Re: Fines ?

onlyme wrote:
"Joe" <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fq6qhu$qku$1$8300dec7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
onlyme wrote:
"Redman" <redman1977@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fq5k2f$14gh$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
All these fines that big companies get, who actually gets the money?
where
does it go? Reason I'm asking is that Microsoft have been fined £630
million

I'm not sure....I suspect it goes towards buying more gravy granuals for
the
EU gravy train.
Bisto, Oxo and other such companies must be bloody raking it in!

I'd be the last person to defend massive globalised companies such as
Micro$oft...but the EU are a frigging joke.
Given the chance - they would happily turn every industry into one that
is
run on the same communist model as their common agriculture policy.
We'd have situations where bigger more profitable companies were being
paid
subsidies (essentially from taxpayers money) to NOT produce goods...to
make
it 'fairer' on others!.....with on only 'company' not having its profits
capped being the EU(tm).

With specific regard to Micro$soft - Gates built the company up from
nothing - basically dealing with smaller up-and-coming companies -
pimping
his operating systems...office suits etc.
It's always hard to make it in a market already dominated by big
players...
Gates was up against the likes of IBM - who eventually jumped on board.
Full respect to Gates. He didn't do anything wrong - just offered people
a
product they wanted...and profitted massively from this.
His ambition - his producs in every home....well, what business doesn't
aspire to the same goal?

The EU(tm) approach though....level the playing field for
everyone....make
it easier for others to join in....it's not really on is it?

I don't particularly care much for Micro$oft myself....and would love to
see
another (preferably UK based) product rise to the top.

But with the EU stiffling and innovation and creativity...making it
easier
for smaller companies to whinge about how 'unfair' it all is....rather
than
creating products that kick the *** out of microsoft's monopoly...it's
not
going to happen is it?



I would not dispute anything you say about the EU, but Microsoft is
*not* where it is today purely on merit. It was early on, when Bill
actually used to get his hands dirty, but since then most of its efforts
have been spent on using its products to reinforce each others' market
shares in a way that would certainly not be tolerated in any other
industry. Look at the uproar when Murdoch tries to buy more of UK
terrestrial TV.

The USA would long ago have done what the EU is doing if Microsoft
wasn't responsible for such a large share of its exports. No, it's not a
clever thing to do, I'm sure the EU uses Microsoft software itself, and
the only honest way of telling a vendor what you think of him is not to
buy his products.

The EU is in a position to say that Microsoft software does not meet its
requirements for public sector use, due to its lack of both
second-sourcing and compatibility with other products. That would make
Ballmer sit up and take notice (allegedly Newham Council were almost
given MS software when they threatened to go elsewhere, which would have
been a massive marketing disaster) and would achieve more than any fine.
Except, of course, in terms of increasing the EU's bank balance.




Clearly we cannot have the two seperate systems....

One system which allows companies such as microsoft to grow into the beasts
they are....while making it very hard for other companies to get a look in -
unless they come up with something REALLY special!

The other system which seeks to stiffle such growth - limit such power. thus
making it easier for other to share the pie....but the quality of the pie
will suffer as a result.

These two systems cannot work together....one of them will have to go!

Personally I'd ditch the EU
I might lose out under the system which favours survival of the fittest
(fattest) - But at least I'd be in a position to fight for a larger piece of
the pie....rather than beg for my fair share of it!
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees...etc

Microsoft Vs the EU...it's basically the old capitalist/communist arguament
in microcosm.
Communism and it's offshoot socialism has already been shown up as a
failure.
To a large extent, so has capitalism.
Capitalism seems to fail when it goes global...globalism....industries
destroyed in favour of cheaper labour abroad etc.

Is there such a thing as nationalist capitalism?


I think the two are made for each other. Both want world domination: Microsoft and its owners are both far beyond the point where making more money is a plausible objective, and the EU if left to its own devices will welcome any and all nations which apply to join. Of course, only the poorer ones will want to, until the EU begins a program of conquest of the rest.

My main objections to both are similar:

Monopoly is always bad. Suppose the One World Government, which is a dream of so many people, comes to pass: where will the dissenters, the asylum seekers, go? When Microsoft controls all the world's computers, why won't it just raise its prices indefinitely, after a time accepting indentures in lieu of cash?

Monoculture is always bad. If/when it becomes diseased, what alternatives are there? If all the world runs on Windows, what happens when the next big virus hits, or someone hijacks Windows Update? If the World Government should become totalitarian (perish the thought), what can be done about it when there is nobody outside to help?

The big problem would seem to be monopoly. While a free market provides stable but flexible trading conditions, the free market itself is not stable. Where one buyer/seller obtains an advantage of scale, there is no feedback system to prevent it dominating the others, and reducing a free market to a monopoly or near monopoly. Capitalism has failed insofar as it hasn't produced a system for stabilising the free market and making monopolies inherently impossible. Government is certainly not the answer, since by definition a government has the monopoly of governing within its jurisdiction, and a market monopoly or near monopoly has enormous purchasing power.

We can imagine better systems of government, but we must rely on the existing government to implement them. We can imagine systems for limiting market share, but we must rely on the existing big businesses not to bribe the governments to avoid implementing them. These are not entirely satisfactory conclusions.
.

Quantcast