Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderMatt
Frankly, I probably wouldn't care much if the EU hadn't attacked U.S. companies. For instance, I don't agree with your government's plan to nationalize Northern Rock, but it doesn't really affect me.  So, in a nutshell, my cynicism comes from my being hardcore laissez-faire and every time I see press on the EU it's usually about them picking a fight with some company. |
An attitude of
laissez-faire is fine as a general principle, but it has to have limits. It was the mid-Victorian enthusiasm for
laissez-faire, for example, which saw 6 year old boys being sent up chimneys by chimney-sweeps. There are some things that government has to take a hand in, and unfair commercial practices is one of them.
A couple of examples where EU "interference" has been a good thing for consumers is the mobile phone business (where all the operators had ludicrously high "roaming" charges between EU countries), and the motor industry (where all the manufacturers were engaged in an illegal cartel to artificially fix prices). EU involvement has resulted in massive cuts in roaming charges for mobile phone users, and real competition in the motor industry's pricing - all good for the consumer.
Some things I don't agree with, however; I agree with you that Microsoft are being punished for their own success - but hasn't something similar happened in the US too?
The Northern Rock business is a tricky one. Yes, one might argue that they got themselves into trouble through dubious investments, but they are a major bank with some US$200bn of assets. London is one of the world's major financial centres; if investors had doubts that money placed with a UK bank was "safe", it could seriously damage the reputation of the City of London as a banking centre; I think the government had no choice but to intervene, exceptional though it is to do so. NR was the first UK bank to experience a "run" in over a century.