3 ms·

Free trade unfortunately also leads to what is called a "branch plant economy" where policy decisions are made by foreigners with much less interest in your nat

Free trade unfortunately also leads to what is called a "branch plant economy" where policy decisions are made by foreigners with much less interest in your national or regional success. Trade makes everyone better off, in general, but is risky, because policies can change. Free trade in particular gets even riskier as it means the populace has fewer levers of influence against the corporations. Canada is experiencing this with auto manufacturers - many Japanese and American (some German) companies build cars in Canada and Mexico for the broader North American market because of North American free trade and lower labour costs in both countries (the exchange rate, single payer health care in Canada, more reasonable unions, etc). But now so many jobs depend on these companies, the Regional Governments can't let them leave in economic downturns. So they subsidize. Is this all a net positive? Probably, but it's hard to know. When you accept the upside of trade you need to accept the downsides - but most don't. "Let the free market choose" isn't an answer because we live in a Democracy, one feature of which is to prevent the market from getting what it wants when the people don't like it. The USA dominates technology with only a few counter-examples in Europe (SAP, Amadeus, ASOS) - but LOTS in China. If the future is going to be these companies diversifying into every other market ("software is eating the world") you can bet there's justifiable anger at the U.S. (At beating them in a new area of knowledge and practice) and a desire to put up barriers while they get their shit together as China did. This isn't war, it's competition. There's a big difference.

weddpros 11y ago
How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants. When Europe says "we'll fix what's wrong with Google", do they want to convert the last 10%? If not, then it has nothing to do with the people. You think democracy is what protects people against companies? How strange. If there's no demand for a lousy french dropbox-like service, and people use Dropbox instead, it's because the market will give people what they want: they chose Dropbox. Now pass a "democratic" law to ban Dropbox because it's not hosted in France, and all we're left with is the opposite of democracy. No choice anymore, and the best product is gone. Who's winning? The french dropbox-like with its new state-guaranteed monopoly. The people has lost. A french comic once said "So you're telling me the rich are bad, and the poor are good, and all these good people want to become the bad ones?"... I mean the french "dropbox-like" would love to be Dropbox. The french Uber like would love to be Uber. Exalead would love to be Google. But it's not the good vs. the evil. It's just a matter of performance... until the law comes into play, in less than democratic ways, to cut competition.
- kuschku 11y ago
  No, that’s the thing: A lot of european small companies don’t care much about growth. That’s the exact thing. And this mindset of "it works well enough" now meets with the US mindset of wasting resources, of eternal, aggressive growth, of pure capitalism. Obviously, that doesn't work well.
- Riesling 11y ago
  > How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants. Regulations are not trying to fix "what is wrong with google". They are trying to keep the competition going, which ideally results in a better product for the consumers.
  - weddpros 11y ago
    When dealing with privacy, they're definitely saying what's wrong. Right to be forgotten. Retribution of newspapers for headlines... That's not about competition. Not at all. Also, Google is not a monopoly. There are plenty of alternatives (Yahoo/Bing/etc). Google is not even trying to buy them.
    - Riesling 11y ago
      Well, regarding privacy, google is in the wrong! They are collecting all the data they possible can and then transfer them to the U.S. where Europeans do not enjoy any right to privacy (which is considered a basic human right here). This is just trying to make a foreign company comply with European laws. I do not see a problem here. If the process was totally transparent (where does the data go, who uses the data) European citizens could make an informed decision. But this is not the case. It is totally intransparent. Who knows what the data is used for? The EU has the duty to protect its citizens. As for the retribution of newspaper headlines. This might be some form of protectionism. Calling Bing and Yahoo an alternative to google honors them. Just try them both exclusively for one week and see if you would really call them that.
    - M2Ys4U 11y ago
      >Also, Google is not a monopoly. There are plenty of alternatives (Yahoo/Bing/etc). Google is not even trying to buy them. Whether they are a monopoly (or not) is not really relevant. Monopolies aren't even prohibited per se. But Google most certainly are in a dominant market position, and under EU competition law that means they must not abuse that dominant position.

weddpros 11y ago

How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants. When Europe says "we'll fix what's wrong with Google", do they want to convert the last 10%? If not, then it has nothing to do with the people. You think democracy is what protects people against companies? How strange. If there's no demand for a lousy french dropbox-like service, and people use Dropbox instead, it's because the market will give people what they want: they chose Dropbox. Now pass a "democratic" law to ban Dropbox because it's not hosted in France, and all we're left with is the opposite of democracy. No choice anymore, and the best product is gone. Who's winning? The french dropbox-like with its new state-guaranteed monopoly. The people has lost. A french comic once said "So you're telling me the rich are bad, and the poor are good, and all these good people want to become the bad ones?"... I mean the french "dropbox-like" would love to be Dropbox. The french Uber like would love to be Uber. Exalead would love to be Google. But it's not the good vs. the evil. It's just a matter of performance... until the law comes into play, in less than democratic ways, to cut competition.

kuschku 11y ago
No, that’s the thing: A lot of european small companies don’t care much about growth. That’s the exact thing. And this mindset of "it works well enough" now meets with the US mindset of wasting resources, of eternal, aggressive growth, of pure capitalism. Obviously, that doesn't work well.
Riesling 11y ago
> How many Europeans use Google? 90%. That's democracy: the people of Europe gets what it wants. Regulations are not trying to fix "what is wrong with google". They are trying to keep the competition going, which ideally results in a better product for the consumers.
- weddpros 11y ago
  When dealing with privacy, they're definitely saying what's wrong. Right to be forgotten. Retribution of newspapers for headlines... That's not about competition. Not at all. Also, Google is not a monopoly. There are plenty of alternatives (Yahoo/Bing/etc). Google is not even trying to buy them.
  - Riesling 11y ago
    Well, regarding privacy, google is in the wrong! They are collecting all the data they possible can and then transfer them to the U.S. where Europeans do not enjoy any right to privacy (which is considered a basic human right here). This is just trying to make a foreign company comply with European laws. I do not see a problem here. If the process was totally transparent (where does the data go, who uses the data) European citizens could make an informed decision. But this is not the case. It is totally intransparent. Who knows what the data is used for? The EU has the duty to protect its citizens. As for the retribution of newspaper headlines. This might be some form of protectionism. Calling Bing and Yahoo an alternative to google honors them. Just try them both exclusively for one week and see if you would really call them that.
  - M2Ys4U 11y ago
    >Also, Google is not a monopoly. There are plenty of alternatives (Yahoo/Bing/etc). Google is not even trying to buy them. Whether they are a monopoly (or not) is not really relevant. Monopolies aren't even prohibited per se. But Google most certainly are in a dominant market position, and under EU competition law that means they must not abuse that dominant position.