4 ms·

I posted an answer to this question below. I can understand your point of view, I just think that this makes it very hard for European companies to compete. I c

I posted an answer to this question below. I can understand your point of view, I just think that this makes it very hard for European companies to compete. I completely understand the need to regulate when it is needed to protect people's rights, but I think sometimes Europe goes a bit too far, and it makes it hard for European companies to compete at the same level as US companies. EDIT: Also, my post was not meant specifically for sharing-economy platforms. In those cases I can see the need for some specific regulation (and even then I think Europe goes too far), but just tech companies in general.

rimliu 7y ago
Or US does not go far enough.
dbspin 7y ago
How on earth can regulating American companies in Europe make it hard for European companies to compete 'at the same level as US companies'. Either way, surely citizen rights trump companies rights to compete every time, especially since Europe doesn't have the legal fiction of citizens united style 'corporate citizenship'.
- CalRobert 7y ago
  Mostly because US companies are the ones who can afford to deal with it.
- oliverx0 7y ago
  There are to points here: on one hand, overregulation in general, which is what my point about not being able to compete was about. Specifically, how many European tech companies do you know that operate at the same level (in terms of users and / or revenue) as US tech companies? Then come the specific regulation of US companies in Europe. Have you heard of the so called Google Tax? It is essentially a tax on tech companies that make more than $X in revenue, which only happens to affect US companies at the moment.
  - jstummbillig 7y ago
    Let's grant all that: What leads you to the conclusion that this is overregulation on part of the EU, and not underregulation by the US? I can see no argument being made for the former, other than "well, it's tough to compete with a country that does not regulate as much". Well yeah, certainly. But then that can of course be said about anything from environment laws to child labor.
  - oliverx0 7y ago
    It is just my point of view that there is overregulation in the EU and not under regulation in the US. There are arguments to be made on both sides. I am expressing my point of view and trying to provide reasonable arguments, understanding that you might disagree.
  - mnm1 7y ago
    How is this Google tax different from other "sin" taxes like the ones placed on alcohol and tobacco? Considering the tech companies' products are likewise harmful to society, the only thing that doesn't make sense is why the US isn't imposing extra taxes on these companies that are wreaking havoc on our society. I hope the EU taxes them even more because whatever they are taxed at, it's not enough to make up for the damage to our society.
phkahler 7y ago
>> I can understand your point of view, I just think that this makes it very hard for European companies to compete Companies are not the only priority a government needs to consider. This might be a strange idea to folks in the US.
PeterStuer 7y ago
First of all I do not agree that regulation hinders European companies in any way to compete. You could even make a case that being embedded in more diverse regulatory regimes protects European companies from being overrun by more extremely unregulated regime native companies. Second EU regulation is not just applicable to US companies. It does not make a difference where the company is headquartered. A EU based Uber clone would be subjected to the same regulation as an US Uber. Given the fluid transnationality of those enterprises any differentiation would be completely useless. Third, regulation is not just needed to protect the people from the inherent private appropriation of benefits and the externalization of negatives that a market economy presents. It is also an essential component of long term stability of the system itself precisely because the market mechanism is so good at discovering self reinforcing appropriation regardless of the impacts.
- oliverx0 7y ago
  > First of all I do not agree that regulation hinders European companies in any way to compete. You could even make a case that being embedded in more diverse regulatory regimes protects European companies from being overrun by more extremely unregulated regime native companies. I just started a company myself in Spain. The amount of bureaucracy I had to go through was unbelievable. Furthermore, I have to pay over $300 a month in taxes, even though I am currently not making any revenue. How am I supposed to compete with a U.S company like this? I know this is going on a tangent because my original argument was about overregulation of tech companies specifically. In that sense: U.S companies are allowed to compete in Europe, which means that European companies are at a disadvantage de facto since it is easier to operate in the US. I think that providing the same level of freedom to European companies is what would make it easier to compete at the same level. Trying to level the playing field by over regulating US tech companies is not the way to go. > Second EU regulation is not just applicable to US companies. It does not make a difference where the company is headquartered. A EU based Uber clone would be subjected to the same regulation as an US Uber. Given the fluid transnationality of those enterprises any differentiation would be completely useless. Have you heard about the Google Tax law? It is specifically addressed at tech companies making more than $X in revenue per year. Funny how the only companies that fall under that umbrella are US corporations. > It is also an essential component of long term stability of the system itself precisely because the market mechanism is so good at discovering self reinforcing appropriation regardless of the impacts. This is a fair point, but I think it hinders innovation in the name of long term stability, at the expense of consumers. (Uber vs Taxis)

rimliu 7y ago

Or US does not go far enough.

dbspin 7y ago

How on earth can regulating American companies in Europe make it hard for European companies to compete 'at the same level as US companies'. Either way, surely citizen rights trump companies rights to compete every time, especially since Europe doesn't have the legal fiction of citizens united style 'corporate citizenship'.

CalRobert 7y ago
Mostly because US companies are the ones who can afford to deal with it.
oliverx0 7y ago
There are to points here: on one hand, overregulation in general, which is what my point about not being able to compete was about. Specifically, how many European tech companies do you know that operate at the same level (in terms of users and / or revenue) as US tech companies? Then come the specific regulation of US companies in Europe. Have you heard of the so called Google Tax? It is essentially a tax on tech companies that make more than $X in revenue, which only happens to affect US companies at the moment.
- jstummbillig 7y ago
  Let's grant all that: What leads you to the conclusion that this is overregulation on part of the EU, and not underregulation by the US? I can see no argument being made for the former, other than "well, it's tough to compete with a country that does not regulate as much". Well yeah, certainly. But then that can of course be said about anything from environment laws to child labor.
- oliverx0 7y ago
  It is just my point of view that there is overregulation in the EU and not under regulation in the US. There are arguments to be made on both sides. I am expressing my point of view and trying to provide reasonable arguments, understanding that you might disagree.
- mnm1 7y ago
  How is this Google tax different from other "sin" taxes like the ones placed on alcohol and tobacco? Considering the tech companies' products are likewise harmful to society, the only thing that doesn't make sense is why the US isn't imposing extra taxes on these companies that are wreaking havoc on our society. I hope the EU taxes them even more because whatever they are taxed at, it's not enough to make up for the damage to our society.

phkahler 7y ago

>> I can understand your point of view, I just think that this makes it very hard for European companies to compete Companies are not the only priority a government needs to consider. This might be a strange idea to folks in the US.

PeterStuer 7y ago

First of all I do not agree that regulation hinders European companies in any way to compete. You could even make a case that being embedded in more diverse regulatory regimes protects European companies from being overrun by more extremely unregulated regime native companies. Second EU regulation is not just applicable to US companies. It does not make a difference where the company is headquartered. A EU based Uber clone would be subjected to the same regulation as an US Uber. Given the fluid transnationality of those enterprises any differentiation would be completely useless. Third, regulation is not just needed to protect the people from the inherent private appropriation of benefits and the externalization of negatives that a market economy presents. It is also an essential component of long term stability of the system itself precisely because the market mechanism is so good at discovering self reinforcing appropriation regardless of the impacts.

oliverx0 7y ago
> First of all I do not agree that regulation hinders European companies in any way to compete. You could even make a case that being embedded in more diverse regulatory regimes protects European companies from being overrun by more extremely unregulated regime native companies. I just started a company myself in Spain. The amount of bureaucracy I had to go through was unbelievable. Furthermore, I have to pay over $300 a month in taxes, even though I am currently not making any revenue. How am I supposed to compete with a U.S company like this? I know this is going on a tangent because my original argument was about overregulation of tech companies specifically. In that sense: U.S companies are allowed to compete in Europe, which means that European companies are at a disadvantage de facto since it is easier to operate in the US. I think that providing the same level of freedom to European companies is what would make it easier to compete at the same level. Trying to level the playing field by over regulating US tech companies is not the way to go. > Second EU regulation is not just applicable to US companies. It does not make a difference where the company is headquartered. A EU based Uber clone would be subjected to the same regulation as an US Uber. Given the fluid transnationality of those enterprises any differentiation would be completely useless. Have you heard about the Google Tax law? It is specifically addressed at tech companies making more than $X in revenue per year. Funny how the only companies that fall under that umbrella are US corporations. > It is also an essential component of long term stability of the system itself precisely because the market mechanism is so good at discovering self reinforcing appropriation regardless of the impacts. This is a fair point, but I think it hinders innovation in the name of long term stability, at the expense of consumers. (Uber vs Taxis)