Yeah. Whacky shit.
European Regulators Fine Microsoft, Then Promise to Do Better (Published 2013)
In announcing a $732 million penalty, regulators said they had been “naïve” to let the company monitor its own adherence to an antitrust settlement.www.nytimes.com
{...
By James Kanter
BRUSSELS — The European Union fined Microsoft $732 million on Wednesday for failing to respect an antitrust settlement with regulators. But in a highly unusual mea culpa, the European Union’s top antitrust regulator said that his department bore some of the responsibility for Microsoft’s failure to respect a settlement that caused the fine.
- March 6, 2013
Joaquín Almunia, the European Union competition commissioner, said the bloc had been “naïve” to put Microsoft in charge of monitoring its adherence to the deal it agreed to in 2009, when his predecessor let the company escape a fine in exchange for offering users of its Windows software a wider choice of Internet browsers.
Mr. Almunia insisted that the enforcement of settlements could be sufficiently strengthened to ensure that companies abide by their pledges, and he signaled that he would not retreat from his goal to use such deals to avoid lengthy legal battles with major companies in swiftly evolving technology markets.
Settlements “allow for rapid solutions to competition problems,” Mr. Almunia said. “Of course such decisions require strict compliance” and the “failure to comply is a very serious infringement that must be sanctioned accordingly.”
...}
Capitalism is NOT Democratic: Democracy is NOT Capitalist
- Thread starter georgephillip
- Start date
Rigby5
Diamond Member
{...
By lining its shelves with its own in-house brands, Wal-Mart began competing directly, on its own shelves, with its national, household brand-name suppliers. "It makes them more efficient," argues Ray Bracy, Wal-Mart's vice president of international corporate affairs. "I suppose you could suggest that they would like to not have that competition. But it makes them better."
The development of Wal-Mart's house brands proved to be a watershed. Consumer surveys had established that Americans cared less and less about buying national brands: Low price trumped brand loyalty. In the period following Sam Walton's death, when Wal-Mart's sales slowed and its stock price began to stagnate, this consumer trend freed the company to ramp up the production of its house brands through unbranded suppliers in China, who now had privileged access to Wal-Mart's 3,500 stores across America. The result was that Wal-Mart became its own de facto manufacturer, developing and designing products according to the taste of its customers, as analyzed by Wal-Mart's supercomputer. Profits soared.
Privately, long-time U.S. suppliers expressed dismay. "They invaded our core business model," said one apparel maker, requesting that his name be withheld. "Wal-Mart seems intent on managing the total product life cycle." If the competitive pressures of Wal-Mart's store brands continue, he said he would close his American factories, abandon his own brand, and try to solicit Wal-Mart's private label business in China. "We call it 'the race to the bottom,'" he asserted. "It's sad because I see that productivity increases [in America] are still possible through automation. There's room for improved efficiency. But it's impossible [to stay here] with retailers going for cheap Chinese labor."
By now, many American manufacturers, such as the apparel supplier, have little choice but to redefine themselves as "branded distributors" for overseas goods. In other words, instead of making their own products, they use their own brand names to market Chinese-made goods to retailers. They eke out profits by outsourcing production and marketing that production. The process is virtually the final step in the surrender to what Duke University Professor Gary Gereffi calls the Wal-Mart-China "joint venture."
For several years, Wal-Mart has been the single largest U.S. importer of Chinese consumer goods, surpassing the trade volume of entire countries, such as Germany and Russia. Global sourcing is now fully integrated into the company's operations -- giving Wal-Mart enormous leverage worldwide. Foreign products account for nearly all of Wal-Mart's trumpeted low opening price point goods.
During regularly scheduled conference calls with Wall Street analysts, Lee Scott, Wal-Mart CEO since 2000, touts global sourcing as the key to increasing company profits and continuing its expansion.
"No one can compete with China. Such efficiency, such manpower," said Frank Yuan, the former middleman who did business with Wal-Mart, and who now heads an international apparel trade show. "If you look at [Wal-Mart's] shoes or housewares, 80 or 90 percent is coming out of China. And apparel is not as big as it should be." After U.S. quotas on textile imports expire on Jan. 1, 2005, Yuan expects imports from China to rise to 80 percent of the apparel market.
,,,}
By lining its shelves with its own in-house brands, Wal-Mart began competing directly, on its own shelves, with its national, household brand-name suppliers. "It makes them more efficient," argues Ray Bracy, Wal-Mart's vice president of international corporate affairs. "I suppose you could suggest that they would like to not have that competition. But it makes them better."
The development of Wal-Mart's house brands proved to be a watershed. Consumer surveys had established that Americans cared less and less about buying national brands: Low price trumped brand loyalty. In the period following Sam Walton's death, when Wal-Mart's sales slowed and its stock price began to stagnate, this consumer trend freed the company to ramp up the production of its house brands through unbranded suppliers in China, who now had privileged access to Wal-Mart's 3,500 stores across America. The result was that Wal-Mart became its own de facto manufacturer, developing and designing products according to the taste of its customers, as analyzed by Wal-Mart's supercomputer. Profits soared.
Privately, long-time U.S. suppliers expressed dismay. "They invaded our core business model," said one apparel maker, requesting that his name be withheld. "Wal-Mart seems intent on managing the total product life cycle." If the competitive pressures of Wal-Mart's store brands continue, he said he would close his American factories, abandon his own brand, and try to solicit Wal-Mart's private label business in China. "We call it 'the race to the bottom,'" he asserted. "It's sad because I see that productivity increases [in America] are still possible through automation. There's room for improved efficiency. But it's impossible [to stay here] with retailers going for cheap Chinese labor."
By now, many American manufacturers, such as the apparel supplier, have little choice but to redefine themselves as "branded distributors" for overseas goods. In other words, instead of making their own products, they use their own brand names to market Chinese-made goods to retailers. They eke out profits by outsourcing production and marketing that production. The process is virtually the final step in the surrender to what Duke University Professor Gary Gereffi calls the Wal-Mart-China "joint venture."
For several years, Wal-Mart has been the single largest U.S. importer of Chinese consumer goods, surpassing the trade volume of entire countries, such as Germany and Russia. Global sourcing is now fully integrated into the company's operations -- giving Wal-Mart enormous leverage worldwide. Foreign products account for nearly all of Wal-Mart's trumpeted low opening price point goods.
During regularly scheduled conference calls with Wall Street analysts, Lee Scott, Wal-Mart CEO since 2000, touts global sourcing as the key to increasing company profits and continuing its expansion.
"No one can compete with China. Such efficiency, such manpower," said Frank Yuan, the former middleman who did business with Wal-Mart, and who now heads an international apparel trade show. "If you look at [Wal-Mart's] shoes or housewares, 80 or 90 percent is coming out of China. And apparel is not as big as it should be." After U.S. quotas on textile imports expire on Jan. 1, 2005, Yuan expects imports from China to rise to 80 percent of the apparel market.
,,,}
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
The European case against MS building the web browser into Windows was a proven dumping case.
You have a link where they call it dumping?
MS was going to give the browser away until the competition was dead, then charge for it again.
Sounds awful!! You have any examples where anyone did that?
With Walmart, I don't know there has ever been a court case to prove it?
Any dumping case brought to the FTC?
How would we know if China was dumping or not?
You made the claim, you have no evidence?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
OMG!!!! Designing cheaper products that their customers wanted.
You Bastards Kyle Broflovski Sticker - You Bastards Kyle Broflovski South Park - Discover & Share GIFs
Click to view the GIF
tenor.com
Last edited:
Rigby5
Diamond Member
OMG!!!! Designing cheaper products that their customers wanted.
You Bastards Kyle Broflovski Sticker - You Bastards Kyle Broflovski South Park - Discover & Share GIFs
Click to view the GIF
You miss the point, so I will try to condense.
{...
"No one can compete with China. Such efficiency, such manpower," said Frank Yuan, the former middleman who did business with Wal-Mart, and who now heads an international apparel trade show. "If you look at [Wal-Mart's] shoes or housewares, 80 or 90 percent is coming out of China.
...}
China is using slave labor.
They arrest millions of political or religious dissidents, like Fallong Gong or Uighurs, and for them to do factory work 12 hours a day for food.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Giving something for free so that the competition is forced out of business, is the exact definition of dumping.
Why do you think Europe sued and won?
If you want to call it something else, feel free.
But that is what dumping is.
georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #1,367
Government takes money from citizens by force through taxation. Regardless of your objections to the cost of organizing society, government taxes don't feed a population of parasitic shareholders by charging access and user fees the way for-profit corporations do.
Error - Cookies Turned Off
"To prevent unearned income (economic rent) from adding to the economy's cost of living and doing business, potentially rent-yielding infrastructure should be kept in the public domain as a 'fourth factor of production.'
"Instead of rentiers making a profit by charging access fees and user fees, the return to public investment should take the form of reducing the economy's overall price structure."
georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #1,368
Thanks for that information.
I wasn't aware of government's involvement in private roadways.
Who owns and operates The Toll Roads? | The Toll Roads
yes, I agree Govt takes money by force....oh and there are plenty of parasites in Govt...shareholders in a company are parastic? How so? Do you know what a shareholder is? Shareholders, are owners of a company..without an owner, there may very well be no company at all
I am not talking about "private roads" - I am talking about state roads, that have tolls.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Yeah, China sucks.
Still waiting for you to post any proof of any of your claims re: dumping
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Giving something for free so that the competition is forced out of business, is the exact definition of dumping.
Prove it.
Post a law that says that.
Why do you think Europe sued and won?
They hate American companies.
If you want to call it something else, feel free.
You mean if I want to point out your error, I should feel free.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1,373
Right-wingers seem the most like the (right-wing) Chinese.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
State toll roads are an awful and regressive idea in my opinion.
It is not like people WANT to use them, but have to because housing is too expensive near their job.
People should pay based on ability to pay, not how much they are forced to use that aspect of the infrastructure.
Yes. Let's soak the people with ability. Those greedy bastards, hoarding all the ability to themselves. They should give me free shit.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Why not do a search?
Back when Solyndra was going under, there were plenty of articles of how that was due to China dumping solar in the US.
But here was the first hit I got, China dumping in India.
How China dumps its products in India
Chinese manufacturers produce different qualities of a product for different markets including poor quality cheap goods for low-income countries.
www.timesnownews.com
Rigby5
Diamond Member
That silly because dumping is not the legal term for it.
That is the short slang for what can be a somewhat complex process.
But here is a journalist giving his opinion:
{...
Dumping is a practice of selling goods in a foreign country at a price below their domestic selling price, after allowing for differences accruing from transportation expenses, tariffs, and other cost justifications. Many governments view the activity as an unfair competitive practice and frequently expose those engaged in dumping to an anti-dumping duty. Dumping duty is an additional import duty imposed to offset the effect of dumping which is found to materially injure the domestic industry.
...}
The point of dumping is to benefit your industry by increasing its volume, while harming foreign companies by under cutting their prices and making their industries too unprofitable to be sustainable.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
That silly because dumping is not the legal term for it.
You brought up dumping and you aren't posting the correct legal term?
Dumping is a practice of selling goods in a foreign country at a price below their domestic selling price
Cool. So show where Walmart or Microsoft did that.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Well obviously people should not be penalized just for being wealthy, but if the money is needed for infrastructure and has to come from somewhere, it is better if it comes from those who first of all have profited from the infrastructure the most, and second are harmed the least by paying, because they have more excess money laying around.
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
CHA-CHING! Financial Filings Reveal MASSIVE Grift at the Obama Foundation
- Started by Hollie
- Replies: 0
-
The revisionist view of Iranian history that libs are sure to hate- Started by Mac-7
- Replies: 0
-
Is the Smart Money Running for the Exits? Analyzing Stanley Druckenmiller’s Latest Moves- Started by BellaJones
- Replies: 0
-
-
