Forestil jer, at vi er i 1957. Repræsentanter fra seks europæiske lande er rejst til Rom for at underskrive traktaten, der skal skabe den europæiske union. Europa var ødelagt. En verdenskrig udsprang af Europa. De menneskelige lidelser var ufattelige og aldrig set tidligere. Mændene ønskede at skabe et fredeligt, demokratisk Europa. Et Europa der er til gavn for folket.
Let's go back to 1957. Representatives from six European countries had come to Rome to sign the treaty that was to create the European Union. Europe was destroyed. A world war had emerged from Europe. The human suffering was unbelievable and unprecedented. Those men wanted to create a peaceful, democratic Europe, a Europe that works for its people.
Og et af de mange elementer i dét fredsprojekt var et fælles europæisk marked. Allerede dengang vidste man hvordan markeder, der er overladt til sig selv, kan ende med at blive en privat klub for store virksomheder og karteller, der kun tilgodeser visse virksomheders behov og ikke kundernes behov.
And one of the many building blocks in that peace project was a common European market. Already back then, they saw how markets, when left to themselves, can sort of slip into being just the private property of big businesses and cartels, meeting the needs of some businesses and not the needs of customers.
Så lige fra begyndelsen i 1957, har den Europæiske Union haft regler, der beskytter den frie konkurrence. Og det betyder konkurrence på basis af, at du konkurrerer på kvaliteten af dine produkter, de priser du kan tilbyde, de tjenester og den fornyelse du leverer. Dét er konkurrence på værdier. Alle har de samme muligheder for at klare sig på sådan et marked Og det er mit job som konkurrencekommissær at sikre at virksomheder, der gør forretninger i Europa, overholder disse regler.
So from our very first day, in 1957, the European Union had rules to defend fair competition. And that means competition on the merits, that you compete on the quality of your products, the prices you can offer, the services, the innovation that you produce. That's competition on the merits. You have a fair chance of making it on such a market. And it's my job, as Commissioner for Competition, to make sure that companies who do business in Europe live by those rules.
Men lad os træde et skridt baglæns. Behøver vi overhovedet regler for konkurrence? Hvorfor ikke bare lade virksomheder konkurrere? Vil det ikke også være bedst for os at de konkurrerer frit, eftersom mere konkurrence medfører højere kvalitet, lavere priser, mere innovation? Jo, som oftest ... men problemet er at virksomheder sommetider finder konkurrencen ubelejlig, for konkurrence betyder at kapløbet aldrig slutter, og spillet aldrig vundet. Uanset hvor godt du har klaret dig tidligere, er der altid nogen derude, der ønsker at overtage din plads. Så fristelsen til at undgå konkurrence er stærk. Den er rodfæstet i motiver så gamle som Adam og Eva: I begæret efter endnu flere penge, i frygten for at miste markedsandele og alle de fordele det fører med sig.
But let's take a step back. Why do we need rules on competition at all? Why not just let businesses compete? Isn't that also the best for us if they compete freely, since more competition drives more quality, lower prices, more innovation? Well, mostly it is. But the problem is that sometimes, for businesses, competition can be inconvenient, because competition means that the race is never over, the game is never won. No matter how well you were doing in the past, there's always someone who are out there wanting to take your place. So the temptation to avoid competition is powerful. It's rooted in motives as old as Adam and Eve: in greed for yet more money, in fear of losing your position in the market and all the benefits it brings.
Og når grådighed og frygt er knyttet til magt, opstår der en farlig kombination. Vi ser det i det politiske liv. I dele af verden medfører grådighed og frygt at dem, der får magten, kun modstræbende giver den tilbage. En af de mange ting jeg beundrer og holder af i vores demokratier er de spilleregler, der får vores ledere til at give magten fra sig, når vælgerne har besluttet det. Og regler for konkurrence kan gøre tilsvarende for markeder, og sikre at grådighed og frygt ikke forhindrer retfærdighed. For de regler betyder at virksomheder ikke kan misbruge deres magt til at underminere konkurrenterne.
And when greed and fear are linked to power, you have a dangerous mix. We see that in political life. In part of the world, the mix of greed and fear means that those who get power become reluctant to give it back. One of the many things I like and admire in our democracies are the norms that make our leaders hand over power when voters tell them to. And competition rules can do a similar thing in the market, making sure that greed and fear doesn't overcome fairness. Because those rules mean that companies cannot misuse their power to undermine competition.
Tænk på din bil. Den har tusindvis af dele lige fra skummet i sæderne til de elektriske ledninger til lyspærerne. Og for mange af disse dele er verdens bilfabrikanter afhængige af ganske få leverandører. Så det kan næppe overraske at det er fristende for disse leverandører at mødes og fastsætte priserne. Men forestil dig hvad det ville betyde for prisen på din nye bil. Men det er ikke kun et tankeeksperiment. Den Europæiske Kommission har allerede håndteret syv forskellige karteller inden for dele til biler, og vi undersøger stadig et par stykker. Det amerikanske Justitsministerium undersøger også markedet for bildele, og de har kaldt det for den største kriminalefterforskning, de nogensinde har foretaget. Men uden konkurrenceregler, ville der ikke være undersøgelser, og intet der kunne forhindre sådant aftalt spil i at finde sted og prisen på din bil ville være højere.
Think for a moment about your car. It has thousands of parts, from the foam that makes the seats to the electrical wiring to the light bulbs. And for many of those parts, the world's carmakers, they are dependent on only a few suppliers. So it's hardly surprising that it is kind of tempting for those suppliers to come together and fix prices. But just imagine what that could do to the final price of your new car in the market. Except, it's not imaginary. The European Commission has dealt with already seven different car parts cartels, and we're still investigating some. Here, the Department of Justice are also looking into the market for car parts, and it has called it the biggest criminal investigation it has ever pursued. But without competition rules, there would be no investigation, and there would be nothing to stop this collusion from happening and the prices of your car to go up.
Men det er ikke kun virksomheder der begrænser den frie konkurrence. Regeringer kan også gøre det. Og det gør regeringer, når de yder statsstøtte til nogle få udvalgte - deres favoritter. Det kan ske, når de yder statsstøtte, og i sagens natur alene betalt af skatteyderne, til virksomheder. Det kan være i form af særlige skatteregler, såsom de skattefordele som Fiat, Starbucks og Apple fik af nogle europæiske regeringer. Den slags støtte forhindrer virksomheder i at konkurrere på lige vilkår. Det kan betyde at de virksomheder, der klarer sig bedst bare er de virksomheder, der har fået mest i støtte, dem der har de bedste forbindelser, og ikke som det burde være, de virksomheder der betjener deres kunder bedst. Så nogle gange må vi gribe ind for at sikre at konkurrencen fungerer som den skal. Ved at gøre dét, hjælper vi markedet til at fungere på en fair måde, fordi konkurrence giver forbrugerne magten til at forlange en fair handel. Det betyder at virksomheder ved, at hvis de ikke kan tilbyde gode priser eller levere de ydelser, der forventes, ja, så vil kunderne gå et andet sted hen.
Yet it's not only companies who can undermine fair competition. Governments can do it, too. And governments do that when they hand out subsidies to just the favorite few, the selected. They may do that when they hand out subsidies -- and, of course, all financed by taxpayers -- to companies. That may be in the form of special tax treatments, like the tax benefits that firms like Fiat, Starbucks and Apple got from some governments in Europe. Those subsidies stop companies from competing on equal terms. They can mean that the companies that succeed, well, they are the companies that got the most subsidy, the ones that are the best-connected, and not, as it should be, the companies that serve consumers the best. So there are times when we need to step in to make sure that competition works the way it should. By doing that, we help the market to work fairly, because competition gives consumers the power to demand a fair deal. It means that companies know that if they cannot offer good prices or the service that's expected, well, the customers will go somewhere else.
Og den slags retfærdighed er vigtigere end vi nogle gange indser. Kun ganske få mennesker tænker på politik hele tiden. Nogle ikke engang på valgdagen. Men vi er alle en del af markedet. Hver eneste dag er vi på markedet. Og vi ønsker ikke, at virksomhederne aftaler priserne indbyrdes. Vi ønsker ikke, at de opdeler markedet imellem sig. Vi ønsker ikke én stor virksomhed der forhindrer konkurrenterne i at vise os hvad de kan.
And that sort of fairness is more important than we may sometimes realize. Very few people think about politics all the time. Some even skip it at election time. But we are all in the market. Every day, we are in the market. And we don't want businesses to agree on prices in the back office. We don't want them to divide the market between them. We don't want one big company just to shut out competitors from ever showing us what they can do.
Hvis det sker, ja, så vil vi nok føle at vi er blevet snydt, at vi er blevet ignoreret eller taget for givet af markedet. Og det kan ødelægge ikke bare vores tillid til markedet men også vores tillid til samfundet. I en nylig undersøgelse sagde mere end to ud af tre europæere at de havde oplevet virkningerne af manglende konkurrence at prisen på strøm var for høj at prisen på den medicin, de havde behov for, var for høj at de ikke havde et reelt valg hvis de ville rejse med bus eller fly eller hvis de fik dårlig service fra deres internetudbyder. Kort sagt, de oplevede at markedet ikke behandlede dem fair. Og selvom det kan virke som små ting, kan det give følelsen af at verden ikke rigtigt er retfærdig. Og de ser markedet, som skulle være for alle, mere bliver en slags privat ejendom delt mellem få magtfulde virksomheder.
If that happens, well, obviously, we feel that someone has cheated us, that we are being ignored or taken for granted by the market. And that may undermine not only our trust in the market but also our trust in the society. In a recent survey, more than two-thirds of Europeans said that they had felt the effects of lack of competition: that the price for electricity was too high, that the price for the medicines they needed was too high, that they had no real choice if they wanted to travel by bus or by plane, or they got poor service from their internet provider. In short, they found that the market didn't treat them fairly. And that might seem like very small things, but they can give you this sense that the world isn't really fair. And they see the market, which was supposed to serve everyone, become more like the private property of a few powerful companies.
Markedet er ikke samfundet. Vores samfund er naturligvis meget mere end markedet. Men manglende tillid til markedet kan farve vores opfattelse så vi også mister tilliden til vores samfund. Og det kan meget vel være det vigtigste vi har -- tilliden Vi kan have tillid til hinanden hvis vi bliver behandlet ligeværdigt. Hvis vi alle skal have de samme muligheder, ja, så må vi alle følge de samme grundlæggende regler. Selvfølgelig har nogle folk og nogle virksomheder større succes end andre, men vi stoler ikke på et samfund hvis præmierne uddeles allerede før konkurrencen er begyndt.
The market is not the society. Our societies are, of course, much, much more than the market. But lack of trust in the market can rub off on society so we lose trust in our society as well. And it may be the most important thing we have, trust. We can trust each other if we are treated as equals. If we are all to have the same chances, well, we all have to follow the same fundamental rules. Of course, some people and some businesses are more successful than others, but we do not trust in a society if the prizes are handed out even before the contest begins.
Det er derfor vi skal have regler for konkurrence, for når vi sikrer at markeder fungerer retfærdigt, så konkurrerer virksomheder på de rette værdier og det opbygger den tillid som vi borgere har brug for for at føle os tilpasse og i kontrol, og tilliden der får vores samfund til at fungere. For uden tillid bliver alting sværere. I vores hverdagsliv er det nødvendigt at stole på fremmede, at stole på bankerne der opbevarer vores penge, håndværkerne, der bygger vores hjem, elektrikeren, der ordner forbindelserne, lægen der behandler os, når vi er syge, og ikke at forglemme de andre bilister på vejen, som vi alle ved er tossede. Og alligevel må vi stole på, at de gør det rigtige. Og pointen er, at jo mere vores samfund vokser, jo vigtigere bliver tillid og desto sværere bliver den at opbygge. Og det er et af det moderne samfunds paradokser. Og det er ekstra tydeligt når teknologien ændrer måden, hvorpå vi omgås. Selvfølgelig kan teknologi også hjælpe os med at opbygge tillid til hinanden med pointsystemer og lignende som åbner for deleøkonomi. Men teknologi skaber også helt nye udfordringer når vi bliver bedt om ikke at stole på andre men at stole på algoritmer og computere.
And this is where competition rules come in, because when we make sure that markets work fairly, then businesses compete on the merits, and that helps to build the trust that we need as citizens to feel comfortable and in control, and the trust that allows our society to work. Because without trust, everything becomes harder. Just to live our daily lives, we need to trust in strangers, to trust the banks who keep our money, the builders who build our home, the electrician who comes to fix the wiring, the doctor who treats us when we're ill, not to mention the other drivers on the road, and everyone knows that they are crazy. And yet, we have to trust them to do the right thing. And the thing is that the more our societies grow, the more important trust becomes and the harder it is to build. And that is a paradox of modern societies. And this is especially true when technology changes the way that we interact. Of course, to some degree, technology can help us to build trust in one another with ratings systems and other systems that enable the sharing economy. But technology also creates completely new challenges when they ask us not to trust in other people but to trust in algorithms and computers.
Selvfølgelig kan vi alle se og værdsætte alt det gode som teknologi kan gøre for os. En masse gode ting. Selvkørende biler kan give mennesker med handikap større selvstændighed. Den kan spare os alle tid, og hjælpe os med at udnytte ressourcer langt bedre. Algoritmer der tygger sig igennem enorme mængder af data kan give vores læger mulighed for at tilbyde os en langt bedre behandling og mange andre ting. Men ingen vil aflevere deres sundhedsdata eller sætte sig ind i en bil styret af en computer medmindre de stoler på de virksomheder som de gør forretning med. Og den tillid mangler nogen gange. I vore dage, til eksempel, stoler mindre end hver fjerde europæer på at online-virksomheder beskytter deres personlige oplysninger.
Of course, we all see and share and appreciate all the good that new technology can do us. It's a lot of good. Autonomous cars can give people with disabilities new independence. It can save us all time, and it can make a much, much better use of resources. Algorithms that rely on crunching enormous amounts of data can enable our doctors to give us a much better treatment, and many other things. But no one is going to hand over their medical data or step into a car that's driven by an algorithm unless they trust the companies that they are dealing with. And that trust isn't always there. Today, for example, less than a quarter of Europeans trust online businesses to protect their personal information.
Men hvad nu hvis folk vidste at de kunne stole på at teknologivirksomheder ville behandle dem fair? Hvad hvis de vidste at de virksomheder reagerer på konkurrence ved at forsøge at gøre det bedre, ved at betjene deres kunder bedre, ikke ved at bruge deres magt til at udelukke konkurrenterne ved for eksempel at forringe konkurrenternes placering på listen over søgeresultater og fremhæve sig selv i stedet? Hvad hvis de vidste, at overholdelse af reglerne skal være en del af algoritmernes design, at algoritmen skal gå i skole og lære om konkurrenceregler før den overhovedet må tages i brug, at disse algoritmer blev designet så de ikke kunne lave lyssky aftaler, at de ikke kunne danne deres eget lille kartel i den sorte kasse, hvor de arbejder?
But what if people knew that they could rely on technology companies to treat them fairly? What if they knew that those companies respond to competition by trying to do better, by trying to serve consumers better, not by using their power to shut out competitors, say, by pushing their services far, far down the list of search results and promoting themselves? What if they knew that compliance with the rules was built into the algorithms by design, that the algorithm had to go to competition rules school before they were ever allowed to work, that those algorithms were designed in a way that meant that they couldn't collude, that they couldn't form their own little cartel in the black box they're working in?
I kombination med regulering kan konkurrenceregler gøre netop det. De kan hjælpe os med at sikre at ny teknologi behandler folk fair og at alle konkurrerer på lige vilkår. Og det kan hjælpe os med at opbygge den tillid som kræves for at innovation virkelig kan blomstre og for at samfund kan udvikles til gavn for deres borgere. For tillid kan ikke blive pålagt. Den skal fortjenes.
Together with regulation, competition rules can do that. They can help us to make sure that new technology treats people fairly and that everyone can compete on a level playing field. And that can help us build the trust that we need for real innovation to flourish and for societies to develop for citizens. Because trust cannot be imposed. It has to be earned.
Lige siden den Europæiske Unions allerførste dage, for 60 år siden, har vores konkurrenceregler hjulpet til at opbygge den tillid. Meget har ændret sig. Det er svært at vide, hvad de seks repræsentanter ville have sagt til smartphones. Men i vor tids verden, såvel som i deres, er konkurrence det, der får markedet til at fungere for alle. Og det er derfor jeg er overbevist om at ægte og fair konkurrence spiller en vigtig rolle i opbygningen af den tillid, vi behøver for at få det bedste ud af vores samfund og det begynder med at vi håndhæver vores regler, blot for at sikre at markedet fungerer for alle.
Since the very first days of the European Union, 60 years ago, our competition rules have helped to build that trust. A lot of things have changed. It's hard to say what those six representatives would have made of a smartphone. But in today's world, as well as in their world, competition makes the market work for everyone. And that is why I am convinced that real and fair competition has a vital role to play in building the trust we need to get the best of our societies, and that starts with enforcing our rules, actually just to make the market work for everyone.
Tak.
Thank you.
(Bifald)
(Applause)
Bruno Giussani (BG): Tak. Tak, Kommissær.
Bruno Giussani: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.
Margrethe Vestager (MV): En fornøjelse.
Margrethe Vestager: It was a pleasure.
BG: Jeg har to spørgsmål til dig. Det første handler om data, for det er min opfattelse at teknologi og data ændrer måden hvorpå konkurrence finder sted og den måde, hvorpå konkurrence- reguleringen udformes og håndhæves. Kan du prøve at kommentere på det?
BG: I want to ask you two questions. The first one is about data, because I have the impression that technology and data are changing the way competition takes place and the way competition regulation is designed and enforced. Can you maybe comment on that?
MV: Ja, det er bestemt udfordrende for os, fordi vi skal gøre vores nuværende værktøjer skarpere, samtidig med at vi udvikler nye. Da vi gennemgik Googles svar på vores anklageskrift, fyldte svaret 5,2 terabytes. Det er ikke så lidt. Så vi måtte udvikle nye systemer. Vi måtte finde en måde at gøre dette på, for du kan ikke længere arbejde på samme måde som for blot få år siden. Så vi er helt sikkert ved at skærpe vores måde at arbejde på. En anden ting er, at vi prøver at skelne mellem forskellige typer af data, for nogle data er ekstremt værdifulde og de kan virke som en barriere for at komme ind på et marked. Andre data kan du bare ... de mister deres værdi i morgen. Så vi prøver at sikre at vi aldrig nogensinde undervurderer det faktum at data fungerer som en valuta i markedet og som et aktiv der kan lægge hindringer i vejen for konkurrencen.
MV: Well, yes, it is definitely challenging us, because we both have to sharpen our tools but also to develop new tools. When we were going through the Google responses to our statement of objection, we were going through 5.2 terabytes of data. It's quite a lot. So we had to set up new systems. We had to figure out how to do this, because you cannot work the way you did just a few years ago. So we are definitely sharpening up our working methods. The other thing is that we try to distinguish between different kinds of data, because some data is extremely valuable and they will form, like, a barrier to entry in a market. Other things you can just -- it loses its value tomorrow. So we try to make sure that we never, ever underestimate the fact that data works as a currency in the market and as an asset that can be a real barrier for competition.
BG: Google. Du gav dem en bøde på 2.8 mia. euro for et par måneder siden.
BG: Google. You fined them 2.8 billion euros a few months ago.
MV: Nej, det var dollars. Kursen er ikke så høj længere.
MV: No, that was dollars. It's not so strong these days.
BG: Ja, det afhænger vel af ...
BG: Ah, well, depends on the --
(Latter)
(Laughter)
Google ankede sagen. Sagen skal nu for retten. Det kommer til at tage tid. Engang, sidste år, bad du Apple betale 13 milliarder i skyldig skat, og du har også efterforsket mange andre virksomheder, i høj grad europæiske og russiske, ikke bare amerikanske virksomheder. Alligevel er det efterforskningen af de amerikanske virksomheder der tiltrækker sig mest opmærksomhed og de har også medført beskyldninger. Du er, basalt set, blevet beskyldt for protektionisme, for jalousi og for at bruge lovgivningen til at ramme amerikanske virksomheder, der har erobret de europæiske markeder. På forsiden af denne uges "The Economist" står der: "Vestager Versus The Valley" Hvordan reagerer du på det?
Google appealed the case. The case is going to court. It will last a while. Earlier, last year, you asked Apple to pay 13 billion in back taxes, and you have also investigated other companies, including European and Russian companies, not only American companies, by far. Yet the investigations against the American companies are the ones that have attracted the most attention and they have also attracted some accusations. You have been accused, essentially, of protectionism, of jealousy, or using legislation to hit back at American companies that have conquered European markets. "The Economist" just this week on the front page writes, "Vestager Versus The Valley." How do you react to that?
MV: Først og fremmest tager jeg det meget alvorligt, for forudindtagethed har ingen plads i håndhævelsen af vores love. Vi må basere vores sager på beviser og fakta og gældende retspraksis for at kunne føre sagen for domstolene. For det andet, så er Europa åben for forretninger, men ikke for skatteunddragelse.
MV: Well, first of all, I take it very seriously, because bias has no room in law enforcement. We have to prove our cases with the evidence and the facts and the jurisprudence in order also to present it to the courts. The second thing is that Europe is open for business, but not for tax evasion.
(Bifald)
(Applause)
Vi er ved at forandre os, for eksempel, når jeg spørger mine døtre - der også bruger Google - "Hvorfor gør I det?" er svaret "Fordi det virker. Det er rigtigt godt produkt." De ville aldrig svare, "Fordi det er lavet i USA." Det er bare fordi, det virker. Og det er selvfølgelig sådan det skal være. Men stadig, det er vigtigt at nogen holder øje og kan sige, "Vi lykønsker jer, mens I bare vokser og vokser, men lykønskningen stopper hvis vi opdager, at I misbruger jeres position til at skade konkurrenter, så de ikke kan betjene kunder."
The thing is that we are changing, and for instance, when I ask my daughters -- they use Google as well -- "Why do you do that?" They say, "Well, because it works. It's a very good product." They would never, ever, come up with the answer, "It's because it's a US product." It's just because it works. And that is of course how it should be. But just the same, it is important that someone is looking after to say, "Well, we congratulate you while you grow and grow and grow, but congratulation stops if we find that you're misusing your position to harm competitors so that they cannot serve consumers."
BG: Det bliver en spændende sag at følge. Tak for at du kom til TED.
BG: It will be a fascinating case to follow. Thank you for coming to TED.
MV: Det var en fornøjelse. Mange tak
MV: It was a pleasure. Thanks a lot.
(Bifald)
(Applause)