The headline couldn't be more sensational, nor could the article be more obscurely and confusingly written. That said, I think that the headline is subtly inaccurate:
> “[The claim] was based on a rationale that American companies purchased large volumes of Korean semiconductors and thus contributed to the Korean firms' earnings,” the source said. “So, if the Korean chipmakers’ partner firms in Korea are entitled to parts of the profits, the American ones are, too.”
If I'm understanding this correctly, the Korean firms are reinvesting their profits in local partners, and a US trade delegation is trying to induce them to invest similarly in US firms. "US seeks share of Korean chipmakers' 'excess profits'" implies transfers to the US federal government, like a special windfall tax, which doesn't appear to be the case here. (And it would be outrageous, of course...)
It’s always good to see of the reverse holds: if a U.S. company (say Google) made excess profits in the EU, would the EU be entitled to the excess profits?
The US is a massive economy that businesses want access to. If it wasn't extremely profitable they would exit, but they don't. That should tell you all you need to know about any "risk".
The EU has a law, the Digital Markets Act, which is pretty explicitly based on that principle. It does generate pushback from some corners, and it’s not a style of regulation that I would personally want to do if I were in charge, but my sense is that most people think the debate is kinda overheated and the EU can do what it wants.
That's the fig leaf, sure. I'm sure it has nothing to do with these companies looking like big, fat loot pinatas to bureaucrats in Brussels. And London.
The EU is the government literally making the laws. It’s as arbitrary as any government making laws. US law does not apply outside of US jurisdictions unless we are willing to use our military power to take over their sovereignty.
Do you think when the US applies its laws to foreign companies operating in their borders that it’s just made up and arbitrarily enforced?(ignoring the current admin, I would agree they are doing that by ignoring our own laws)
The EU creates new laws in order to constrain the business models of big tech, gives them a deadline to comply, and then fines them if they determine the changes weren't sufficient.
You can argue that regulation is fine and I agree, but those fines generate a lot of money. The commission then uses those funds for various programs.
If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.
> If tech companies blatantly break established law then of course they should be punished. However that's not what is happening most of the time, it's new regulations to constrain US tech.
Can you define the word “law” and the word “regulation” for me. You are using them interchangeably while arguing that they should be treated different so I can’t understand your argument beyond a strawmaned version of “I don’t like their laws so it’s not ok”.
I rather engage with the steel man version of your belief so please give me one.
They used the word “entitled” if the article is to be believed. How is this sensational? This is on par with the current admin taking 10% of Intel in exchange for giving them funds that were already awarded to Intel and were required to be given.
Edit: to be clear, the current admin is treating American companies like their property, demanding that foreign countries invest in our businesses because they made “excess profits” is only a single indirection to a windfall tax.
Also lol at the idea that these guys believe in the idea of “excess profits”. I’d put money down that they would never accept that framing for themselves.
> “[The claim] was based on a rationale that American companies purchased large volumes of Korean semiconductors and thus contributed to the Korean firms' earnings,” the source said. “So, if the Korean chipmakers’ partner firms in Korea are entitled to parts of the profits, the American ones are, too.”
If I'm understanding this correctly, the Korean firms are reinvesting their profits in local partners, and a US trade delegation is trying to induce them to invest similarly in US firms. "US seeks share of Korean chipmakers' 'excess profits'" implies transfers to the US federal government, like a special windfall tax, which doesn't appear to be the case here. (And it would be outrageous, of course...)