The headline couldn't be more sensational, nor could the article be more obscurely and confusingly written. That said, I think that the headline is subtly inaccurate:
> “[The claim] was based on a rationale that American companies purchased large volumes of Korean semiconductors and thus contributed to the Korean firms' earnings,” the source said. “So, if the Korean chipmakers’ partner firms in Korea are entitled to parts of the profits, the American ones are, too.”
If I'm understanding this correctly, the Korean firms are reinvesting their profits in local partners, and a US trade delegation is trying to induce them to invest similarly in US firms. "US seeks share of Korean chipmakers' 'excess profits'" implies transfers to the US federal government, like a special windfall tax, which doesn't appear to be the case here. (And it would be outrageous, of course...)
It’s always good to see of the reverse holds: if a U.S. company (say Google) made excess profits in the EU, would the EU be entitled to the excess profits?
The US is a massive economy that businesses want access to. If it wasn't extremely profitable they would exit, but they don't. That should tell you all you need to know about any "risk".
That's the fig leaf, sure. I'm sure it has nothing to do with these companies looking like big, fat loot pinatas to bureaucrats in Brussels. And London.
The EU creates new laws in order to constrain the business models of big tech, gives them a deadline to comply, and then fines them if they determine the changes weren't sufficient.
You can argue that regulation is fine and I agree, but those fines generate a lot of money. The commission then uses those funds for various programs.
If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.
> If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.
Can you define the word “law” and the word “regulation” for me. You are using them interchangeably while arguing that they should be treated different so I can’t understand your argument beyond a strawmaned version of “I don’t like their laws so it’s not ok”.
I rather engage with the steel man version of your belief so please give me one.
"A regulation is a legal act of the European Union which becomes immediately enforceable as law in all member states simultaneously."
I think it's fine that I used the terms interchangeably but you can disagree if you want. Pick the term you prefer instead.
Also, I didn't say "I don't like the EU's laws/regulations". I'm stating that they do target US tech with NEW laws/regulations and the result is large fines. A lot of the time they are wrapped up in a PR package about competition and after years of this, Europeans still prefer to use US tech.
> I think it's fine that I used the terms interchangeably but you can disagree if you want. Pick the term you prefer instead.
This is what you said most recently
> If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.
This is what you said originally that makes a distinction between law and regulation.
I truly cannot understand what you mean if you cannot define these as separate definitions but treat them like they are separate definitions.
The only distinction I made was between established and new. It truly doesn't matter at all if I use both law and regulation even in the same sentence.
The EU is the government literally making the laws. It’s as arbitrary as any government making laws. US law does not apply outside of US jurisdictions unless we are willing to use our military power to take over their sovereignty.
Do you think when the US applies its laws to foreign companies operating in their borders that it’s just made up and arbitrarily enforced?(ignoring the current admin, I would agree they are doing that by ignoring our own laws)
The EU has a law, the Digital Markets Act, which is pretty explicitly based on that principle. It does generate pushback from some corners, and it’s not a style of regulation that I would personally want to do if I were in charge, but my sense is that most people think the debate is kinda overheated and the EU can do what it wants.
They used the word “entitled” if the article is to be believed. How is this sensational? This is on par with the current admin taking 10% of Intel in exchange for giving them funds that were already awarded to Intel and were required to be given.
Edit: to be clear, the current admin is treating American companies like their property, demanding that foreign countries invest in our businesses because they made “excess profits” is only a single indirection to a windfall tax.
Also lol at the idea that these guys believe in the idea of “excess profits”. I’d put money down that they would never accept that framing for themselves.
The headline couldn't be more sensational, nor could the article be more obscurely and confusingly written. That said, I think that the headline is subtly inaccurate:
> “[The claim] was based on a rationale that American companies purchased large volumes of Korean semiconductors and thus contributed to the Korean firms' earnings,” the source said. “So, if the Korean chipmakers’ partner firms in Korea are entitled to parts of the profits, the American ones are, too.”
If I'm understanding this correctly, the Korean firms are reinvesting their profits in local partners, and a US trade delegation is trying to induce them to invest similarly in US firms. "US seeks share of Korean chipmakers' 'excess profits'" implies transfers to the US federal government, like a special windfall tax, which doesn't appear to be the case here. (And it would be outrageous, of course...)
It’s always good to see of the reverse holds: if a U.S. company (say Google) made excess profits in the EU, would the EU be entitled to the excess profits?
I would imagine a lot of pushback…
No, because the rule is not that excess profits must go to the buyer's country - the rule is that excess profits must go to the US.
See also the story of TikTok.
At this point, doing business in the US is an existential risk to any company.
The US is a massive economy that businesses want access to. If it wasn't extremely profitable they would exit, but they don't. That should tell you all you need to know about any "risk".
The US is rapidly trying to destroy this status.
Isn't that the real reason the EU keeps suing/fining FAANG companies?
No, it’s because they keep breaking the law in the jurisdiction they are operating in.
That's the fig leaf, sure. I'm sure it has nothing to do with these companies looking like big, fat loot pinatas to bureaucrats in Brussels. And London.
The EU creates new laws in order to constrain the business models of big tech, gives them a deadline to comply, and then fines them if they determine the changes weren't sufficient.
You can argue that regulation is fine and I agree, but those fines generate a lot of money. The commission then uses those funds for various programs.
If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.
> The EU creates new laws…
> If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.
Can you define the word “law” and the word “regulation” for me. You are using them interchangeably while arguing that they should be treated different so I can’t understand your argument beyond a strawmaned version of “I don’t like their laws so it’s not ok”.
I rather engage with the steel man version of your belief so please give me one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)
"A regulation is a legal act of the European Union which becomes immediately enforceable as law in all member states simultaneously."
I think it's fine that I used the terms interchangeably but you can disagree if you want. Pick the term you prefer instead.
Also, I didn't say "I don't like the EU's laws/regulations". I'm stating that they do target US tech with NEW laws/regulations and the result is large fines. A lot of the time they are wrapped up in a PR package about competition and after years of this, Europeans still prefer to use US tech.
> I think it's fine that I used the terms interchangeably but you can disagree if you want. Pick the term you prefer instead.
This is what you said most recently
> If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.
This is what you said originally that makes a distinction between law and regulation.
I truly cannot understand what you mean if you cannot define these as separate definitions but treat them like they are separate definitions.
Please help me square your world view.
The only distinction I made was between established and new. It truly doesn't matter at all if I use both law and regulation even in the same sentence.
So your only problem is that the laws are new and regulating American corporate actions, not the laws itself?
What is your cutoff timeline for where it’s an established law vs a new regulation?
Easy to say they break the law when it’s a law the EU just makes up and arbitrarily enforces.
The EU is the government literally making the laws. It’s as arbitrary as any government making laws. US law does not apply outside of US jurisdictions unless we are willing to use our military power to take over their sovereignty.
Do you think when the US applies its laws to foreign companies operating in their borders that it’s just made up and arbitrarily enforced?(ignoring the current admin, I would agree they are doing that by ignoring our own laws)
The EU has a law, the Digital Markets Act, which is pretty explicitly based on that principle. It does generate pushback from some corners, and it’s not a style of regulation that I would personally want to do if I were in charge, but my sense is that most people think the debate is kinda overheated and the EU can do what it wants.
I wonder if the complaint is Korean firms are recognizing profits in Korea by overpricing products sold to subsidiaries in the US.
In theory that's illegal, though I've never seen a company get busted for it.
They used the word “entitled” if the article is to be believed. How is this sensational? This is on par with the current admin taking 10% of Intel in exchange for giving them funds that were already awarded to Intel and were required to be given.
Edit: to be clear, the current admin is treating American companies like their property, demanding that foreign countries invest in our businesses because they made “excess profits” is only a single indirection to a windfall tax.
Also lol at the idea that these guys believe in the idea of “excess profits”. I’d put money down that they would never accept that framing for themselves.
under fascism, there's not much difference; maybe your assumptions are outdated.
World mafia doing mafia things.
But, if you need protection, you have to pay for it.