Germany's "Google tax"

[Razgovory]

For the libertarian, the hand of the statist is behind every evil in the world.

[Tamas]

Jeebus.


If you think it is okay that laws are being made to protect dinosaurs from competition than you should be happy, as it is exactly what is happening.

Regulating in terms of guarding from illegal activities is one thing. Making stupid laws to interfere in competition is entirely different.

[Tamas]

It's amazing how ignorant Tamas is of economy 101.

dude your livelihood is based on navigating the byzantine regulations in europe. Your opinion is: not unbiased.

[Martinus]

I'm in M&A - it's as free market as you can get. And I have seen enough to be sufficiently sceptical of how it works.

[Syt]

If you think it is okay that laws are being made to protect dinosaurs from competition than you should be happy, as it is exactly what is happening.

Where did I say that? IMO this is the kind of situation where the government should sit put or work to increase competition. Yes, I'm for government interventions - when there's a situation where there's too little competition and one side of the market has enough (perceived) power to bully the rest of the market and politicians. Or for example when the good in question is not one where the consumer can simply choose not to buy (medicial sector).

Similar with infrastructure - are most of the public infrastructure projects deficitary (roads, rail, etc.)? Yes. But are their net effects on society greater than their cost (by enabling businesses to use them and function)? Definitely yes.

[Tamas]

If you think it is okay that laws are being made to protect dinosaurs from competition than you should be happy, as it is exactly what is happening.

Where did I say that? IMO this is the kind of situation where the government should sit put or work to increase competition. Yes, I'm for government interventions - when there's a situation where there's too little competition and one side of the market has enough (perceived) power to bully the rest of the market and politicians. Or for example when the good in question is not one where the consumer can simply choose not to buy (medicial sector).

Similar with infrastructure - are most of the public infrastructure projects deficitary (roads, rail, etc.)? Yes. But are their net effects on society greater than their cost (by enabling businesses to use them and function)? Definitely yes.

fair enough, except that it is impossible to draw a line, and my original point was that this new tax is a perfect example: you have a group of market actors, who gained a dominating position for a while. They are set up for losing that, due to new inventions and rivals. But due to their size, they are able to mobilize the interventionist mechanisms to their own benefit. This is bound to happen, wether its german media or US banks or whatever.. The very "solution" which is advertised to fight monopoly and overgrown market actors serve to set those in stone, making it much-much harder to weaken or destroy them when their time is up.

[grumbler]

I think you are talking to the hand, here, Tamas.  The idea that there is a happy medium where government actions to enhance market efficiency are properly seen as good, while government actions to change market outcomes are properly seen as bad, doesn't appear to have much shelf life on languish.

The reason why publishers in, say, Germany have the monopolistic-style power to influence government regulation on their behalf is because of misguided government policies in the past that have allowed these few companies to gain this kind of monopolistic-style power.

[Valmy]

Yup. If anything, this law is an example how free market can lead to very un-free outcomes - if you allow some companies to be too big, they can trample over every one else.

Well the free market is supposed to keep companies from becoming too big, but of course it doesn't work perfectly for exactly this reason: they start to have political power because of their size and they use that to advance their interests.  But I am not sure how an alternative results in less political corruption or leads to less un-free outcomes.

[Admiral Yi]

It's amazing how ignorant Tamas is of economy 101.

[sbr]

The use of the word tax is s poor choice and probably confuses some people.

[Berkut]

It's amazing how ignorant Tamas is of economy 101.

This coming from the guy who complains that the government passing laws like this is an example of how screwed up things get with a "free market"???

[Berkut]

Marty claiming that the government passing laws to aid large, struggling corporations against new technology is an example of the problems associated with the "free market" might be the finest example of pure cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. It is not almost Orwellian in its obviously exactly opposite reality - it IS Orwellian.

[Martinus]

Marty claiming that the government passing laws to aid large, struggling corporations against new technology is an example of the problems associated with the "free market" might be the finest example of pure cognitive dissonance I have ever seen. It is not almost Orwellian in its obviously exactly opposite reality - it IS Orwellian.

There is nothing "Orwellian" in claiming that unchecked free market leads to monopoly which leads to the death of free market - just as unchecked democracy leads to tyranny which is the death of democracy.

In any case, this started with Tamas placing the blame for this at the feet of some "bureaucracy" - which is idiotic.

[derspiess]

Lol, you're always thinking about feet.

[Valmy]

There is nothing "Orwellian" in claiming that unchecked free market leads to monopoly which leads to the death of free market - just as unchecked democracy leads to tyranny which is the death of democracy.

The problem is the levers that can check the free market are susceptible to corruption from the power and money of the big Corps, which also leads to Monopolies.  There is nothing new about this, the Jacksonian Democrats were complaining about it in this country in 1830s.