French Protectionists: Stuff It!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Uh, I don’t understand your position here. In the end Amazon will still be raking in the dough. It’s Amazon’s French customers that are punished. Why do you hate French bibliophiles? Why do you want to force them to pay more, when someone offers them a break?[/quote]

This goes beyond saving a few Euros on a book. You’re questioning the way the French people chose to live their lives. I, for one, recognize the French people’s right to self-determination. They do not feel comfortable with the rule of the jungle where the lion eats and the zebra starve, err…gets eaten.

Take the iPhone for example. In the US, you cannot legally get a different operator than AT&T. I won’t speak of experience here, but they don’t come off as the most ethical company out there, nor do their data plans seem interesting. In France, Apple is required by law to sell the phones without the sort of binding contracts you get elsewhere. They bitched, screamed and stomped their feet, but they came back courting French money anyway. It’s an obvious win for the customers.

A friend of mine in Paris walked into a store on Tuesday to get one of those Asus EeePC’s that are selling like hotcakes. The clerk refused to sell him one without a 24-month data plan. My friend showed the relevant law to the guy and demanded respect of the law. The clerk refused. My friend threatened a lawsuit, then calls the cops to have witnesses. The clerk caves and wraps up the machine. Another win!

The French customer is probably the most protected in the world. They’re not so shortsighted as to entrust some mega-corporation to have their best interests at heart. France is the country where more McDonalds have been trashed than anywhere else on the planet because they were driving traditional businesses out of market, and the guy trashing them ran for president. You show me a country where a convict with repeated offenses for rioting, public disorder and violence runs for president.

If you must know my position on this particular issue, I like free-shipping very much (although I’ll stick to electronic copies whenever possible). But I also believe safeguards are needed. Otherwise, you end up with a few big corps running the show. Those eventually get so powerful that they end up practically telling the government what to do. And trust me, the French are not ready just yet to call it the “government of the corporations”.

I’ll end this rant by pointing out that which nobody picked up from my posts so far. This is NOT protectionism! It has nothing to do with Amazon being an overseas company.

42

That’s alot of words to obscure a simple question. Why do you support denying individuals the ability to buy books from Amazon, with the money saving deal Amazon is offering? If an individual decides they’d rather forgo the offer and refrain from purchasing from Amazon, they can. Amazon isn’t using coercive force to make french individuals purchase from them. The are offering an option, a choice, to shop with them and recieve a perk.

To deny the French the ability to take advantage of the offer Amazon has presented, is to remove choice from the French consumer. Why do you hate the individual french consumer so much? Don’t you want them to be free to choose?

43

No one is forcing the French to buy from Amazon. It seems that the union is trying to control how they live their lives. Let the people decide.

44

[quote]Sloth wrote:
That’s alot of words to obscure a simple question. Why do you support denying individuals the ability to buy books from Amazon, with the money saving deal Amazon is offering? If an individual decides they’d rather forgo the offer and refrain from purchasing from Amazon, they can. Amazon isn’t using coercive force to make french individuals purchase from them. The are offering an option, a choice, to shop with them and recieve a perk.

To deny the French the ability to take advantage of the offer Amazon has presented, is to remove choice from the French consumer. Why do you hate the individual french consumer so much? Don’t you want them to be free to choose?[/quote]

Lixy is a hypocrite. He puts his anti-Americanism first in every issue. He has portrayed himself as a socialist, a libertarian, displayed liberal values, displayed conservative values, etc., basically whatever it takes to stand against America’s government, corporations and citizens.

45

[quote]Sloth wrote:
That’s alot of words to obscure a simple question. Why do you support denying individuals the ability to buy books from Amazon, with the money saving deal Amazon is offering? If an individual decides they’d rather forgo the offer and refrain from purchasing from Amazon, they can. Amazon isn’t using coercive force to make french individuals purchase from them. The are offering an option, a choice, to shop with them and recieve a perk.

To deny the French the ability to take advantage of the offer Amazon has presented, is to remove choice from the French consumer. Why do you hate the individual french consumer so much? Don’t you want them to be free to choose?[/quote]

You don’t seem to understand that the law reflects the view of the French people. You separate the will of the French people to see small businesses protected against aggressive pricing, from the French consumers. I honestly do not understand why you do that. So please explain.

As for choice, today, the French people can choose between supporting their local librarian or buying on the web. Tomorrow, and if the big guns get their way, they may not have that choice.

Take the town I reside in for example. The local library was driven out of business because online companies have much lower prices (and free shipping). Which means that I am now unable to go into a store and walk out with a textbook. I have to wait around 10 days to get it delivered. It is not really choice. But I also respect the Swedes’ decision not to regulate the market like it is the case in France.

Most idiots here (you asked for it BB) clung to the fact that Amazon is an American company. Get over yourselves you morons! The world doesn’t revolve around America. And to Zap (the ultimate idiot!), my philosophy is closer to libertarian socialism. I am not going to bother walking you through the inconsistencies of your post. That’ll be your homework.

46

[quote]lixy wrote:

This is kinda similar to oil companies bitching about Chavez’s reforms. They wave their hands, curse and moan, but come back begging for a piece of the cake no matter what. The case of Amazon raising hell over the ruling is no different. At the end of the day, they’ll still be there to pocket French Euros.[/quote]

The difference is in the applicability of an international trade agreement - obviously applicable to a tarriff; not obviously applicable to an internal criminal law.

47

[quote]lixy wrote:
…
As for choice, today, the French people can choose between supporting their local librarian or buying on the web. Tomorrow, and if the big guns get their way, they may not have that choice.
…[/quote]

And how exactly would this happen? Because not enough French consumers would choose to pay a higher cost?

48

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:

This is kinda similar to oil companies bitching about Chavez’s reforms. They wave their hands, curse and moan, but come back begging for a piece of the cake no matter what. The case of Amazon raising hell over the ruling is no different. At the end of the day, they’ll still be there to pocket French Euros.

The difference is in the applicability of an international trade agreement - obviously applicable to a tarriff; not obviously applicable to an internal criminal law.[/quote]

You have misunderstood the story. There’s nothing about tariffs in this affair. It’s Amazon’s violation of a 1981 law requiring books be sold at the same price everywhere that’s controversial here. Amazon is appealing the verdict but I personally don’t see it getting anywhere, despite the relative ambiguity of the law on shipping costs.

Slashing prices on books is a transgression of French internal law, and I don’t see it any differently than the Antigua case.

Unions are a business in France. They’re far beyond any other country I know of. Because of that, they have to justify their expensive cars, bloated salaries and huge offices. You don’t want to go against them. They are extremely influential, use bully tactics and dirty techniques. In this particular case, I don’t see Amazon winning. They are operating in violation of the law, and are getting smacked for that. If you don’t like the law and want to change it, that’s another story. But I don’t see that happening either.

49

[quote]lixy wrote:
…my philosophy is closer to libertarian socialism. [/quote]

BTW, please explain this to me. After your explanation, I will enjoy reading orion’s response.

50

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:
…my philosophy is closer to libertarian socialism.

BTW, please explain this to me. After your explanation, I will enjoy reading orion’s response.[/quote]

As much as I am loathe to get entangled in the PaWI forum…

This calls for popcorn!

51

[quote]

lixy wrote:

This is kinda similar to oil companies bitching about Chavez’s reforms. They wave their hands, curse and moan, but come back begging for a piece of the cake no matter what. The case of Amazon raising hell over the ruling is no different. At the end of the day, they’ll still be there to pocket French Euros.

BostonBarrister wrote:

The difference is in the applicability of an international trade agreement - obviously applicable to a tarriff; not obviously applicable to an internal criminal law.

lixy wrote:

You have misunderstood the story. There’s nothing about tariffs in this affair. It’s Amazon’s violation of a 1981 law requiring books be sold at the same price everywhere that’s controversial here. Amazon is appealing the verdict but I personally don’t see it getting anywhere, despite the relative ambiguity of the law on shipping costs.

Slashing prices on books is a transgression of French internal law, and I don’t see it any differently than the Antigua case.

Unions are a business in France. They’re far beyond any other country I know of. Because of that, they have to justify their expensive cars, bloated salaries and huge offices. You don’t want to go against them. They are extremely influential, use bully tactics and dirty techniques. In this particular case, I don’t see Amazon winning. They are operating in violation of the law, and are getting smacked for that. If you don’t like the law and want to change it, that’s another story. But I don’t see that happening either.[/quote]

I haven’t misunderstood a thing. To a consumer, a price floor has the same effect as a subsidy, which has the same effect as a tarriff: it’s an artificial increase in the price of goods paid by domestic consumers. To a producer, it’s a restraint on competition - in this case, restricting Amazon from competing on price when it cannot compete in certain other areas, such as the “walk in” factor or speed factor. In this case, that is a restriction on the ability of a foreign producer to compete in the market - and a restriction on the consumer from deciding whether he prefers a lower price or a local store.

The U.S. case w/ Antigua, on the other hand, isn’t about pricing internet gambling - it’s about banning internet gambling criminally.

52

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

lixy wrote:

This is kinda similar to oil companies bitching about Chavez’s reforms. They wave their hands, curse and moan, but come back begging for a piece of the cake no matter what. The case of Amazon raising hell over the ruling is no different. At the end of the day, they’ll still be there to pocket French Euros.

BostonBarrister wrote:

The difference is in the applicability of an international trade agreement - obviously applicable to a tarriff; not obviously applicable to an internal criminal law.

lixy wrote:

You have misunderstood the story. There’s nothing about tariffs in this affair. It’s Amazon’s violation of a 1981 law requiring books be sold at the same price everywhere that’s controversial here. Amazon is appealing the verdict but I personally don’t see it getting anywhere, despite the relative ambiguity of the law on shipping costs.

Slashing prices on books is a transgression of French internal law, and I don’t see it any differently than the Antigua case.

Unions are a business in France. They’re far beyond any other country I know of. Because of that, they have to justify their expensive cars, bloated salaries and huge offices. You don’t want to go against them. They are extremely influential, use bully tactics and dirty techniques. In this particular case, I don’t see Amazon winning. They are operating in violation of the law, and are getting smacked for that. If you don’t like the law and want to change it, that’s another story. But I don’t see that happening either.

I haven’t misunderstood a thing. To a consumer, a price floor has the same effect as a subsidy, which has the same effect as a tarriff: it’s an artificial increase in the price of goods paid by domestic consumers. To a producer, it’s a restraint on competition - in this case, restricting Amazon from competing on price when it cannot compete in certain other areas, such as the “walk in” factor or speed factor. In this case, that is a restriction on the ability of a foreign producer to compete in the market - and a restriction on the consumer from deciding whether he prefers a lower price or a local store.

The U.S. case w/ Antigua, on the other hand, isn’t about pricing internet gambling - it’s about banning internet gambling criminally.[/quote]

I see. You’d only accept the analogy if France actually banned books, right?

53

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:

Meanwhile, I’ll let you ponder Robert Reich’s words: “Corporations are not engaged in a diabolical plot, […] Companies are not interested in the public good. It is not their responsibility to be good.”

Great quote. This should be copied and given to all the CEOs who waste shareholder money - without shareholder consent - on various causes to make the CEOs feel good or to get their names in the media.[/quote]

Interestingly, for anyone who has read the book - as it is clear Lixy has not - Reich’s point was that it was ok that corporations behaved this way, and it was dumb for us to expect them to act otherwise. Reich noted that corporations were not “inherently evil” for the role they played, precisely the opposite of what Lixy posited.

54

[quote]lixy wrote:

I see. You’d only accept the analogy if France actually banned books, right?[/quote]

Yes - if France banned books, and then the U.S. sued France because France prosecuted Amazon for selling books into France on the internet, that would be analogous to your Antigua case.

55

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
That’s alot of words to obscure a simple question. Why do you support denying individuals the ability to buy books from Amazon, with the money saving deal Amazon is offering? If an individual decides they’d rather forgo the offer and refrain from purchasing from Amazon, they can. Amazon isn’t using coercive force to make french individuals purchase from them. The are offering an option, a choice, to shop with them and recieve a perk.

To deny the French the ability to take advantage of the offer Amazon has presented, is to remove choice from the French consumer. Why do you hate the individual french consumer so much? Don’t you want them to be free to choose?

You don’t seem to understand that the law reflects the view of the French people. You separate the will of the French people to see small businesses protected against aggressive pricing, from the French consumers. I honestly do not understand why you do that. So please explain.

As for choice, today, the French people can choose between supporting their local librarian or buying on the web. Tomorrow, and if the big guns get their way, they may not have that choice.

Take the town I reside in for example. The local library was driven out of business because online companies have much lower prices (and free shipping). Which means that I am now unable to go into a store and walk out with a textbook. I have to wait around 10 days to get it delivered. It is not really choice. But I also respect the Swedes’ decision not to regulate the market like it is the case in France.

Most idiots here (you asked for it BB) clung to the fact that Amazon is an American company. Get over yourselves you morons! The world doesn’t revolve around America. And to Zap (the ultimate idiot!), my philosophy is closer to libertarian socialism. I am not going to bother walking you through the inconsistencies of your post. That’ll be your homework.[/quote]

So you are saying that this law reflects the will of the French people.

If that is so, why do you not want them to decide for themselves in the marketplace?

If they want to support their local bookstores they can after all? Why do they need to be forced to do what they allegedly really want anyway?

You do not seem to get that this law protects French companies from competition, which is hurting the customers.

So, how big does a company have to get to become the debil?

56

[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:

This is kinda similar to oil companies bitching about Chavez’s reforms. They wave their hands, curse and moan, but come back begging for a piece of the cake no matter what. The case of Amazon raising hell over the ruling is no different. At the end of the day, they’ll still be there to pocket French Euros.

…

Uh, I don’t understand your position here. In the end Amazon will still be raking in the dough. It’s Amazon’s French customers that are punished. Why do you hate French bibliophiles? Why do you want to force them to pay more, when someone offers them a break?[/quote]

Since France is full of Muslims, he doesn’t want those Muslims to have a chance to read and liberate themselves from their medieval religion.