4 ms·

As an european it is hard to read. Government to offer policies to current businesses `to ensure that markets stay open and fair`. Can there be something more

As an european it is hard to read. Government to offer policies to current businesses `to ensure that markets stay open and fair`. Can there be something more evil than this proposal? There cannot be anything more fair than a free market because it allows competition and is voluntary. Laws described are exactly what makes markets unfair

tonyedgecombe 7y ago
There cannot be anything more fair than a free market because it allows competition and is voluntary. Not when it leads to a monopoly.
- perceptronas 7y ago
  If there are no government laws preventing from competition popping up - it cannot lead to a monopoly. (I assume monopoly means certain business can sell their goods priced highly and competition cannot enter with lower prices)
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    >If there are no government laws preventing from competition popping up - it cannot lead to a monopoly. Yes, it can. It is called a natural monopoly and it occurs when cost of entry and effects of scale are so large that the most efficient provider of a good or service is a single supplier. Not only do quite a lot of them exist, they're actually the desirable form of business in those cases as they provide goods at the lowest unit cost to the consumer. They need however to be regulated so that they cannot abuse their market power.
    - perceptronas 7y ago
      Excuse my bad definition, I was referring to 'non-natural' monopolies. On the other note, as a consumer I prefer these natural monopolies exist over that they don't. I would rather have an expensive railway than to not have any railway at all. Obviously investors will want their return on investment. Alternatives with lower capital requirements to setup businesses always exist (rail -> bus/trucks, electricity -> solar panels, internet -> 4G or similar solution, and so on.)
      - modo_mario 7y ago
        Those railways wouldn't exist without the monopoly of the state bringing em about and we've seen how they operate if privatised in the UK and that's still regulated and not even a monopoly. It's shit. Similarly I don't want to see roads privatised because it leads to incredible inefficiency and the open access to the roads provides immense value to the rest of the free market.
      - pjc50 7y ago
        Railways are basically impossible to build without government intervention or at least eminent domain because they require continuous land. 4G also requires some process for radio spectrum allocation in order to be usable at all.
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  A monopolistic market is not a free market.
harryf 7y ago
Free markets tend not to be free once you have monopolies. Try doing a partnership with LinkedIn for example to access their data (after they shut it down - https://thenextweb.com/dd/2015/02/12/linkedin-takes-aim-developers-plans-lock-apis/ https://thenextweb.com/dd/2015/02/12/linkedin-takes-aim-deve... ). As a small startup there’s no way you’re getting access - they’re simply going to ignore you unless you have some back door into the company. And that’s before you start talking price.
lifeisstillgood 7y ago
I might misunderstand your meaning, it if I get it right (Free Markets good, regulation bad) it seems ... well we have heard it before. We have a fairly free market in data right now, and we have weather apps selling everyone's location data to brokers who will provide marketing leads on pregnant single women with gambling problems - I don't think this is a situation most people feel is fine and dandy. Most free markets aren't where any of us want to go. Well regulated markets are usually fine. I guess it is a question of what you define as regulation.
taurath 7y ago
Free market for security. Hope you’ve got more money than your neighbor.
fierarul 7y ago
As another European, I'd say a market without rules and arbiters will in no way converge to an utopia of fairness and freedom. I'm sure Google is all too happy to fight with tiny European companies and eat their lunch. But only the EU can fine Google some $B and make them really think / change. I think the EU is on the right track with GDPR.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  >I'm sure Google is all too happy to fight with tiny European companies and eat their lunch. But only the EU can fine Google some $B and make them really think / change. >I think the EU is on the right track with GDPR. So, no to free trade? Because that sounds very much like protectionism to me. Also, the irony in your statement (and GDPR) is that it hurt EU-based ad trackers hard, but Google and Facebook gained market share.[0] Google doesn't have to eat their lunch, because GDPR already kept them out of the market. [0] https://www.datainnovation.org/2019/06/what-the-evidence-shows-about-the-impact-of-the-gdpr-after-one-year/ https://www.datainnovation.org/2019/06/what-the-evidence-sho...
  - Kbelicius 7y ago
    > Also, the irony in your statement (and GDPR) is that it hurt EU-based ad trackers hard, but Google and Facebook gained market share.[0] Google doesn't have to eat their lunch, because GDPR already kept them out of the market. What your source show for GDPR looks similar to what it would show for stronger environmental regulations or better worker rights. It doesn't actually say anything about it being good or bad, just that in the short term it is costing money.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      It's bad for the businesses, but I assumed that was intended. This new regulation that's proposed sounds like they're surprised that this was the effect of GDPR.
  - nottorp 7y ago
    That's because Google and Facebook are ignoring the GDPR. I wonder if the EU is determined enough to do something about that. As for EU based tracking businesses being hurt, cry me a river.
stiray 7y ago
There is no an easy answer. The free market in case of todays "survaillance capitalism" doesnt exist and even worse, the price is very hard to find or define. With money it was simple, the product costs X, it offers me those features compared to other product that costs Y. That was it. You had a competition in term of money and features. Today, google is free. How can you compete to that? With what? Will you pay your customers for using your software to be cheaper? Features that you need to develop without having money flow as you have to develop a whole advertising network to support yourself. You can have better software, but you will starve to death as you cant monetize it - as all ways for monetization come back to the company you are competing against. Also all distribution channels (android), all means to be actually found as competition (search). This is monopoly that has to be destroyed. It is bad for development of software industry, for freedom of information, for interney, for the human as species. The future is not as bright as some people will like to belive, I think that at some point EU will detach from USA companies like China and Russia did, not for the censorship and control but rather to actually have any chance to compete on its own market. The USA companies are literally forcing it to by ignoring and workarounding EU regulations.
Kbelicius 7y ago
> There cannot be anything more fair than a free market because it allows competition and is voluntary. You mean like Microsoft preventing OEMs to sell their products with any other software on it thus preventing any competition in that space? It doesn't seem like free markets are conductive to competition.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

There cannot be anything more fair than a free market because it allows competition and is voluntary. Not when it leads to a monopoly.

perceptronas 7y ago
If there are no government laws preventing from competition popping up - it cannot lead to a monopoly. (I assume monopoly means certain business can sell their goods priced highly and competition cannot enter with lower prices)
- Barrin92 7y ago
  >If there are no government laws preventing from competition popping up - it cannot lead to a monopoly. Yes, it can. It is called a natural monopoly and it occurs when cost of entry and effects of scale are so large that the most efficient provider of a good or service is a single supplier. Not only do quite a lot of them exist, they're actually the desirable form of business in those cases as they provide goods at the lowest unit cost to the consumer. They need however to be regulated so that they cannot abuse their market power.
  - perceptronas 7y ago
    Excuse my bad definition, I was referring to 'non-natural' monopolies. On the other note, as a consumer I prefer these natural monopolies exist over that they don't. I would rather have an expensive railway than to not have any railway at all. Obviously investors will want their return on investment. Alternatives with lower capital requirements to setup businesses always exist (rail -> bus/trucks, electricity -> solar panels, internet -> 4G or similar solution, and so on.)
    - modo_mario 7y ago
      Those railways wouldn't exist without the monopoly of the state bringing em about and we've seen how they operate if privatised in the UK and that's still regulated and not even a monopoly. It's shit. Similarly I don't want to see roads privatised because it leads to incredible inefficiency and the open access to the roads provides immense value to the rest of the free market.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      Railways are basically impossible to build without government intervention or at least eminent domain because they require continuous land. 4G also requires some process for radio spectrum allocation in order to be usable at all.
tomatocracy 7y ago
A monopolistic market is not a free market.

harryf 7y ago

Free markets tend not to be free once you have monopolies. Try doing a partnership with LinkedIn for example to access their data (after they shut it down - https://thenextweb.com/dd/2015/02/12/linkedin-takes-aim-developers-plans-lock-apis/ https://thenextweb.com/dd/2015/02/12/linkedin-takes-aim-deve... ). As a small startup there’s no way you’re getting access - they’re simply going to ignore you unless you have some back door into the company. And that’s before you start talking price.

lifeisstillgood 7y ago

I might misunderstand your meaning, it if I get it right (Free Markets good, regulation bad) it seems ... well we have heard it before. We have a fairly free market in data right now, and we have weather apps selling everyone's location data to brokers who will provide marketing leads on pregnant single women with gambling problems - I don't think this is a situation most people feel is fine and dandy. Most free markets aren't where any of us want to go. Well regulated markets are usually fine. I guess it is a question of what you define as regulation.

taurath 7y ago

Free market for security. Hope you’ve got more money than your neighbor.

fierarul 7y ago

As another European, I'd say a market without rules and arbiters will in no way converge to an utopia of fairness and freedom. I'm sure Google is all too happy to fight with tiny European companies and eat their lunch. But only the EU can fine Google some $B and make them really think / change. I think the EU is on the right track with GDPR.

Mirioron 7y ago
>I'm sure Google is all too happy to fight with tiny European companies and eat their lunch. But only the EU can fine Google some $B and make them really think / change. >I think the EU is on the right track with GDPR. So, no to free trade? Because that sounds very much like protectionism to me. Also, the irony in your statement (and GDPR) is that it hurt EU-based ad trackers hard, but Google and Facebook gained market share.[0] Google doesn't have to eat their lunch, because GDPR already kept them out of the market. [0] https://www.datainnovation.org/2019/06/what-the-evidence-shows-about-the-impact-of-the-gdpr-after-one-year/ https://www.datainnovation.org/2019/06/what-the-evidence-sho...
- Kbelicius 7y ago
  > Also, the irony in your statement (and GDPR) is that it hurt EU-based ad trackers hard, but Google and Facebook gained market share.[0] Google doesn't have to eat their lunch, because GDPR already kept them out of the market. What your source show for GDPR looks similar to what it would show for stronger environmental regulations or better worker rights. It doesn't actually say anything about it being good or bad, just that in the short term it is costing money.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    It's bad for the businesses, but I assumed that was intended. This new regulation that's proposed sounds like they're surprised that this was the effect of GDPR.
- nottorp 7y ago
  That's because Google and Facebook are ignoring the GDPR. I wonder if the EU is determined enough to do something about that. As for EU based tracking businesses being hurt, cry me a river.

stiray 7y ago

There is no an easy answer. The free market in case of todays "survaillance capitalism" doesnt exist and even worse, the price is very hard to find or define. With money it was simple, the product costs X, it offers me those features compared to other product that costs Y. That was it. You had a competition in term of money and features. Today, google is free. How can you compete to that? With what? Will you pay your customers for using your software to be cheaper? Features that you need to develop without having money flow as you have to develop a whole advertising network to support yourself. You can have better software, but you will starve to death as you cant monetize it - as all ways for monetization come back to the company you are competing against. Also all distribution channels (android), all means to be actually found as competition (search). This is monopoly that has to be destroyed. It is bad for development of software industry, for freedom of information, for interney, for the human as species. The future is not as bright as some people will like to belive, I think that at some point EU will detach from USA companies like China and Russia did, not for the censorship and control but rather to actually have any chance to compete on its own market. The USA companies are literally forcing it to by ignoring and workarounding EU regulations.

Kbelicius 7y ago

> There cannot be anything more fair than a free market because it allows competition and is voluntary. You mean like Microsoft preventing OEMs to sell their products with any other software on it thus preventing any competition in that space? It doesn't seem like free markets are conductive to competition.