Apple is not a market-dominating position-abusing (near!) monopoly. Right. Next thing you'll say is that Gordon Gekko was an enterprizing model investment banker.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple, Google Could Face Large Fines Under New UK Digital Consumer Bill
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Here's a novel idea: since 'Governments' do the contrary to protect the 'people' maybe large Tech companies create political parties. I'd vote 1 for as corporate governance would do a world of good for the world. Imagine if Apple fronted a party representing their and everyone's interests - the power they could wield in parliaments to block irrational negative and expensive regulation.
In so called socialist states, we pay high tax for "free" healthcare and we know perfectly well it is not for free. EU and US uses about the same % of GNP in healthcare. In Nordic countries, the about 10% tax goes directly into healthcare system while as I understood, the about 10% goes first to insurance companies and then to the healthcare system. The money just takes a different route for the same service. The biggest drawback of the US system is that insurance is linked to employment and as the economic system relies of about 5% unemployment, there are some who always are not covered. Seems like a failure to me. Not that our system is perfect either but at least in Denmark, the government driven hospitals are so well trimmed that the private sector have difficulties to be competitive. It is also so trimmed that the quality sometimes goes down.
Sure let the EU citizenry all use android. But if google pulls it’s search engine out let the EU citizenry use Bing or yahoo.
People always appreciate someone else paying their way. I don't dispute that in the slightest.
Last edited:
Last year I paid roughly 2% of my income into health insurance and healthcare out of pocket costs - and that was a huge/major year for us.
If I had to pay anything close to 10% of my income for healthcare, I think I would lose it.
I wasn't trying to suggest it was. My comment you originally responded to was:
"But didn't Sweden move a bit away from its previous "socialist" ways starting in the 1990s and has become more pro-capitalism in the last 30 years or so?"
And from what I’ve read, that appears to be the case. Sweden is not as "socialist" as they used to be and has become more pro-capitalism since the 1990s.
Come to the United States to buy an iPhone, pay less than in the UK.
YOU WILL PAY YOUR VAT OR BE UPGRADED
Flying to US to get an iPhone X is cheaper than buying in Europe. It's also illegal
HMRC’s rules are clear: you’ve got to pay VAT on your £390-plus US purchases when you fly home, which makes those big savings a lot less appealing
It can be some of both but regulations are a factor in all (developed) countries. It’s the high VAT that can really push prices up in Europe. The VAT in the UK is 20% and in some European countries it’s over 25%.
He's a socialist that thinks more government, excuse me, monopoly means more choice.
Wooooooowwwww that was something.
Last year, I made $50185 and paid $20756 income tax.
Looking at all available indexes that measure health, happiness, democracy, whatever, the Nordic countries play in a totally different league than the US.
The Nordic doesn’t make sense outside of the Nordic
You have much less diversity, thus less crime and conflict
You have fewer people, less resources needed, etc
Their model would fail right quick if implemented in a country like the US
Less diversity? In Sweden's third city Malmö, there are 186 nationalities. 20% of people living in Sweden are not born here (around 13% in USA). Only 65% have both parents born in Sweden.
Fewer people yes, but also a lot smaller country.
Yo, what does nationality in Sweden's third city have to do with a UK digital consumer bill?
Do they?
US should be higher by a considerable margin:
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/e26f669c-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/e26f669c-en
The US pays far more per capita for healthcare with worse outcomes and lower life expectancy. The insurance companies add little to no value for the amount they skim. While there are stories about people in other countries waiting in line for elective procedures, that glosses over the fact that many Americans can't get in line to begin with. Also, in other countries, your place in line is based on medical need, not ability to pay. If you have a more urgent need, you go to the front of the line. Many Americans have to wait until it gets bad enough to warrant an emergency visit, which clogs up EDs and treatment is more costly. Even if you do get treated, if that treatment involves Rx, then we pay far more for pharmaceuticals than any other nation.
Other countries guarantee basic healthcare for all their citizens using a number of mechanisms including socialized medicine (UK), single payer (Canada) or even private insurance (Germany, Switzerland, Israel). Citizens of those countries keep coverage, even if they lose their jobs. You can keep coverage in the US, provided you can afford COBRA. This is what corporations want however. People afraid to quit their jobs.
Even with all this soshulism, Sweden manages to have several billionaires, and their citizens are happier than Americans. The EU has its share of issues, there are always tradeoffs. Citizens of the UK are finding this out. The US has plenty of taxes, but since they vary from state to state (county, city, etc), they aren't included in pricing, VAT is.
In any case, back to the original issue, having larger fines that actually cause some pain for corporations is a good thing. However regulations also have consequences. It means that companies may decide to delay adding products and features to a given market, or not enter a market at all. Then again, the "People's Republic of California" still has a rather strong economy, even given the "onerous" taxes, regulations, and real estate costs.
Other countries guarantee basic healthcare for all their citizens using a number of mechanisms including socialized medicine (UK), single payer (Canada) or even private insurance (Germany, Switzerland, Israel). Citizens of those countries keep coverage, even if they lose their jobs. You can keep coverage in the US, provided you can afford COBRA. This is what corporations want however. People afraid to quit their jobs.
Even with all this soshulism, Sweden manages to have several billionaires, and their citizens are happier than Americans. The EU has its share of issues, there are always tradeoffs. Citizens of the UK are finding this out. The US has plenty of taxes, but since they vary from state to state (county, city, etc), they aren't included in pricing, VAT is.
In any case, back to the original issue, having larger fines that actually cause some pain for corporations is a good thing. However regulations also have consequences. It means that companies may decide to delay adding products and features to a given market, or not enter a market at all. Then again, the "People's Republic of California" still has a rather strong economy, even given the "onerous" taxes, regulations, and real estate costs.
it is actually, government spending using tax revenue is socialism, we can argue weather it is better solution or not.
sweet spot is in between Capitalism and Socialism, i would prefer closer to Capitalism.
USA is not pure capitalism either.
Socialism is the idea of public ownership and regulation of natural resources and capital (means of production). That doesn’t mean that all public/government spending is - or should be called - „socialism“. Such an idea has very little basis or support in social sciences.
Last edited:
The USA may not be 100% capitalism but it's still considered extreme by many of us who look in at it from the outside. In fact it looks downright ruthless and I'm surprised you're not all living in a state of permanent fear at the possibility of losing everything through illness. (Your greater average income and quality of life compared with other countries would also add to that fear, I imagine - ie. having further to fall...)
Most other developed nations are essentially free market economies with a dose of socialism thrown in where the profit motive would be unhealthy or where the free market approach doesn't provide the dynamism and choice necessary for improvement. I'm all for a dynamic healthy free market. I run a business. But I also fully support consumer rights, financial regulation, trade restrictions and workers rights. That's not being socialist in a communist sense. That's just being compassionate and civilised.