Monopolies cannot naturally arise without protectionism.
I think he’s talking about when Microsoft got fined some 800$ million for putting their media player in their computers without giving the choice to the consumer ie trying to control supply/demand.
[/quote]
That is part of it, yes. Also, the fact that MS software is typically bundled with IBM hardware; it’s impossible to purchase an IBM machine without having to pay for Windows as well. And yes, you can purchase and assemble the individual components to build your own tower. Most people are not capable of doing so.
That being said, Microsoft must be congratulated for making computers accessible to the common person (In 1979 Larry Niven wrote “Death by Ecstacy,” in which his protagonist wrote up a report by hand and then noted in passing “I’d have to get a programmer to put it into the computer. I wasn’t that good yet.” Today grandmothers send emails with attached jpegs of their grandkids.). But… again. Monopolies and near monopolies are only a small part of what I’m asking about. I’m not talking about the wealthy being able to spend their money for better medical care than the poor. I’m talking about pharmeceutical companies in the 1980s refusing to pay for testing to prevent the spread of HIV via their products and causing the deaths of thousands without anyone going to jail for it.
I’m not talking about rich people driving mercedes that they bought with their own cash. I’m talking about rich people committing vehicular homicide and getting away with a slap on the wrist instead of years in prison. http://wcbstv.com/local/ceo.plea.deal.2.945919.html[/quote]
Are you arguing that there is no competition in the pharmaceutical industry? Are you insane?
How is a rich guy getting away with homicide a monopoly power? The only guy I know that has done this (other than the source you give) is Ted Kennedy, and he never did an honest day’s work in his life.[/quote]
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
I’d argue that you don’t need a complete monopoly to stick the consumer with much of the bad stuff that falls from a monopoly, especially if you and you’re two or three remaining “competitors” get together and decide that there’s no going to be a price war, and you set prices at whatever.
And a monopoly in itself, almost impossible because there will always be an upstart (even if it’s a new one that fails each years) will always come around, and there will always be those who buy products, not based on the best product or cost, but will “pay a little extra” for something made union/in the US/local whatever.
A basic problem with unrestricted economies (no anti-trust regs), is not that you necessarily end up with a bunch of monopolies, but that companies use a profitable section of their company to subsidize another section of their company, allowing what would be an unprofitable company/section of a company on its own, to survive, and drive down cost and quality within that sector.[/quote]
Wait…what?
How is it even possible to have a monopoly in an unregulated (besides not forcing or hurting others) economy for any period of time…I may be wrong, but hopefully you are saying that monopolies do not happen in when there is no regulations when it comes to anti-trust.
What is wrong with someone to subsidize their own company? That is equivalent to saying that hobbies should be stopped because they do not make people money.
[quote]
While Microsoft may have stolen some idea from Apple, the main problem with them, is that they were packaging a bunch of “free” software with their operating system. They were in effect using their profitable operating system, to subsidize other software development that they were giving away.[/quote]
How do you steal an idea or knowledge? That is as if you were to accuse someone in your gym of stealing a weightlifting technique from you. What is wrong with Microsoft being competitive, you just said something about monopolies, now you are saying something about being too competitive. Maybe you should watch the short film on YouTube called “The Bread Machine.”
[quote]
How can anyone compete with free software already on your computer? You can’t. Notice that now all web browsers are free? All media players (minus premium content) are free? That’s thanks to Microsoft basically making the entire sector unprofitable. They just under-estimated the power of open-source software, and the backlash against them. [/quote]
Okay, so what you are saying is that Microsoft is a monopoly (which I deny), but…they are so competitive that they push the competition that can’t handle the heat out of town? I am confused.
What, there have always been alternatives. I am not sure I follow, how would we have better web browsers when there are no restrictions on web browsers?
Okay, Fox news is huge, the bigger companies get the less efficient they usually get. What’s the point, they want Sean on there, it is their company. Let them be. Turn the channel if you wish not to watch, there are plenty of alternatives.
[quote]
He has very few advertisers left, and the people who do watch him, are people who’d be watching whatever Fox had in that time slot anyways, but his show gets subsidized by the profitable time-slots because the powers that be at Fox (and beyond) have deemed it necessary that we be subjected to this man: it was a political/ideological decision, not an economic one.
And that’s when capitalism/free-markets get into trouble. When you get interest powerful enough to make individuals rich without being profitable, and when sections of a company and subsidize unprofitable sections with the end-game of controlling a market, or worse, controlling access to information.[/quote]
Yes, and if Fox fails because they keep Hannity on, then I guess they are dumber than people thought. Capitalism does not get into trouble. That is like saying voluntary relationships get into trouble or something…not logical.
Monopolies cannot naturally arise without protectionism.
I think he’s talking about when Microsoft got fined some 800$ million for putting their media player in their computers without giving the choice to the consumer ie trying to control supply/demand.
[/quote]
That is part of it, yes. Also, the fact that MS software is typically bundled with IBM hardware; it’s impossible to purchase an IBM machine without having to pay for Windows as well. And yes, you can purchase and assemble the individual components to build your own tower. Most people are not capable of doing so.
That being said, Microsoft must be congratulated for making computers accessible to the common person (In 1979 Larry Niven wrote “Death by Ecstacy,” in which his protagonist wrote up a report by hand and then noted in passing “I’d have to get a programmer to put it into the computer. I wasn’t that good yet.” Today grandmothers send emails with attached jpegs of their grandkids.). But… again. Monopolies and near monopolies are only a small part of what I’m asking about. I’m not talking about the wealthy being able to spend their money for better medical care than the poor. I’m talking about pharmeceutical companies in the 1980s refusing to pay for testing to prevent the spread of HIV via their products and causing the deaths of thousands without anyone going to jail for it.
I’m not talking about rich people driving mercedes that they bought with their own cash. I’m talking about rich people committing vehicular homicide and getting away with a slap on the wrist instead of years in prison. http://wcbstv.com/local/ceo.plea.deal.2.945919.html[/quote]
Yes, I say down with Big Pharma and stop having the government regulate shit so these companies just become more powerful.
Monopolies cannot naturally arise without protectionism.
I think he’s talking about when Microsoft got fined some 800$ million for putting their media player in their computers without giving the choice to the consumer ie trying to control supply/demand.
[/quote]
That is part of it, yes. Also, the fact that MS software is typically bundled with IBM hardware; it’s impossible to purchase an IBM machine without having to pay for Windows as well. And yes, you can purchase and assemble the individual components to build your own tower. Most people are not capable of doing so.
That being said, Microsoft must be congratulated for making computers accessible to the common person (In 1979 Larry Niven wrote “Death by Ecstacy,” in which his protagonist wrote up a report by hand and then noted in passing “I’d have to get a programmer to put it into the computer. I wasn’t that good yet.” Today grandmothers send emails with attached jpegs of their grandkids.). But… again. Monopolies and near monopolies are only a small part of what I’m asking about. I’m not talking about the wealthy being able to spend their money for better medical care than the poor. I’m talking about pharmeceutical companies in the 1980s refusing to pay for testing to prevent the spread of HIV via their products and causing the deaths of thousands without anyone going to jail for it.
I’m not talking about rich people driving mercedes that they bought with their own cash. I’m talking about rich people committing vehicular homicide and getting away with a slap on the wrist instead of years in prison. http://wcbstv.com/local/ceo.plea.deal.2.945919.html[/quote]
Are you arguing that there is no competition in the pharmaceutical industry? Are you insane?
How is a rich guy getting away with homicide a monopoly power? The only guy I know that has done this (other than the source you give) is Ted Kennedy, and he never did an honest day’s work in his life.[/quote]
Shut your mouth about Ted Kennedy, the man is dead and I’m sure you do not know anything about the man to say he never did an honest day’s work.
Talk to any economist and they will tell you, operating in a purely market economy, void of any government intrusion is impossible. But you probably know that.
Your analysis ignores the human component and social aspect of the way we live. People aren’t rational, markets are rational.
Monopolies cannot naturally arise without protectionism.
I think he’s talking about when Microsoft got fined some 800$ million for putting their media player in their computers without giving the choice to the consumer ie trying to control supply/demand.
[/quote]
That is part of it, yes. Also, the fact that MS software is typically bundled with IBM hardware; it’s impossible to purchase an IBM machine without having to pay for Windows as well. And yes, you can purchase and assemble the individual components to build your own tower. Most people are not capable of doing so.
That being said, Microsoft must be congratulated for making computers accessible to the common person (In 1979 Larry Niven wrote “Death by Ecstacy,” in which his protagonist wrote up a report by hand and then noted in passing “I’d have to get a programmer to put it into the computer. I wasn’t that good yet.” Today grandmothers send emails with attached jpegs of their grandkids.). But… again. Monopolies and near monopolies are only a small part of what I’m asking about. I’m not talking about the wealthy being able to spend their money for better medical care than the poor. I’m talking about pharmeceutical companies in the 1980s refusing to pay for testing to prevent the spread of HIV via their products and causing the deaths of thousands without anyone going to jail for it.
I’m not talking about rich people driving mercedes that they bought with their own cash. I’m talking about rich people committing vehicular homicide and getting away with a slap on the wrist instead of years in prison. http://wcbstv.com/local/ceo.plea.deal.2.945919.html[/quote]
Are you arguing that there is no competition in the pharmaceutical industry? Are you insane?
How is a rich guy getting away with homicide a monopoly power? The only guy I know that has done this (other than the source you give) is Ted Kennedy, and he never did an honest day’s work in his life.[/quote]
Shut your mouth about Ted Kennedy, the man is dead and I’m sure you do not know anything about the man to say he never did an honest day’s work.[/quote]
I know more people died in the back of Ted Kennedy’s car than in every nuclear accident in the history of the United States.
Why should I care if he is alive or dead? I said it while he was alive, I’ll say it now, and I would have said it to his face: Ted Kennedy is the rich playboy grandson of a Boston prohibition gangster. He was drunk most of his days, he cheated his way into, out of, and back into school, and he got away with killing a woman. All of these things are documented. Ted Kennedy was a worthless human being and a waste of oxygen, and I refuse to say otherwise just because he is now burning in hell.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Brother Chris why are you trying so hard?
Talk to any economist and they will tell you, operating in a purely market economy, void of any government intrusion is impossible. But you probably know that.
Your analysis ignores the human component and social aspect of the way we live. People aren’t rational, markets are rational. [/quote]
No, it is government that ignores the human component. It operates on the notion that stuff can just fall out of the sky and that people do not act in their own best interests.
Real free market economists have it figured out just fine.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
A basic problem with unrestricted economies (no anti-trust regs), is not that you necessarily end up with a bunch of monopolies, but that companies use a profitable section of their company to subsidize another section of their company, allowing what would be an unprofitable company/section of a company on its own, to survive, and drive down cost and quality within that sector.
While Microsoft may have stolen some idea from Apple, the main problem with them, is that they were packaging a bunch of “free” software with their operating system. They were in effect using their profitable operating system, to subsidize other software development that they were giving away.
How can anyone compete with free software already on your computer? You can’t. Notice that now all web browsers are free? All media players (minus premium content) are free? That’s thanks to Microsoft basically making the entire sector unprofitable. They just under-estimated the power of open-source software, and the backlash against them.
That’s the only reason there are still alternatives. But I wonder how much better web browsers we’d have available, or media players, if there was actually a competitive market for them, where we actually had to pay a little.
[/quote]
This is an excellent point. On the one hand, Microsoft artificially raised the cost of entry into the web browser market by packaging IE with windows.
On the other hand, they also need to sell Windows, and who wants to buy an operating system and then get nickel-and-dimed on the web browser, text editor, media player, etc?
I guess the real question would be - did they intend to actively manipulate the market or were they trying to improve the quality of the product for the end user?
I can’t figure any way that they would benefit by funding unprofitable development to increase the cost of entry into the web browser market. How does that translate to selling more copies of Windows? They certainly couldn’t start charging for the packaged software or competitors would emerge, ruining the whole scheme.
None of those are loaded questions, by the way, I would honestly like to know the answers, as I didn’t follow the court case.
But the problem none seem to be aware of is that MS did not force any OEMs to bundle their software. They simply made a deal and the OEMs were free to decide – unlike the gov’t who holds a gun to our heads and tells us we must purchase their health care coverage!
If there had been a better OS/software company that had come along first we would probably be having a discussion about them instead of MS.
If you ask me Bill Gates is a true hero. He helped to bring about a product that improves business efficiency like none other, got extremely loaded, and gives tons of his money away to charity (that’s how the free market will save the world) – all while staring down the barrel of a loaded socialist/fascist system that does not want him/his company to exist.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Brother Chris why are you trying so hard?
Talk to any economist and they will tell you, operating in a purely market economy, void of any government intrusion is impossible. But you probably know that.
Your analysis ignores the human component and social aspect of the way we live. People aren’t rational, markets are rational. [/quote]
You’re talking to one. Second, there is a difference between government and state. I am fine with governing something, however I do not support the state. If you need examples of governing bodies, sans-state, UT and Best Western.
