Dear Mr Lawsky, dear Mr Weber Many thanks for commenting my article: it is really helpful to hear the views of parties involved in the case. You explain your views in a very clear way and I do not think there is further need for me to reply in detail. I leave it up to the readers to make up their mind on the issues at stake and on the instances brought up by the different players. Just I would like to take the occasion to make a general comment and address what seems to be a common misunderstanding about the role of antitrust. In the last two sentences of his comment, Mr Weber suggests that weakening Google’s dominance would benefit consumers. However, weakening a company’s dominance cannot be the purpose of antitrust enforcement. Antitrust enforcement should only target a misuse of that dominance, not the dominance in itself. That is very important, because antitrust intervention could otherwise distort the incentives of any company in the future to achieve same dominance levels through pro-competitive behaviour, such as investing in the development of innovative and efficient technologies. In other words: in order to warrant antitrust intervention against Google, there must be evidence that Google misused its market power, not just that Google holds that power. Best regards Mario Mariniello
Dear Ms Maczinsky Thanks a lot for taking the time to comment my article. The quick answer to your statement can be found on the European Commission's website: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/what_en.html More generally, let me point out that your statement is not correct. The EU case law and jurisprudence is very straightforward: "competition law consists of rules that are intended to protect the process of competition in order to maximize consumer welfare" and "Numerous statements to the effect that Article 102 is actually concerned with the protection of competition rather than the protection of competitors can be found. Many of these come from the Commission [...] but they can also be found in judgments of the EU Courts" (Whish&Bailey, 2012). Best regards Mario Mariniello
China’s success in the next five years will depend largely on how well the government manages the tensions underlying its complex agenda. In particular, China’s leaders will need to balance a muscular Communist Party, setting standards and protecting the public interest, with an empowered market, driving the economy into the future.
The preference of some countries to isolate themselves within their borders is anachronistic and self-defeating, but it would be a serious mistake for others, fearing contagion, to respond by imposing strict isolation. Even in states that have succumbed to reductionist discourses, much of the population has not.
When the Bretton Woods Agreement was hashed out in 1944, it was agreed that countries with current-account deficits should be able to limit temporarily purchases of goods from countries running surpluses. In the ensuing 73 years, the so-called "scarce-currency clause" has been largely forgotten; but it may be time to bring it back.
Republican leaders have a choice: they can either continue to collaborate with President Donald Trump, thereby courting disaster, or they can renounce him, finally putting their country’s democracy ahead of loyalty to their party tribe. They are hardly the first politicians to face such a decision.
As the global economic recovery strengthens, and central banks move to raise interest rates, they need to improve their communication with the general public. To do that, they should follow the trail blazed by Donald Trump.
With talks on the UK's withdrawal from the EU stalled, negotiators should shift to the temporary “transition” Prime Minister Theresa May officially requested last month. Above all, the negotiators should focus immediately on the British budget contributions that will be required to make an orderly transition possible.
In recent decades, as President Vladimir Putin has entrenched his authority, Russia has seemed to be moving backward socially and economically. But while the Kremlin knows that it must reverse this trajectory, genuine reform would be incompatible with the kleptocratic character of Putin’s regime.
As a part of their efforts to roll back the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, congressional Republicans have approved a measure that would have courts, rather than regulators, oversee megabank bankruptcies. It is now up to the Trump administration to decide if it wants to set the stage for a repeat of the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008.