 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
How do you follow that logic? |
SD, the alleged reason for farm subsidies is that there is far more farm capacity than demand, i.e., the ability of people to eat all that the farmers produce, so that without government intervention (paying farmers not to plant) prices would drop precipitously, only marginally increasing demand, but resulting in millions of farmers going bankrupt. Land prices would drop, mortgages would be foreclosed, etc., leading to a banking crisis. The resulting deflation would add to the current deflation thereby extending the recession.
(But note, as the bankruptcies accumulate, less would be planted, prices would rise, and at some point, supply and demand would be in balance.)
The government also stockpiles food just in case there is a drought or other catastrophe. This stockpiled food is the source of a lot of America's food aid to the starving of the world
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
If Microsoft was a true monopoly, there wouldn't be MacOS X, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, HP-UX, etc.
There are other operating systems, the problem is, by the nature of how computers work, developers prefer targetting 1 platform rather than multiple because it's far cheaper and far easier to support. When the computer industry was picking up steam, MS' products were the most popular, and that's why they're where they are today.
Some of the things MS has done (like the OEM licensing bull) should be stopped by the government. OEMs should be allowed to bundle whatever OS they want, when they want. People complaining about stuff like IE are completely clueless in my books.
For the most part it's not a true monopoly. A lot of people wish to argue that it is because they believe that having a whole bunch of operating systems available to run everything is simply better for everyone. The people who believe that crap have obviously never developed a real program before. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:21
|
|
Ned,
I meant how does it follow that I am for subsidies. If people aren't buying all the farmers' produce then we don't need the farmers. Subsidies only serve to perpetuate the problem.
If a solution does not restore market efficiency, then there is no point in using it as a solution to market inefficiencies.
Buffer stock is a good idea in principle, provided it does not make the market less efficient by causing further overproduction.
The situations I was thinking of are regulations of things such as pollution emissions, or somtehing like fishing, where costs of an activity are not always suffered directly by the one carrying out the activity.
quote:
I am sorry but that is your opinion. Government intervention is only disasterous. Keynesism, I think, is absolutely false. |
When did I mention Keynes?
If left to market forces what would control overpollution, overfishing etc?
Should we have laws to restrict such things or no?
quote:
Yes, and can you name anything out of the ordinary except these things? (BTW, the Federal Reserve is not directed by the US Government when it comes to exchange rats and balance of payments, so don't say that). |
I'm pretty laissez-faire, and as I said in ordinary circumstances no government action should be taken.
BTW, as I don't live in the US what has the Federal Reserve got to do with my economic views?
quote:
Personally I see a government like a fungus that once it takes over even a fraction of the economy corruption will grow. The United States thank goodness is small and transparent but once any government gets involved with the economy the transparency disappears and economic freedom gets destroyed |
How melodramatic. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
The courts have ruled that Microsoft is a legal monopoly under US law. Since you disagree with the court's holding, apparently, what is your definition of a monopoly? |
Personally I would disagree because I don't think the courts have a very thorough understanding about how the industry works, and the entire reason the case was brought before court was because Netscape/AOL and Sun just wanted the government to tie MS' hands behind their back so Netscape and Sun can hold monopolies themselves. 
As long as there's a choice, there's not a problem. There are many choices for computer OSes people can install, it's not like an oil monopoly where you control all of the physical reserves of oil.
MS is guilty of some anticompetitive behavior with OEM licensing, and I think they definitely should be punished for that, but I don't think it's a monopoly in a true sense.
The very fact that many people on this forum claim to use Linux and Macs and love it instead of Windows should be enough to shoot down the monopoly theory.
The fact is, even if you don't literally force Windows down everyone's throats, consumers will end up buying it anyway. It's simply how the industry works, it's better for more people when there is one mainstream OS that developers develop for. It's up to the government to ensure MS doesn't abuse that position.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
Fez and Asher, Well the US definition is, in fact, different. Without looking at the ruling, I think the court ruled that Microsoft had enough of the relevant market to control prices and dictate licenses to such a extent that it could drive Netscape and others like out of business simply by excluding them from the PC market. It became an unlawful monopoly because it in fact abused its power to capture and retain market share, not only in OS's, but also in collateral software markets.
Patents would normally be a way to prevent Microsoft from stealing the key technology of its competition, but even here Microsoft forced those who wish to deal with it to license its patents to Microsoft and its customers.
While all of this brought us one basic set of software that worked interchangeably with few bugs, the price was very high for its completion, and therefore, for the public. Killing competition, as we seem to agree, eventually retards innovation, and leads to inefficiency and higher prices in the long run.
Arguments that Apple and Linux are effective alternatives is simply rearguing the case. Under the facts as know to the lower court, Microsoft is an illegal monopoly. This holding was affirmed on appeal. Microsoft did not take it to the Supreme Court. So, at least on this issue, the case is over.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Personally I see a government like a doctor - it should do nothing but make sure everything is in good working order. When things go wrong it should be there to correct the problem. |
Yes!
"The role of [the British government] is to meander gently down stream, casting out occasional boat hooks to avoid disaster"
Lord Salisbury
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Arguments that Apple and Linux are effective alternatives is simply rearguing the case. Under the facts as know to the lower court, Microsoft is an illegal monopoly. This holding was affirmed on appeal. Microsoft did not take it to the Supreme Court. So, at least on this issue, the case is over. |
Actually, Microsoft is not an illegal monopoly. Why do you think it's not being broken up?
The US government has ruled MS a monopoly, which actually isn't illegal in the US. They have told MS not to do certain things anymore and was in the 'punishment' stage, but it'll still be a very legal monopoly.
I simply don't think the government understands. Many people get along fine with Linux and MacOS to run their computers, and it's even totally and completely free to switch to Linux, and yet still they insist there's a monopoly. A monopoly, to me and most economists, is when there's no viable alternative. There are plenty of viable alternatives, but the vast majority of Americans opt to buy MS Windows over Linux or MacOS. Nobody (should be) forcing them to do so. That's why MS hasn't been broken up.
The main problem with the State's case was their reliance on IE "putting Netscape out of business". The problem with this, of course, is Netscape is still around and kicking, there are far more browsers out today than there was when IE was introduced, and browsers are generally free for consumers rather than $50 pieces of software. You can imagine how hard it is to convince a judge that consumers are hurt when MS' actions made a basic product free rather than an additional product.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Asher, From your point of view, it is just fine and dandy for a Japanese company to dump its product into the US market until its US competitor quits, only to then raise price to the monopoly price level, on the grounds that during the time of dumping, the consumer has lower prices. |
That would be perfectly fine, because the moment that monopoly raises the price level to unacceptable standards someone will make a cheap alternative.
The thing with software is any kid, literally in his parents' garage, can make a competing product. Linux was made by a Finnish(?) university student in his spare time, and today it's used by millions of people worldwide and on some of the most expensive pieces of hardware.
quote:
As to Netscape still being in business, well yes. But it is no longer an independent company, is it? |
It's part of AOL-TimeWarner.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gorilonblanco
|
 |
South Carolina, USA
Sep 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigvic
i actually considr myself a radical moderate. it seems to me that intelligent people are right and left wingers. the truth must lie somewhere in the middle. in the us due to the nature of the 2 party system, the polity either is more radicalized, or they come to resemble each other. yeah, greed of small fish is not so injurious to society, but the big guys need some watching and regulating by the government. don't understand how people here get so pissed over big government, yet big business and its abuses don't seem to phase anyone, until their abuses and conciousless greed causes personal pain, like all the recent job losses. like enron - what a bunch of bastards - not just for what they obviously did, but for their hijinx overseas, supported by money besotted american politicians.
in the 60's and 70's, democrats in the us, left wingers when that was in the vogue, promised something for nothing a cornicupia of yummy governmeent services for nothing, no increase in taxes.
we found that to be bullshit
now the same thing has appeared from the right wingers - republicans. this time its the big gov bad, no tax good. but the moment someone's kid dies of meat poisoning because there is not enough federal meat inspectors, pow! we're all highly indignant.
more bullshit
radical moderate am i  |
That's what lawsuits are for. And as far as enron goes, if Clinton hadn't lied about the economy his last 2 years in office none of that would have happened. Because the corporations wouldn't have been able to lie either.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-08-2002 01:15
You cannot say that about my opinion. I think a neutral third party free from the government agenda or the corporation dollar must enforce the laws. The government screwing with the economy will only ruin things in the long term and those idiots who propose such a thing should look at the laws of economics.
|