←back to thread

Apple vs the Law

(formularsumo.co.uk)
377 points tempodox | 3 comments | 11 Jul 25 06:49 UTC | HN request time: 0.575s | source
Show context
simonask ◴[11 Jul 25 08:22 UTC] No.44529604[source]▶
As a European, I have to say I am generally impressed with the EU in these cases. I'm from a country that's rich and capable, but with a GDP a fraction of Apple's market cap. There is no chance that national laws and entities would be sufficient to protect my consumer rights from corporations this size.

The EU is fundamentally a centre-right, liberalist, pro-business coalition, but what that means is that it is pro-competition. What's really impressive is that it seems to mostly refrain from devolving into protectionist policies, giving no preferential treatment to European businesses against international (intercontinental?) competitors, despite strong populist tendencies in certain member states.

replies(6): >>44529791 #>>44529860 #>>44530729 #>>44530812 #>>44530885 #>>44540013 #
giingyui ◴[11 Jul 25 10:58 UTC] No.44530729[source]▶
Europe is centre right? That is an interesting claim. I guess someone’s right is someone else’s left.
replies(4): >>44530794 #>>44530862 #>>44530902 #>>44533757 #
xandrius ◴[11 Jul 25 11:09 UTC] No.44530794[source]▶
Where would you place it? I'm curious because centre-right is quite spot on.
replies(1): >>44531072 #
giingyui ◴[11 Jul 25 11:50 UTC] No.44531072[source]▶
Socially and economically left wing. Progressive socially and interventionist economically.
replies(2): >>44531482 #>>44531716 #
cess11 ◴[11 Jul 25 12:44 UTC] No.44531482[source]▶
Is this a joke? The EU is the product of large industrialists institutionalising their liberalist, capitalist values as an international bureaucracy.

It hardly cares about unions beyond what the ECHR and ILO treaties demands, i.e. it's obviously not left wing. If it was inherently left wing it wouldn't have the kind of parliament it has, but rather something like Yugoslavia or the DDR did.

It's also not conservative, hence why that movement has had to bolt on militarisation and stuff like Frontex.

replies(3): >>44531562 #>>44531787 #>>44532959 #
1. carlosjobim ◴[11 Jul 25 15:04 UTC] No.44532959[source]▶
The Soviet Union had large industrialists and so does China. Large companies and large industry is the defining aspect of both socialism and capitalism.
replies(2): >>44539626 #>>44540108 #
2. vkou ◴[12 Jul 25 05:45 UTC] No.44539626[source]▶
Large companies and large industry is the defining aspect of an industrialized society with quick travel and near-instantaneous communication across large distances.

As soon as it's possible to run efficiently a large enterprise (Thanks to the telegraph, and an extensive rail/road + automotive network), economies of scale will favor consolidation.

3. tsimionescu ◴[12 Jul 25 07:39 UTC] No.44540108[source]▶
The Soviet Union and China are/were not and have virtually never been socialist countries - they are/were state capitalist economies.

Socialism means "corporations are owned by the people working in them", as in co-ops. State-owned corporations under brutal dictatorships are in no conceivable way "worker-owned". They all called themselves socialist just as they called themselves democratic - as in, basic propaganda.

This is very relevant in a discussion of left-wing VS right-wing economies. The Soviet Union and China are firmly in the right wing in reality, just as much as Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy were. They just had different propaganda.

A small note: state owned companies under actual Democratic societies is a more complex topic on the left-wing VS right-wing debate, that I won't go into here.