Pages: 1 2

 

2008-03-08 10:29:41
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I just did...  here is the Intel story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19991903/

This is rather odd since AMD is currently subsidized by the German government.  So, it's ok for a government to prop up a corporation, but another corporation can't prop up its own share of business with its own money.  I would consider AMD's subsidization no less anticompetitive than Intel's practices.  It seems like more than a coincidence that AMD is German and Intel is American.  If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd bet the EU wouldn't side with Intel.
AMD is an American company, is it not?  They have a fabrication plant in Dresden, though.
I'm wrong...   They are American, but they are still getting subsidies for production in Europe.

http://www.invest-in-saxony.de/de/News/ … rer=118531

Still seems pretty odd to me that government subsidization is legally allowed, but paying business partners to only use your product isn't.  Either way, it basically involves bribing.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-03-08 10:35:16)

2008-03-08 10:31:03
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6557|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

I'm going to look this up again, but I'm 90% sure they are German.  I don't see why the German government would be subsidizing them otherwise.
They have a large business presence there.  But they are a solidly American corporation.
2008-03-08 10:32:54
Sorcerer0513
Member
+18|6969|Outer Space

Turquoise wrote:

I'm going to look this up again, but I'm 90% sure they are German.  I don't see why the German government would be subsidizing them otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD
2008-03-08 10:34:50
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7009|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


That's why I said, "half of the time."

Look at what's currently going on between Intel and AMD.  Intel may be very powerful, but it's not exactly a valid case to sue them over anticompetitive practices when the German government subsidizes AMD.

It would be like Airbus suing Boeing for being anticompetitive while they receive government money.
Care to cite some examples?
I just did...  here is the Intel story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19991903/

This is rather odd since AMD is currently subsidized by the German government.  So, it's ok for a government to prop up a corporation, but another corporation can't prop up its own share of business with its own money.  I would consider AMD's subsidization no less anticompetitive than Intel's practices.  It seems like more than a coincidence that AMD is German and Intel is American.  If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd bet the EU wouldn't side with Intel.
But, as has already been pointed out, AMD are an American company. So your example isn't exactly valid.
2008-03-08 10:36:26
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina
Again, I'm wrong about AMD's ownership, but do you still think it's fair that one company can be government subsidized while another can't privately do what amounts to the same kind of thing?
2008-03-08 10:39:00
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7009|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

Again, I'm wrong about AMD's ownership, but do you still think it's fair that one company can be government subsidized while another can't privately do what amounts to the same kind of thing?
I don't quite get what you mean. Could you expand a little on that?
2008-03-08 10:40:26
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Again, I'm wrong about AMD's ownership, but do you still think it's fair that one company can be government subsidized while another can't privately do what amounts to the same kind of thing?
I don't quite get what you mean. Could you expand a little on that?
How is it that it's legally ok to be propped up by government money, but it's not ok to pay business partners to only use your products?  Both practices are anticompetitive, but only one of them is illegal.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-03-08 10:40:41)

2008-03-08 10:40:28
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6557|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

Again, I'm wrong about AMD's ownership, but do you still think it's fair that one company can be government subsidized while another can't privately do what amounts to the same kind of thing?
Intel was pressing OEM's to not carry AMD chips by having sub-market pricing and pushed for major retailers to not carry AMD based computers.  When did AMD do either of those things?

Edit:  Does Intel not receive subsidies from governments?

In 1999, when AMD first began transferring production from Austin, Texas, to Dresden, the U.S. company received bank guarantees from Saxony, which also directed some of its subsidies from the European Union toward the investment, Cramer said.

"These types of subsidies are typical for this region," said Cramer, who is a supervisory board member at AMD's competitor, Infineon.
Source (it's a little old, but the point is still there).

Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-03-08 10:44:07)

2008-03-08 10:43:56
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Again, I'm wrong about AMD's ownership, but do you still think it's fair that one company can be government subsidized while another can't privately do what amounts to the same kind of thing?
Intel was pressing OEM's to not carry AMD chips by having sub-market pricing and pushed for major retailers to not carry AMD based computers.  When did AMD do either of those things?
I didn't say they did the same things exactly, but again, both practices are anticompetitive.  It doesn't make something less anticompetitive if the government gets involved.
2008-03-08 10:46:24
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6557|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

I didn't say they did the same things exactly, but again, both practices are anticompetitive.  It doesn't make something less anticompetitive if the government gets involved.
(Read my edit on my post before this)

If the government gives subsidies to many businesses in the Dresden region, how is that uncompetitive?  The government wants the business there to help its economy.
2008-03-08 10:48:57
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7009|SE London

Turquoise wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Again, I'm wrong about AMD's ownership, but do you still think it's fair that one company can be government subsidized while another can't privately do what amounts to the same kind of thing?
I don't quite get what you mean. Could you expand a little on that?
How is it that it's legally ok to be propped up by government money, but it's not ok to pay business partners to only use your products?  Both practices are anticompetitive, but only one of them is illegal.
Because there is a difference between helping a company out and hindering another company. Subsidies have a knock on effect of making the subsidised product more competitive, but that's different to driving other companies out of the market place.

Helping companies is legal, hindering companies is not.
2008-03-08 10:51:44
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I didn't say they did the same things exactly, but again, both practices are anticompetitive.  It doesn't make something less anticompetitive if the government gets involved.
(Read my edit on my post before this)

If the government gives subsidies to many businesses in the Dresden region, how is that uncompetitive?  The government wants the business there to help its economy.
I understand what the intentions are, but I don't understand why it's not considered anticompetitive.

Let me give an example.  Let's say Intel has a plant in the same region as AMD in Germany.  If the German government gives a subsidy to AMD and not to Intel, then isn't that anticompetitive?   Even if Intel doesn't have a plant in the same area, that's still funding one company to help it against its competitors.

So if a company decides to sell things at a loss to edge out competition, I don't see how that's any worse than having government money spent to stimulate growth.  The intentions may be different, but they are both still anticompetitive in the grand scheme of things.

The government shouldn't be in a position to set price controls.  However, I will agree that antitrust lawsuits are legitimate when a company has a true monopoly over a market.
2008-03-08 11:41:48
imortal
Member
+240|7092|Austin, TX

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I just did...  here is the Intel story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19991903/

This is rather odd since AMD is currently subsidized by the German government.  So, it's ok for a government to prop up a corporation, but another corporation can't prop up its own share of business with its own money.  I would consider AMD's subsidization no less anticompetitive than Intel's practices.  It seems like more than a coincidence that AMD is German and Intel is American.  If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd bet the EU wouldn't side with Intel.
AMD is an American company, is it not?  They have a fabrication plant in Dresden, though.
I think it is more to the point of a goverment choosing to favor one company over another.  Not just in choosing bidding contracts, but to the point of making business unprofitable or unreasonable even outside of government contracts.  Coorperate favoritism. 

I am not going to post my comments I have about the EU in this.
2008-03-08 11:46:00
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6557|North Tonawanda, NY

imortal wrote:

I think it is more to the point of a goverment choosing to favor one company over another.  Not just in choosing bidding contracts, but to the point of making business unprofitable or unreasonable even outside of government contracts.  Coorperate favoritism. 

I am not going to post my comments I have about the EU in this.
What do you think of giving businesses tax breaks for basing themselves in a particular region? 

This has nothing to do with government bidding contracts.
2008-03-08 12:14:46
imortal
Member
+240|7092|Austin, TX

SenorToenails wrote:

imortal wrote:

I think it is more to the point of a goverment choosing to favor one company over another.  Not just in choosing bidding contracts, but to the point of making business unprofitable or unreasonable even outside of government contracts.  Coorperate favoritism. 

I am not going to post my comments I have about the EU in this.
What do you think of giving businesses tax breaks for basing themselves in a particular region? 

This has nothing to do with government bidding contracts.
I agree that it has nothing to do with business contrats.  THat is why I said I thought it was more of a point in government favoritism and NOT in bidding contracts.

Tax breaks for coorperations is one of those fun areas, since I do not believe in taxing cooperations.  ALL coorperate and buisiness taxes are passed on to the cost of products, so any cooperate tax gets paid by the consumer.  Coorperate taxes are another way of taxing the public.

But the tax break system is in place to 'bribe' coorperations from one area to another, in order to bring jobs and people into the area, increasing the tax base and the local economy.  I think that there is nothing wrong with incintives, but should be placed on the election ballet for the public to vote on, and not just offered unilaterally by the city council.
2008-03-08 12:21:11
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6557|North Tonawanda, NY

imortal wrote:

But the tax break system is in place to 'bribe' coorperations from one area to another, in order to bring jobs and people into the area, increasing the tax base and the local economy.  I think that there is nothing wrong with incintives, but should be placed on the election ballet for the public to vote on, and not just offered unilaterally by the city council.
So then it isn't anticompetitive.
2008-03-09 10:10:41
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

imortal wrote:

But the tax break system is in place to 'bribe' coorperations from one area to another, in order to bring jobs and people into the area, increasing the tax base and the local economy.  I think that there is nothing wrong with incintives, but should be placed on the election ballet for the public to vote on, and not just offered unilaterally by the city council.
So then it isn't anticompetitive.
Imortal makes some good points, but I would argue any tax breaks are anticompetitive.  I also totally disagree with his notion of not taxing corporations -- that's just absurd.
2008-03-09 11:03:26
imortal
Member
+240|7092|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

imortal wrote:

But the tax break system is in place to 'bribe' coorperations from one area to another, in order to bring jobs and people into the area, increasing the tax base and the local economy.  I think that there is nothing wrong with incintives, but should be placed on the election ballet for the public to vote on, and not just offered unilaterally by the city council.
So then it isn't anticompetitive.
Imortal makes some good points, but I would argue any tax breaks are anticompetitive.  I also totally disagree with his notion of not taxing corporations -- that's just absurd.
But where do corperations get money from to pay those taxes?  From the products they sell.  If you increase corperate taxes, then the coorperations increase the price of their products or services.  Sooo, the public has to pay more for the products, the coorperations profit margis remain the same.  Who loses there?
2008-03-09 11:25:19
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7009|SE London

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:


So then it isn't anticompetitive.
Imortal makes some good points, but I would argue any tax breaks are anticompetitive.  I also totally disagree with his notion of not taxing corporations -- that's just absurd.
But where do corperations get money from to pay those taxes?  From the products they sell.  If you increase corperate taxes, then the coorperations increase the price of their products or services.  Sooo, the public has to pay more for the products, the coorperations profit margis remain the same.  Who loses there?
Everyone. When the government hasn't got enough money and civil services and the economy collapse.
2008-03-09 11:34:25
imortal
Member
+240|7092|Austin, TX

Bertster7 wrote:

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Imortal makes some good points, but I would argue any tax breaks are anticompetitive.  I also totally disagree with his notion of not taxing corporations -- that's just absurd.
But where do corperations get money from to pay those taxes?  From the products they sell.  If you increase corperate taxes, then the coorperations increase the price of their products or services.  Sooo, the public has to pay more for the products, the coorperations profit margis remain the same.  Who loses there?
Everyone. When the government hasn't got enough money and civil services and the economy collapse.
I never said there shouldn't be taxes.  But taxing cooperations is just a diguised way of taxing the people who buy the products and services of those countries.  I think there should be a national sales tax instead of an income tax.  I do not think savings should be taxed.

If we are going to start comparing national tax strategies, or comparing taxin g methods and philosophies from one county to another, we may as well go to a gun control or abortion thread, because I doubt we will be able to agree.
2008-03-09 11:44:01
irishtop
Hopscotch Champion
+11|6590|Houston, Texas
Well just to throw this out there- From a comsumer standpoint, Microsoft is full of crap, but at the same time from a business standpoint, they are full of win. Thus the EU wants their companies to be full of win, not a foreign one. I have great respect and admire what Microsoft has been able to do, but at the same time I hate them.
2008-03-09 17:59:45
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,822|6533|eXtreme to the maX
OPEC is not seeking to block everyone else out of the market, they are just controlling supply of their own product.

Microsoft is preventing other people having access to their code and squashing competitors by releasing copies of their software bundled under their own brand - eg Media player
Fuck Israel
2008-03-09 19:31:33
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:


So then it isn't anticompetitive.
Imortal makes some good points, but I would argue any tax breaks are anticompetitive.  I also totally disagree with his notion of not taxing corporations -- that's just absurd.
But where do corperations get money from to pay those taxes?  From the products they sell.  If you increase corperate taxes, then the coorperations increase the price of their products or services.  Sooo, the public has to pay more for the products, the coorperations profit margis remain the same.  Who loses there?
Margins do not remain the same unless the demand for the product is fluid.  In other words, companies aren't going to raise the price of their goods enough to keep the same margin unless it's a product that has a very high demand to begin with.  If it's a product with a lesser demand, then the price will rise but the margin will decrease.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard