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.
Vratimo se u 1957. godinu. Predstavnici šest evropskih zemalja, došli su u Rim, da potpišu sporazum koji će stvoriti Evropsku Uniju. Evropa je bila uništena. Svetski rat je ponikao iz Evrope. Ljudska patnja je bila neverovatna i bez presedana. Ti ljudi, su želeli da stvore mirnu, demokratsku Evropu, Evropu koja radi za svoje ljude.
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.
I jedan od mnogih stubova razvoja, na tom mirovnom projektu, bilo je i zajedničko evropsko tržište. Čak i onda, oni su videli kako tržište, kada se prepusti samo sebi, može takoreći, skliznuti u to da bude čisto privatna svojina velikih preduzeća i kartela, izlazeći u susret potrebama velikih preduzeća a ne potrebama kupaca.
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.
Dakle, od našeg prvog dana, 1957. godine, Evropska Unija je imala pravila da bi odbranila pravičnu konkurenciju. A pod tim se podrazumeva konkurencija zasnovana na zaslugama, da se nadmećete sa kvalitetom vaših proizvoda, cenom koju nudite, uslugama i inovacijama koje proizvodite. To je konkurentnost zasnovana na zaslugama. Imate pravičnu šansu za uspeh na takvom tržištu. To je moj posao, kao Komesara za konkurenciju, da osiguram da kompanije koje posluju u Evropi, posluju u skladu sa ovim pravilima.
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.
Ali, vratimo se korak u nazad. Zašto uopšte trebamo pravila konkurencije? Zašto jednostavno ne pustimo preduzećima da se takmiče? Zar nije tako najbolje i za nas, ukoliko se slobodno takmiče, s obzirom da konkurencija podstiče bolji kvalitet, niže cene i više inovativnosti? Pa, u većini slučajeva je tako. Međutim, problem je što, nekad, za preduzeća, konkurencija može biti nezgodna, jer ona znači da trka nikad nije gotova, a igra nikad dobijena. Bez obzira koliko dobri bili u prošlosti, uvek postoji neko, ko, tamo negde, čeka da zauzme vaše mesto. Dakle, iskušenje da izbegnete konkurenciju je ogromno. Ono ima korene u motivima, starim od pamtiveka, u pohlepi za još više novca, u strahu od gubljenja pozicije na tržištu i svih beneficija koje ona donosi.
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.
A kada su pohlepa i strah povezani sa moći, imate opasnu mešavinu. To vidimo u političkom životu. U jednom delu sveta, mešavina pohlepe i straha, znači da, onaj ko ima moć, postaje nevoljan da je vrati. Jedna od mnogih stvari, kojoj volim da se divim, u našoj demokratiji, su pravila, koja teraju naše lidere da predaju moć kada im glasači to kažu. A pravila konkurentnosti mogu slično uraditi na tržištu, osiguravajući da pohlepa i strah ne preplave pravičnost. Zato što ta pravila znače da kompanije ne mogu zloupotrebljavati svoju moć da ugroze konkurente.
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.
Razmislite na trenutak o svojim kolima. Tu ima hiljade delova, od pene od koje se prave sedišta, do električne instalaicije i sijalica. Za mnoge od ovih delova, svetski proizvođači automobila, zavise od samo nekoliko dobavljača. Dakle, nije teško pretpostaviti da je to određena vrsta iskušenja za te dobavljače, da se ujedine i podignu cene. Ali, zaislite kako bi to moglo da utiče na konačnu cenu našeg novog vozila na tržištu. Samo što to nije teoretsko pitanje. Evropska komisija je imala iskustvo sa već sedam kartela, proizvođača različitih delova automobila, i idalje istražujemo neke. Ovde, Odeljenje za pravdu takođe nadgleda tržište auto delova, i nazvalo ga je „najvećom kriminalnom istragom koja se ikada vodila." Ali bez konkurentskih pravila, ne bi bilo ni istrage, i ništa ne bi sprečilo da se ovaj dogovor realizuje, i da cena automobila skoči.
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.
Ipak, nisu samo kompanije te koje mogu podrivati pravičnu konkurentnost. I države to mogu. A države to rade kada daju subvencije samo nekolicini odabranih. Oni to mogu učiniti kada daju subvencije - i, naravno, sve to plaćaju poreski obveznici - kompanijama. To može biti u obliku posebnih poreskih tretmana, kao poreske olakšice, koje su firme kao što su Fijat, Starbaks i Epl dobile u nekim državama u Evropi. Ove subvencije su sprečile kompanije da se nadmeću pod jednakim uslovima. Oni mogu smatrati da su, kompanije koje su uspele, pa, oni su kompanije koje su dobile najviše subvencija, kompanije sa najboljim vezama, a ne, kao što bi trebalo biti, kompanije koje najbolje služe svojim konzumentima. Tako da, postoji momenat kada mi moramo da se umešamo, da bi obezbedili da konkurentnost bude onakva kakva treba da bude. Čineći to, mi pomažemo tržištu da funkcioniše pravično, zato što konkurentnost daje moć konzumentima da traže pravične ponude. To znači da kompanije znaju da, ako ne mogu da ponude dobru cenu, za uslugu koja se očekuje, onda će konzumenti otići na drugo mesto.
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.
I ta vrsta pravičnosti je još važnija, nego što je mi nekad smatramo. Veoma malo ljudi razmišlja o politici svo vreme. Neki čak to propuste i u vreme izbora. Ali mi smo svi na tržištu, Svakog dana, mi smo na tržištu. Ne želimo da se preduzeća dogovaraju oko cene u tajnosti. Ne želimo da između sebe dele tržište. Ne želimo da jedna velika kompanija, jednostavno, onemogući sve konkurente da nam prikažu šta sve mogu da urade.
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.
Ukoliko se to desi, pa, očigledno, osećamo da nas je neko prevario, da smo ignorisani ili uzeti zdravo za gotovo, od strane tržišta. A to može potkopati, ne samo naše poverenje u tržište, nego, takođe, naše poverenje u društvo. U nedavnom ispitivanju, više od dve trećine Evropljana, izjasnili su se da su osetili posledice nedostatka konkurentnosti: da je cena struje previsoka, da je cena lekova koji su im potrebni, previsoka, i da, u suštini, nemaju izbor bilo da su hteli da putuju autobusom ili avionom, ili su dobili lošu uslugu od svog internet provajdera. Sve u svemu, oni smatraju da ih tržište ne tretira pravedno. I to se može činiti kao sitnica, ali to vam može stvoriti utisak da svet, u suštini, nije pravičan. Oni posmatraju tržište, koje bi trebalo da služi svima, kako se pretvara u privatnu svojinu nekoliko moćnih kompanija.
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.
Tržište nije društvo. Naša društva su mnogo, mnogo više od tržišta. Ali nedostatak poverenja u tržište, može se reflektovati i na društvo, tako da gubimo poverenje i u njega. A to može biti najvažnija stvar koju imamo - poverenje. Možemo verovati jedni drugima, ukoliko se prema nama odnose jednako. Ako svi imamo istu šansu, pa, svi moramo da pratimo neka osnovna pravila. Naravno, neki ljudi i neka preduzeća su uspešnija od drugih, ali ne verujemo društvu ukoliko je cena određena čak i pre nego što takmičenje počne.
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.
E, tu stupaju na snagu konkurentska pravila, jer, ako obezbedimo da tržište funkcioniše pravično, onda preduzeća konkurišu po zaslugama, i to pomaže da se izgradi poverenje koje je nama, kao građanima, potrebno da bi se osećali ugodno i da bi imali osećaj kontrole, poverenje koje dozvoljava našem društvu da radi. Jer, bez poverenja, sve postaje teže. I za naš svakodnevni život potrebno je da imamo poverenje u strance, da verujemo bankama u kojima čuvamo naše novce, građevinarima koji nam zidaju kuće, električaru, koji nam dolazi da popravi žice, lekaru, koji nas leči kad smo bolesni, da ne pominjem druge vozače koje srećemo na putu, a svi znaju da su oni ludi. Pa ipak, moramo im verovati, da će uraditi pravu stvar. Stvar je u tome da, kako naše društvo raste, tako poverenje postaje značajnije i teže ga je izgraditi. I to je paradoks modernog društva. Ovo je posebno istinito kada su u pitanju tehnološke promene, vezane za komunikaciju. Naravno, u određenom stepenu, tehnologija može pomoći da se izgradi međusobno poverenje sa sistemima ocena i drugim sistemima koje omogućava globalna ekonomija. Ali tehnologija takođe stvara potpuno nove izazove, kada od nas traže da ne verujemo drugim ljudima nego da verujemo algoritmima i kompjuterima.
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.
Naravno, svi vidimo, delimo i cenimo to što nove tehnologije mogu da učine za nas. To je mnogo pozitivnih stvari. Automobili koji sami voze mogu ljudima sa invaliditetom da pruže nezavisnost. To nam može uštedeti vreme i može obezbediti mnogo, mnogo bolje korišćenje resursa. Algoritmi koji se oslanjaju na obradu ogromne količine podataka, mogu omogućiti našim doktorima da nas mnogo bolje leče, i mnogo drugih stvari. Ali, niko ne želi da preda svoj medicinski karton, ili da uđe u kola koja vozi algoritam, ukoliko ne veruju kompanijama sa kojima posluju. A to poverenje ne postoji uvek. Danas, na primer, manje od četvrtine Evropljana, veruje preduzećima na internetu da će zaštititi njihove lične podatke.
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?
Ali, šta bi se desilo kada bi ljudi znali, da mogu da se oslone na tehnološke kompanije, da će biti pravične? Šta bi bilo da oni znaju da se te kompanije bore sa konkurencijom time što pokušavaju da rade bolje, i time da pokušavaju da pruže bolju uslugu kupcima, a ne koristeći njihovu moć da bi izgurali konkurente, recimo, gurajući njihove usluge daleko, daleko ispod, na listi pretraživača ili promovišući sebe? Šta bi bilo da znaju da je to poštovanje pravila ugrađeno u dizajniran algoritam, da je taj algoritam morao da ide u školu za pravila konkurentnosti, pre nego što mu je uopšte dozvoljeno da radi, da su ti algoritmi dizajnirani na taj način da ne mogu da budu u dosluhu, da ne mogu da stvore svoje lične male kartele u crnim kutijama u kojima rade?
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.
Zajedno sa pravnim propisima, pravila konkurentnosti to mogu da urade. Mogu nam pomoći, da budemo uvereni da nova tehnologija postupa sa ljudima pravično. i da svako može da se nadmeće na nivou svoje oblasti. I to nam može pomoći da izgradimo poverenje koje nam je potrebno za stvarne inovacije da bi procvetali i da bi se društvo razvilo zbog građana. Pošto se poverenje ne može nametnuti, nego se mora zaraditi.
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.
Od prvog dana Evropske Unije, pre 60 godina, naša pravila konkurentnosti su pomogla da se izgradi poverenje. Mnoge stvari su se promenile. Teško je reći šta bi tih šest predstavnika uradili sa pametnim telefonima, ali u današnjem svetu, kao i u njihovo vreme, konkurencija deluje da tržište radi za svakoga. I upravo zbog toga sam ubeđena, da stvarna i pravična konkurencija ima ključnu ulogu u izgradnji poverenja koje nam je potrebno da bi izvukli ono nabolje od našeg društva, a to počinje sprovođenjem naših pravila, u suštini, samo da bi se osiguralo da tržište radi za svakoga.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
Bruno Giussani: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.
Bruno Đuzani: Hvala Vam. Hvala vam, Komesare.
Margrethe Vestager: It was a pleasure.
Margaret Vestager: Bilo mi je zadovoljstvo.
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?
BĐ: Želim da vam postavim dva pitanja. Prvo se odnosi na podatke, pošto imam utisak da tehnologija i podaci menjaju način na koji se konkurentnost odvija i način na koji su pravila konkurentnosti dizajnirana i kako se sprovode, Možete li možda, prokomentarisati to?
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.
MV: Pa, da, to je svakako izazov za nas, zato što i mi i oni, moramo da oblikujemo svoje alate ali takođe i da razvijemo nove. Kada smo prelistavali Gugl odgovore o našoj „Izjavi o objektivnosti", prešli smo 5,2 terabajta podataka. To je prilično mnogo. Zbog toga smo morali da podesimo novi sistem. Morali smo da smislimo kako da uradimo to, zato što ne možete raditi na način na koji ste radili svega nekoliko godina ranije. Tako da, mi definitivno usavršavamo naše metode rada. Druga stvar je što mi pokušavamo da razlikujemo različite vrste podataka, zato što su neki podaci izuzetno značajni, i oni će stvoriti nešto nalik barijeri za ulazak na tržište. Druge stvari, možete samo - one će, koliko sutra, izgubiti svoj značaj. Tako da, mi se trudimo da osiguramo da nikad ne potcenimo činjenicu da su podaci na tržištu isto što i valuta i kao preimućstvo koje može biti realna prepreka nadmetanju.
BG: Google. You fined them 2.8 billion euros a few months ago.
BĐ: Gugl. Kaznili ste ih sa 2,8 milijardi evra pre nekoliko meseci.
MV: No, that was dollars. It's not so strong these days.
MV: Ne, to su bili dolari. Oni nisu toliko jaki danas.
BG: Ah, well, depends on the --
BG: Ah, pa, zavisi od ...
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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?
Gugl se žalio na slučaj. Slučaj ide na sud. To će potrajati. Ranije prošle godine, tražili ste od Epl-a da plati 13 milijardi poreza retroaktivno i istraživali ste, takođe, i druge kompanije, uključujući evropske i ruske kompanije a ne samo američke, uopšte. Ipak, istraga protiv američkih kompanija je ona koja je izazvala najviše pažnje, kao i neke optužbe. Optužili su vas, u suštini, za protektorizam, ljubomoru, i korišćenje pravnih normi da bi se osvetili američkim kompanijjama koje su osvojile evropsko tržište. Časopis „Ekonomist" je, upravo ove nedelje, na naslovnoj strani objavio: „Vestager protiv Doline" Kako reagujete na to?
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.
MV: Pa, pre svega, to smatram veoma ozbiljnom stvari, jer nema mesta pristrasnosti u sprovođenju zakona. Mi moramo da dokažemo naš slučaj sa dokazima i činjenicama i jurisprudencijom da bismo to mogli da predstavimo na sudu. Druga stvar je: Evropa je otvorena za preduzeća, ali ne i za izbegavanje poreza.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)
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."
Problem je u tome što se mi menjamo, i na primer, kada pitam svoje ćerke - one takođe koriste Gugl - „ Zašto to radite?" One mi kažu: „Pa, zato što to radi. to je veoma dobar proizvod." One mi nikad ne bi rekle: „Zato što je to američki proizvod." Nego, jednostavno, zato što funkcioniše. I tako, naravno, i treba da bude. Ali, isto tako, važno je da neko pripazi i kaže: „Pa, čestitamo vam, dok rastete, rastete i rastete, ali čestitke prestaju ako otkrijemo da zloupotrebljavate svoj položaj, da bi naštetili konkurentima tako da oni ne mogu da ponude usluge kupcima."
BG: It will be a fascinating case to follow. Thank you for coming to TED.
BĐ: To će biti fascinantan slučaj za praćenje. Hvala Vam što ste došli na TED.
MV: It was a pleasure. Thanks a lot.
MV: Bilo mi je zadovoljstvo. Hvala mnogo.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)