commission could 'write' laws all day long, every day but as they can't actually pass any of them they would never come into force.

    For that to happen, other mechanisms come into force, as explained by Singularity.
    You don't need to do that, if you have buddies among ministers of various countries ...aka European Council.
    How many buddies would need to achieve that?
    clemynx
  • Reply 120 of 150
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,552member
    ike17055 said:
    clemynx said:
    ike17055 said:

    In fact, it is You who could not be more wrong. "Freer" and "more equal" are essentially contradictory in the marketplace. The freedom to succeed, or fail, is dependent largely on individual or organizational abilities and desire to exceed and outperform the practices of all others, not equality. The power of the consumer to choose ultimately picks the winner, not socialist interventions toward equality. This is the fundamental piece of free markets that European decisionmake
    Agreed. But since any sane person would say that equality is more important than a "free market" that only makes companies richer, there is no doubt that the EU is doing the right thing.
    No, no sane person who understands the real world and cares about personal freedom would choose "equality" in the European sense over freedome of choice.   This attitude is why my ancestors and those of millions of others fled Europe. Nothing has really changed much.you still look to The State for your answers to everything. The free market provides for a lot more than making the rich richer.  It does that too, for sure. Often to a fault, but that is usually due to politically driven government policies, not free markets.
    That is factually wrong as every neoliberal move in the past 30 years has only lead to more inequality. But please, keep on pretending that 1% holding half of the wealth is acceptable. I think it’s a scandal. 
This discussion has been closed.