Post #16,633
11/5/01 2:36:02 PM
11/5/01 2:42:52 PM
|
OK, fine...
a market must exist for a monopoly to occur. OK, fine. But then, once a monopoly occurs, there is no longer a market in the sense that other sellers need not apply. At that point, the market is closed; there is one seller, and buyers are at their tender mercies. Cause an effect: a market must exist for a monopoly to occur, but once that monopoly has indeed occurred, then the market is basically gone. Exploitation replaces the free market all you trickle-down types like to hallucinate about. In this case, you would probably agree that there is no free market in place here, now wouldn't you? No free market, no "free market forces". And no remedial economics needed, either...thank you. jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
Edited by jb4
Nov. 5, 2001, 02:42:52 PM EST
|
Post #16,635
11/5/01 2:40:41 PM
|
Nope, not fine.
Might want to go re-read that econ book. :)
OK, fine. But then, once a monopoly occurs, there is no longer a market in the sense that other sellersnned apply. At that point, the market is closed; there is one seller, and buyers are at their tender mercies.
That's not quite true. That means that one seller has the ability to dominate, to make changes. That doesn't mean there is *no* market, or *no* competition.
Intel had a monopoly on x86 chips for a long time, despite Cyrix and AMD (and others) attempts to break into that. They *did* compete, but Intel made the rules, set the prices.
Cause an effect: a market must exist for a monopoly to occur, but once that monopoly has indeed occurred, then the market is basically gone.
Depends on many factors.
Exploitation replaces the free market all you trickle-down types like to hallucinate about. In this case, you would probably agree that there is no free market in place here, now wouldn't you?
I wouldn't. You *do* have other options available, as hard as they might be. That doesn't decrease Microsoft's monopoly position - but it does mean that *you* don't *have* to buy their product(s).
No free market, no "free market forces". And no remedial economics needed, either...thank you.
I'd reconsider the remedial, were I you...
Addison
|
Post #16,649
11/5/01 3:37:53 PM
|
Glad...
...you took that one.
Maybe I was just hallucinating...but I sure thought I just saw a complete misunderstanding of economic theory...being one of those trickle-down types and all...
:end puke
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #16,853
11/6/01 12:57:33 PM
11/6/01 12:58:02 PM
|
Not not fine
I wouldn't. You *do* have other options available, as hard as they might be. That doesn't decrease Microsoft's monopoly position - but it does mean that *you* don't *have* to buy their product(s). Ad, I'm more than surprised. Are you trumpetting the myth that there is no Micros~1 tax? That I can buy a naked-PC from the manufacturer of my choice? (That would have been Gateway until they stopped offering Athlon processors, BTW...) Or that I can buy a PC pre-loaded with the OS(es) and application(s, or lack thereof) of my choice? jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
Edited by jb4
Nov. 6, 2001, 12:58:02 PM EST
|
Post #16,934
11/6/01 4:13:07 PM
|
Not^3 fine
Are you trumpetting the myth that there is no Micros~1 tax?
Nope.
That I can buy a naked-PC from the manufacturer of my choice? (That would have been Gateway until they stopped offering Athlon processors, BTW...) Or that I can buy a PC pre-loaded with the OS(es) and application(s, or lack thereof) of my choice?
Not at *all*.
You've misunderstood what a "monopoly" is. Microsoft is a monopoly not because you can't pick *any* PC of your choice. Even if they weren't a monpoly, that doesn't mean you *could* pick the PC of your choice with the OS of your choice. VA linux, for instance, refused to preload BSD. Gateway might not ship anything but RedHat, so Karsten, wouldn't be able to buy from them, etc.
But you *can* buy *a* PC, without Windows. You *can* replace Windows (though that's still paying the tax, its not requiring any other investement, etc).
You stated there was NO competition, nothing else, and that's not true, either. Linux, FreeBSD, and whatever OS/2 is this week *are* competitors. Their lack of market penetration is what (helps) define Microsoft AS a monopoly.
Addison
|
Post #17,040
11/6/01 7:20:06 PM
|
I am so glad that you have explained that the Marketing
Model is perfect and everything is operating like a well-Oiled Machine. Nothing has gone wrong.. gone wrong.. gone
It's just all those ignorant non-Economists who *imagine* that there just might be something .... which *has*.. gone wrong.. gone wrong.. with that Model of Reality\ufffd. (It couldn't be possible for The Model Itself to have severe errors within. Of course - everyone Knows That!)
Still.. Oh Well, perhaps those Celestial Market Forces shall
eventually
in a decade or two or three?
demonstrate the validity of this wondrous Model of Reality.
We'll be able to celebrate the bankruptcy of Billy IV in June of 2119, thus vindicating the existence of Market Forces. After all. We must all learn to Be Patient, I see, in order to fully appreciate the Wonderfulness of these Concepts.
OTOH if we'd prefer Not to live in that logical-fantasy numerical universe, and prefer one with non-robotic humans present too (and actually living a life)
Wake me...
|
