Bear necessities Zoo animals brand must have jeans
World News USA News America News Russia News Europa News BBC CNN RT France 24 JSC ISIS UK Obama European Union UK David Cameron Putin Army Syria Iraq Libya Egypt Vladimir Putin Germany Arabian...
By: Van24th
Continued here:
Bear necessities Zoo animals brand must have jeans - Video
Architect Frank Gehry wins Prince of Asturias Award for the Arts
World News USA News America News Russia News Europa News BBC CNN RT France 24 JSC ISIS UK Obama European Union UK David Cameron Putin Army Syria Iraq Libya Egypt Vladimir Putin Germany Arabian...
By: Van24th
See the original post:
Architect Frank Gehry wins Prince of Asturias Award for the Arts - Video
Security tightened at European airports amid US concerns of terrorism
World News USA News America News Russia News Europa News BBC CNN RT France 24 JSC ISIS UK Obama European Union UK David Cameron Putin Army Syria Iraq Libya Egypt Vladimir Putin Germany Arabian...
By: Van24th
Go here to see the original:
Security tightened at European airports amid US concerns of terrorism - Video
The European Union renewed for another five years tariffs on ammonium nitrate from Russia to protect EU producers such as Polands Zaklady Azotowe Pulawy SA from the threat of unfair price undercutting.
The EU re-imposed the duties as high as 47.07 euros ($60.46) a metric ton against Russian exporters including OAO EuroChem for allegedly having sold the fertilizer in the bloc below cost, a practice known as dumping. EU anti-dumping protection against ammonium nitrate from Russia dates to 1995.
If measures were allowed to lapse, the Union industry will in all likelihood be faced with increased unfair competition, the European Commission, the 28-nation EUs trade authority in Brussels, said today in the Official Journal. The termination of measures would undoubtedly lead to a quick deterioration of their economic situation.
Russian exporters increased their share of the EU ammonium-nitrate market to 3.1 percent in the 12 months through June 2013 from 2.3 percent in 2010, according to the commission. Other Russian exporters include OAO Acron, UralChem Holding Plc and Kemerovo-based OAO Azot.
The benefits of prolonging the 19-year-old trade protection for EU manufacturers that also include Yara France SA, GrowHow UK Ltd. and Lithuania-based AB Achema outweigh the possible disadvantages for European farmers, said the commission.
The impact of the current measures in force on Union farmers as a whole is not significant, the commission said. It predicted that Russian export prices would fall to about 221 euros a ton -- the level on the domestic market in Russia -- from 264 euros a ton during the 12 months through mid-2013 should the anti-dumping levies be repealed.
By comparison, EU producers sold ammonium nitrate at an average of 303 euros a ton in the 12 months through June 2013, according to the commission.
The five-year renewal of the anti-dumping duties, due to take effect tomorrow, is the outcome of a probe opened in July 2013 into whether to renew the measures. The inquiry, which prevented the duties from lapsing as previously scheduled at the time, stemmed from a request by a European industry group on behalf of manufacturers that accounted for more than a quarter of the EUs output of ammonium nitrate.
The duties range from 28.88 euros a ton to 47.07 euros a ton, depending on the type of ammonium nitrate and on the Russian exporter.
While EU anti-dumping protection against Russian ammonium nitrate has been in place since 1995, the duty rates initially were variable because they amounted to the difference between a minimum import price and any imports below that price. The current fixed maximum rate was set in 2002.
More:
Russia Faces Renewed European Union Tariffs on Ammonium Nitrate
The long running investigations by the European Union into Google Google and the company activities have taken another twist. Now the EU is insisting that unless Google comes up with a better settlement offer there will be a more formal investigation and that could lead to a fine of as much as $6 billion: 10% of the firms annual, global, turnover. However, weve a serious problem here: no one has managed to show as yet that Google actually deserves a fine of anything. Not only that no one has as yet managed to show that Google has done anything wrong at all. Our collective problem here is that the EU itself doesnt seem to be sure about what monopolies are and why theyre generally undesirable things.
Theres one thing we can all agree upon: in many European markets (but not all, including the Czech one that I happen to be sitting in right now) Google is the dominant search engine.
In a dramatic change of position, Joaqun Almunia, the ECs competition commissioner, told the European parliament that unless Google altered its offer to settle complaints, it could face a statement of objections, the formal path towards a fine that could equate to 10% of the companys global revenue, or about $6bn (3.7bn). Google controls more than 90% of the online search market in Europe, substantially more than in the US where it was cleared by the US federal trade commission in January 2013 of favouring its own searches to the detriment of consumers.
OK, thats certainly a dominant position. And its always worth having a look at market players with such dominant positions. For the temptation is for those who possess such to exploit their dominance to the detriment of consumers. Perhaps by limiting production to drive up prices and thus enjoy monopoly profits. Or to crush any competition that tries to arise. But note that its not the near monopoly, of the dominant position itself, that is the problem. It is the attempt to exploit such situations to the detriment of the consumer that is. And we dont actually have any evidence that Google is doing that:
The FTC said that any such favouring helped users.
Thats a bit of a difficult decision given the EUs plans. For weve a number of things here: Googles dominant position, yes, thats there. Do they favour their own services? Maybe, maybe not: but that isnt the issue at all. And their activities most certainly harm their competitors: thats how they got that dominant position after all, by taking search volume from the other players. But we dont care about that at all either. Obviously the shareholders and managements of those other players do but as a matter of public policy were only interested in whether the exploitation of a monopoly reduces consumer welfare. If, as the FTC concluded, Googles activities actually aid consumers then were just fine with what its doing.
And thats where our problem lies. The EU is proceeding on the basis that the mere existence of a dominant position must be regulated and possibly punished. Of course all of the competitors think this is just fine. But that isnt in fact what the correct course of action is. We need proof that consumer welfare is being damaged by the exercise of that dominance before we get to that stage. Thats something we dont have as yet, may never have, and so theres not any justification for the EUs current threats. Weve also a larger problem here as well of course. If one of the worlds two major anti-trust authorities doesnt actually understand the basics of what anti-trust oversight should be, well, yes, I think thats a fairly significant problem.
My latest book is 20 Economics Fallacies At Amazon or Amazon UK.
Here is the original post:
The Problem With Google's Potential $6 Billion European Union Fine