European Governments: High Prices Are Good for Consumers

    If you thought gasoline was high in the United States for much of the summer, you can be thankful you weren’t living in Europe where gas prices dwarf the U.S. prices. Throughout Europe many consumers recently said “Enough” and engaged in protests and civil disobedience to urge governments across the continent to do something.

    And in Europe government is definitely the source of the problem. In Great Britain, for example, the market price of a gallon of gasoline isn’t that much different from the United States — currently about $1.31. But the UK government then tacks on almost $3.40 per gallon in taxes, so the cost per gallon to consumers is a whopping $4.71. The case is similar in the other European nations. Italians pay $2.53/gallon in taxes, and Germany $2.56/gallon. Fuel taxes in the United States are too high, but in Europe they’re downright exorbitant.

    And the response of European governments boils down to a simple sentence: live with it. French truck drivers won a temporary 15% cut in the fuel tax, but other countries are holding the line. Both the UK and German governments have said they will not be lowering fuel taxes.

    German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder had to be helicopter in to an event in the city of Schwerin after protesters blockaded the land routes with trucks and tractors. Schroeder wanted protesters to “drop this dangerous game because it could threaten the growth and employment prospects we currently have.” If the German state blocks growth with confiscatory gas taxes, that’s okay with Schroeder. Let the consumers who bear the brunt of idiotic tax policies dare to protest, however, and they become a threat to the entire nation’s economic prospects.

    European governments in general seem to view end consumers of goods as annoying pests who don’t understand the joy of government intervention in the market. Germany, for example, recently took the bizarre act of ordering Wal-Mart and several other large grocers to raise their prices in that nation. The German Cartel Office complained that Wal-Mart as well as grocers Aldi and Lidl were selling some products such as milk, butter, flour and cooking oil below cost which is illegal in Germany (in the United States such actions are legal or illegal depending on the prevailing winds of antitrust politics, with the U.S. going after Microsoft for allegedly under pricing while simultaneously going after record companies for overpricing the cost of goods).

   The Germans apparently think the grocers are lowering prices to drive smaller concerns out of business, after which they will raise prices, but I have yet to see any concrete example of this happening in the real world. Much more likely is that the sort of economies of scale enjoyed by advances companies such as Wal-Mart have made in inventory management allows them to offer some basic goods that have mature pricing schemes at a slight loss since they more than make up the small loss on the wide range of other products such huge mega-markets sell.

    The sheep weren’t buying the justification, with one man telling the Associated Press that, “Life in Germany is expensive enough as it is. When the likes of Wal-Mart come along and force the others to pull down their prices, that’s a good thing.”

    Leave it to Europe’s pseudo-socialist governments to enter the new millenium championing the fine art of screwing the consumer with high prices.

Sources:

World ‘faces oil crisis’. The BBC, September 12, 2000.

Fuel crisis grips Europe. The BBC, September 12, 2000.

European leaders remain defiant over fuel protests. CNN, September 13, 2000.

Germany targets Wal-Mart. Stephen Graham, The Associated Press, September 9, 2000.

Jakob Nielsen and the Idiocy of the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case

The funniest thing about the whole antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft was
watching how Microsoft’s detractors continually talk out of both sides of their
mouths. Even professionals writing in the computer industry often seem like
they just don’t get it.

Take web design guru Jakob Nielsen (please). At his site’s Spotlight section, Nielsen briefly outlines Microsoft’s new ClearType technology, which
supposedly makes text easier to read on monitors. Nielsen reports that:

A Microsoft manager is quoted as saying that ClearType will be available
next year “for all Microsoft applications.” The Anti-Trust folks should look
into this. If ClearType is made available for Microsoft applications and not
integrated fully into the operating system, then that is the final kiss of
death for any independent software developers. Nobody wants to spend 10% more
time reading their email, their spreadsheets, their documents – or web pages,
for that. So once ClearType becomes prevalent, nobody will use any software
that doesn’t have it.

Has Nielsen been asleep over the past few months? The antitrust trial specifically
sought to prevent Microsoft from integrating something like ClearType into the
operating system with the claim that by integrating something like ClearType
at the OS level, Microsoft was harming developers who might come up with their
own technologies to do the same thing. The entire Justice Department case against
Microsoft is implicitly predicated on the notion that if Microsoft is allowed
to embed something like ClearType at the OS level that will discourage innovation
by making it unprofitable for other companies to work on their own software
to make computer text easier to read.

And as Nielsen inadvertently demonstrates, this is stupid since it puts the
government in the position of making a wide range of close calls about software
since it makes judges and lawyers responsible for deciding what should go in
an OS and what should go in an application.