@trialotto
I think there is still some misunderstanding between what you are saying and what I am saying, so let me try to separate agreement and disagreement more clearly.
....
That is why I keep insisting that “imperfect system” and “pointless to act” are not the same thing.
@Hangover2
I have to emphasize that I am not willing to go into the area of "agreement vs disagreement", that would not be appropriate.
There are always opinions and facts .......... both of them are relevant, since a thorough discussion of facts and opinions will nourish development and growth.
That is, "development" and "growth" with a philosophical meaning.
After reading your post a couple of times, I can see where your points of view originate from - at least, I can see "better", but not perfectly.
It is true that I exaggerate with the term "no dent", but I do that on purpose.
It is true that the EU and its legal framework does have some measurable effect.
It is an absolute truth that imperfect systems still can and have to be used, since the imperfection does not make them pointless.
The definition of "ineffective" or even "inefficiënt" is dealt with by the statement and fact that imperfect systems are not pointless by imperfection.
However, the definition of "measurable" and "significant" is different.
The (exaggerated) term "no dent" is on the border of the definitions of the two terms "measurable" and "significant".
There is a sad truth in the fact (or statement) that "fines are too low".
One can say that big companies can incorporate the costs of big lawsuits and fines into prices, charged to customers.
From that perspective, fines are too low, but also not relevant : if a company is able to pass on all costs to customers, then any fine is barely relevant.
That gives light to another side of the same perspective : the company is able to pass on all costs ........ and that is market abuse.
So, in my humble opinion, combatting companies that are - still - able to pass on costs with fines on the grounds of market abuse .... that is exactly the opposite of what one wants to achieve and of what one should want to achieve.
Stated differently, fines are not the best way to combat market abuse by companies, if those companies are able to cover the fines by increasing prices.
A better solution would be prevention.
Prevention in the sense that companies can get too big and exert market power and hence have an incentive to proceed with market abuse.
The EU has strong legal frameworks that can actually prevent issues before they even arise ....
....... and one can safely assume or state that it is always better to prevent something, as opposed to filing complaints after the fact.
Now, we are coming to the reality behind the sad truth that "fines are too low".
The EU has better alternatives that can actually prevent companies becoming so big that they can exert market power and market abuse.
Why does the EU not always opt for these alternatives?
It is a practical matter and also a financial matter.
The alternative of fines (read: not prevention, but fines after the fact) is economically viable for the EU - it gives an alternative revenue that they budget for!
Nevertheless, as one would expect, the actual budget of the alternative revenuestream from fines and alike is rather optimistic.
The EU overestimates revenue and underestimates costs (and duration before fines become irrevocable and definitive).
So, yes, fines are too low in the sense that they do not allow the EU to do all the magic possible - the revenue will not cover all the tricks they have and there is a constant trade-off between costs and benefits, hence leaving the legal framework underused (or understaffed, both apply).
If fines were not too low, then the EU could get all the personnel required and go ahead with (long-duration) legal proceedings that can actually force any company to think before they even exert market power of any kind.
Consider a company earning billions per year and an EU earning - at most - a couple of billion in fines in exceptional (but not all) years - who will get the best personnel (lawyers and other staff) and who will have the stamina to go for the long duration legal proceedings?
It is a rethorical question ......... the companies targeted by the EU can "survive" the EU ...... as long as the fines are too low in such a fashion that the EU will not have the reserves that gives the EU stamina and the ability to get the best lawyers (and other staff).
The whole game would change if the fines can be much much higher ...... and this is an active topic within the entirety of the EU.
Most EU members want both the money (from fines) and the ability to enforce EU rules upon companies that have a tendency to misbehave.
Most EU members agree that there is a necessity to increase fines ...... whether this is due to "money considerations" or "enforcement considerations".
Again, I am not here to give opinions, it is better to focus on facts.
The facts need - every now and then - long pieces of text that can give a proper context.
There is no agreement or disagreement with your (last or previous) posts.
The only thing that has to be stated is that life is a bit more complex than one can imagine.
One can glorify the EU, but imperfections in the legal framework of the EU should be dealt with by the EU in an appropriate and timely fashion.
They do not, that is a simple fact.
As you do, I will return to a more practical point of view, so we can forget all of the above.
In a world of normal business, the maximum fines that can be imposed by the EU are really really high : a couple of percent of annual revenue is more than sufficient to keep any normal business in line with the plans of the EU, irregardless of the sanity of those plans.
In a world of "high margin tech" business, any (fine) percentage that is less than 10% to 15% of annual revenue is futile.
Big Tech simply has profit margins that are written in double digits, so a small percentage does not make a difference for them.
In addition, the fines themselves are mostly not tax-deductible (although there are some countries that allow tax deduction), but costs of legal proceedings are - in daily practice, the EU combats companies that are "sponsored" by EU members with tax shields concerning the legal costs of combatting fines.
@Hangover2 ......... I will not divulge on the topic, but Big Tech is able to "earn money" when being confronted with fines.
So, yes, filing complaints might be an excellent idea that allows the EU to take action, but it will also result in tax funds, paid by EU citizens like you and me, being rediverted to a company that already earns lots of money each and every year.
In conclusion, I cannot disagree or agree with your statements, since I am simply blanc on the matter.
I know the pitfalls, the tax schemes, the capability and incapability of the EU ........... to some extent, I have some insider knowledge.
However, even though I would be inclined to say that "it does not make any sense" or that "it is not effective at all (as has been proven by the past)" ......
...... I am also inclined to say that there is not a viable alternative to the filing of complaints.
In a normal world, one would simply create solid law (which is not the case now) and one would simply increase taxation for specific industries (which is certainly not the case at this moment) .......... so one has to conclude that we are not living in a normal world.
No need to make sense of the abnormal, so hence the reason why I am blanc on the matter.
Blanc - without subjective opinion ............ but I am not without words ;-)
Kind regards....
Facebook
Twitter
