- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
U.S. 'lobbied' the EC over Micro$oft fine
|
|
|
Comments (85)
65 earlier comments in the full thread.
Sander:
> But that was a US begging, not a US theatning as is their usual M.O.
If so, why did we act without their approval anyway. That doesn't sound like the actions of someone begging to me. Bush himself stated that the US would act with or without UN approval, which certainly sounds like a threat.
The simple fact is, Iraq was even better at playing politics (i.e., spreading the money around) than we were, which is why we acted without UN approval.
> But that was a US begging, not a US theatning as is their usual M.O.
If so, why did we act without their approval anyway. That doesn't sound like the actions of someone begging to me. Bush himself stated that the US would act with or without UN approval, which certainly sounds like a threat.
The simple fact is, Iraq was even better at playing politics (i.e., spreading the money around) than we were, which is why we acted without UN approval.
> So that's why they signed in that law allows the US to invade Holland and raid The Hague when there's a US soldier on trial for war crimes?
The Hague does not have the authority to try US soldiers for war crimes. If they try to do so, that is an act of war and we're no longer allies. What part of that is hard to understand?
The Hague does not have the authority to try US soldiers for war crimes. If they try to do so, that is an act of war and we're no longer allies. What part of that is hard to understand?
> The US is not going to use military force against its allies
So, why do they line up behind us? It's obviously nice to have all that power on your side. As far as using it, well, we certainly hope they won't. So far I see that as just dumb luck.
> Complaints about lobbying aren't.
Well, as I said before, that's our internal problem. Unfortunately it connects directly to the other behavior.
So, why do they line up behind us? It's obviously nice to have all that power on your side. As far as using it, well, we certainly hope they won't. So far I see that as just dumb luck.
> Complaints about lobbying aren't.
Well, as I said before, that's our internal problem. Unfortunately it connects directly to the other behavior.
Jimf:
Well, if the US ever does try to use its military power against an EU country because of a trade dispute, I hope we get what we have coming (and I suspect we will). I'll agree that the non-major powers have more to be concerned about, but with our military stretched thin by Iraq and Afganistan, and still in volunteer mode, I doubt anyone has too much to worry about (with the possible except of Iran, which continues to sabre rattle).
Well, if the US ever does try to use its military power against an EU country because of a trade dispute, I hope we get what we have coming (and I suspect we will). I'll agree that the non-major powers have more to be concerned about, but with our military stretched thin by Iraq and Afganistan, and still in volunteer mode, I doubt anyone has too much to worry about (with the possible except of Iran, which continues to sabre rattle).
If the TOS had a grave, it would be practicing rolling over.
Quoting: dinotrac: IE - Effort on behalf of Microsoft makes the news, so you conclude that's the only thing being done.
evidence, please? Please provide a single instance where any other US company has ever had the gall, or the influence, to dispatch US government agents to bully and threaten other governments on their behalf. This has happened many before you know, this business of microsoft pulling the puppet strings, using high ranking diplomats and other government officials as lackeys whose job is to parrot the microsoft party line.
In case you haven't noticed, this sort of thing hurts american companies. Sure, a handful of people in Washington state benefit, but all their competitors are injured by this government favoritism of the convicted monopolist.
In any case, your motivation in this thread is a mystery to me. What is your point in deflecting criticism away from microsoft? What is your message, that life is futile, that we must accept that crappy monopolists will always win, and we're doomed? I'd love to see a clear and concise expression of your message.
>What is your point in deflecting criticism away from microsoft?
Excuse me? Where have I done that?
This thread is not a criticism of Microsoft. This thread is a criticism of the United States government. Microsoft is incidental, merely the thing that makes it a Lxer story.
Excuse me? Where have I done that?
This thread is not a criticism of Microsoft. This thread is a criticism of the United States government. Microsoft is incidental, merely the thing that makes it a Lxer story.
"This is what countries do."
It's amazing how many people think it is irrational to be an anarchist.
Government is coercion. Why is anyone surprised that money chases that power? Microsoft has _lots_ of money.
It's amazing how many people think it is irrational to be an anarchist.
Government is coercion. Why is anyone surprised that money chases that power? Microsoft has _lots_ of money.
Bob -
I don't think it's irrational to be an anarchist. Most rational thing in the world, actually. Do what you want, nobody can tell you what to do, etc.
It just doesn't work very well in a society where people are free to disagree and where things need to be done that require groups of people to do them.
I don't think it's irrational to be an anarchist. Most rational thing in the world, actually. Do what you want, nobody can tell you what to do, etc.
It just doesn't work very well in a society where people are free to disagree and where things need to be done that require groups of people to do them.
Dino,
I'm fully aware we disagree about the provisioning of "public goods".
But concerning "disagreement", one unfortunate thing about government is that it becomes impossible to disagree, because participation is coerced. No matter how much I may disagree with, just for example, The Bureau For Indian Affairs, my taxes are spent to support it.
It is only in an environment of liberty that disagreements _can_ coexist, even really fundamental disagreements that have otherwise caused people to kill each other for as long as there have been people, like the name of God, or any God at all. Only where, such as the US, government has been _restrained_ from interference in the subject has peaceful disagreement been possible.
Large projects, such as transcontinental railroads, transoceanic communication cables, satellites, canals, roads and highways, even dams, have all been done privately. The Boulder Cement Company dam project was expropriated by government and renamed Hoover dam, for example.
Let me give you a link or two. Please, I am honestly interested in your opinion after listening/reading:
http://www.mises.org/story/1855 (check out the messages in the blog link at the bottom, quite interesting)
http://mm.mises.org/mp3/MU2004/Long2.mp3
http://www.mises.org/story/1874
To get back on subject, the only reason that Microsoft can do such lobbying is that there is some pre-existing power that is for sale. Without the power of coercion, Microsoft would have to compete. That is why big business has always been in bed with big government, with rare and notable exceptions such as James J. Hill who gets put down in the government school textbooks as a "robber baron", while it was his competitors who went crawling to government for subsidies and handouts, and regulations in order to prevent competition.
I'm fully aware we disagree about the provisioning of "public goods".
But concerning "disagreement", one unfortunate thing about government is that it becomes impossible to disagree, because participation is coerced. No matter how much I may disagree with, just for example, The Bureau For Indian Affairs, my taxes are spent to support it.
It is only in an environment of liberty that disagreements _can_ coexist, even really fundamental disagreements that have otherwise caused people to kill each other for as long as there have been people, like the name of God, or any God at all. Only where, such as the US, government has been _restrained_ from interference in the subject has peaceful disagreement been possible.
Large projects, such as transcontinental railroads, transoceanic communication cables, satellites, canals, roads and highways, even dams, have all been done privately. The Boulder Cement Company dam project was expropriated by government and renamed Hoover dam, for example.
Let me give you a link or two. Please, I am honestly interested in your opinion after listening/reading:
http://www.mises.org/story/1855 (check out the messages in the blog link at the bottom, quite interesting)
http://mm.mises.org/mp3/MU2004/Long2.mp3
http://www.mises.org/story/1874
To get back on subject, the only reason that Microsoft can do such lobbying is that there is some pre-existing power that is for sale. Without the power of coercion, Microsoft would have to compete. That is why big business has always been in bed with big government, with rare and notable exceptions such as James J. Hill who gets put down in the government school textbooks as a "robber baron", while it was his competitors who went crawling to government for subsidies and handouts, and regulations in order to prevent competition.
> Please provide a single instance where any other US company has ever had the gall, or the influence, to dispatch US government agents to bully and threaten other governments on their behalf.
I pretty sure US officials tried to intervene on GE's behalf in the aborted GE/Honeywell merger when it was vetoed by the EU.
I pretty sure US officials tried to intervene on GE's behalf in the aborted GE/Honeywell merger when it was vetoed by the EU.
"where any other US company has ever had the gall, or the influence, to dispatch US government agents to bully and threaten other governments..."
How about the present "war for oil pipeline rights-of-way"?
How about the present "war for oil pipeline rights-of-way"?
> How about the present "war for oil pipeline rights-of-way"?
I don't think it qualifies Bob, for several reasons. One, that's not a single company, but rather an entire industry. Two, those aren't US government agents as he's using the word. Three, I don't think that's really the reason we're there, though you are free to disagree.
That said, the non-UN'ed sanction war in Iraq should be a much greater concern to US opponents than our lobbying of EU officials on any company's behalf. Most of the damage caused by words can be fixed. Damage from bullets and bombs tends to be a little more permanent. Our willingness to invade Iraq in the way we did should raise concerns around the world and cause everyone to view us more warily. The fact that I think the invasion was largely justified doesn't change that, nor would I expect it to (our continuing occupation is another matter, but being entirely political it is not a matter for discussion on LXer).
I don't think it qualifies Bob, for several reasons. One, that's not a single company, but rather an entire industry. Two, those aren't US government agents as he's using the word. Three, I don't think that's really the reason we're there, though you are free to disagree.
That said, the non-UN'ed sanction war in Iraq should be a much greater concern to US opponents than our lobbying of EU officials on any company's behalf. Most of the damage caused by words can be fixed. Damage from bullets and bombs tends to be a little more permanent. Our willingness to invade Iraq in the way we did should raise concerns around the world and cause everyone to view us more warily. The fact that I think the invasion was largely justified doesn't change that, nor would I expect it to (our continuing occupation is another matter, but being entirely political it is not a matter for discussion on LXer).
Quoting: jdixon: I pretty sure US officials tried to intervene on GE's behalf in the aborted GE/Honeywell merger when it was vetoed by the EU.Big difference between being pretty sure that "US officials tried to intervene" than the cases where a corporation blatantly uses US diplomats as messengers, threatening consequences to the government that doesn't cave in to the wishes of the US corporation.
Quoting: bob_robertson: How about the present "war for oil pipeline rights-of-way"?Do enlighten us -
"Do enlighten us -"
I would love to, if I had all the facts. But I don't think anyone does.
The BBC did a wonderful expose' entitled "The Power Of Nightmares", that doesn't actually depend on conspiracies at all. You might want to break copyright law and download a copy. It's wonderful viewing, and deserves all the "airtime" it can get.
I would love to, if I had all the facts. But I don't think anyone does.
The BBC did a wonderful expose' entitled "The Power Of Nightmares", that doesn't actually depend on conspiracies at all. You might want to break copyright law and download a copy. It's wonderful viewing, and deserves all the "airtime" it can get.
> Big difference between being pretty sure that US officials tried to intervene" than the cases where a corporation blatantly uses US diplomats as messengers, threatening consequences to the government that doesn't cave in to the wishes of the US corporation.
A difference of degree but not kind. You asked for a previous example; I provided one.
A difference of degree but not kind. You asked for a previous example; I provided one.
hmmm.....
Well, herzeleid, I don't get the impression that you are the type to let facts or reason get in the way of your opinions, but, some examples of the US intervening on behalf of US companies...
Let's see, a very big intervention in 2002 when Pres. Bush slapped a (very stupid) tariff on steel imports. Lots -- LOTS -- of back and forths between US and EU officials in 2004 when Boeing complained about government subsidies to Airbus and Airbus counter-complained about military contracts for Boeing.
The thing is, and, if you are as smart as you seem to think you are, you know this, that most things in this world do not make the news. The Microsoft intervention is newsworthy primarily because the magnitude of the fine is newsworthy, so we hear about it.
I doubt that I could find news articles confirming the fact that people in the EU breathe, but, between you and me, they do.
Well, herzeleid, I don't get the impression that you are the type to let facts or reason get in the way of your opinions, but, some examples of the US intervening on behalf of US companies...
Let's see, a very big intervention in 2002 when Pres. Bush slapped a (very stupid) tariff on steel imports. Lots -- LOTS -- of back and forths between US and EU officials in 2004 when Boeing complained about government subsidies to Airbus and Airbus counter-complained about military contracts for Boeing.
The thing is, and, if you are as smart as you seem to think you are, you know this, that most things in this world do not make the news. The Microsoft intervention is newsworthy primarily because the magnitude of the fine is newsworthy, so we hear about it.
I doubt that I could find news articles confirming the fact that people in the EU breathe, but, between you and me, they do.
> ...that most things in this world do not make the news.
I have to confess, anyone who thinks the news is the only thing happening is obviously a little too glued to their computer monitor. I burped earlier. Maybe I should write an LXer feature about it. And to be sure it's fit for LXer, I'll release the burp under the GPL in a GNU/Linux-only version. :-) Now if I can just figure out how to upload it to a server somewhere...
I have to confess, anyone who thinks the news is the only thing happening is obviously a little too glued to their computer monitor. I burped earlier. Maybe I should write an LXer feature about it. And to be sure it's fit for LXer, I'll release the burp under the GPL in a GNU/Linux-only version. :-) Now if I can just figure out how to upload it to a server somewhere...
Ewwwwwww!
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Yeah? So that's why they signed in that law allows the US to invade Holland and raid The Hague when there's a US soldier on trial for war crimes?
pffft.....