A lesson -

Post #7,135 by imric 8/29/01 5:52:42 PM Reply	A lesson - that my more rabidly libertarian (and my republican) friends should learn: Microsoft is a lesson. Microsoft is where free enterprise goes if left to its own devices: a tyranny as absolute as could be envisioned by Lenin. Ruthless and inescapable control. There is a reason we don't let businesses do whatever they want, regulated only by 'market forces'. It doesn't work. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #7,155 by Ashton 8/29/01 9:25:47 PM Reply	At last I see, the only viable solution next: Nationalize them. Punishment == fit crime. This 'fine' is commensurate with the costs to others (provable and only surmisable via extrapolation), the cost of billions of man-hours of wasted repairs of defective products.. money extorted via preloading against all others' wishes + Ed Curry et al. The US and the world are held hostage to not merely Billy n'Bally, but by a nexus of antiquated patent and \ufffd laws such as permit: Owning the genetic code! to this and that human part. The act of clicking [something] to buy[something]. and certainly: oodles more, in the vault - not yet.. trotted out. But waiting. For which way the wind blows. (See all the clever ones as might next be sprung on OS, undoubtedly invoking UCITA, MMCA, Auschwitz-West and other products of Corp-designed er 'Laws'). Nope - it's a Gordian knot even today. Clear slate. Jail Bn'B and a few other key plotters. Run the company under new management: initially a consortium with a few guidelines and the task of spinning off very much which has been hoarded for no purpose but - to prevent anyone else from EVER making use of it: The Ultimate Example of heat-death via extreme-Capitalism allowed, nay encouraged! to run amok, in service to the very few by the very many. (Tyranny, we used.. to call such eventualities. But that was when people noticed things and voted.) Nationalize them.
Post #7,156 by addison 8/29/01 9:36:45 PM Reply	Wrong lesson. There is a reason we don't let businesses do whatever they want, regulated only by 'market forces'. Yes, there is. But that's in the short term. Microsoft didn't use market forces to gain their monopoly - and they're able to be replaced quickly, compared to past monopolies. (example, if for some reaosn they went out of business tomorrow, the total disruption would be very short term) In fact, Linux's growth is a "market correction"... Especially with other countries now wary of Microsoft... There's lots of reasons to point to the inevivitable dominance of the market. Its not a short term solution, no. And that's why there is antitrust legislation. Long term, it will correct, in some way shape or form. Addison
Post #7,166 by Ashton 8/29/01 11:08:56 PM Reply	This faith may not be entirely misplaced but.. Until we get smarter and redefine all the laws governing 'Corporations', via recent feedback re their aggregation of power over the citizens -- (we possess that power - we invented the name and status) -- Corps have no set lifetime. People do. People as perps do. Justice delayed is justice denied. People set the policies and must pay the penalties, in normal 'time' - the market only takes care of the more egregious of the 'noticed' barbarisms, and then ponderously and randomly, merely.. eventually. Billy n' Bally are the perps. Punish same. Shortly. It is or ought to be: the Murican Way. A.
Post #7,179 by Andrew Grygus 8/30/01 2:16:16 AM Reply	And the Thousand Year Reich would have corrected itself . . . . eventually, so it was a mistake to have fought it, no? [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,181 by Ashton 8/30/01 6:03:23 AM Reply	Touch\ufffd____cackle___cackle_____Market Forces for Dummies\ufffd Gotta love the Authoritative Explanations in those dusty Adam Smith tomes, for all those MBA Principles governing er Kapitalism in delicto flagrante!* (Never mind that guy behind the curtain! / those 'laws on the books' / er 'enforced' only after the $$ have long-gone to the Usual Pockets.) Yup: Market Forces at Work\ufffd as the sheep shearing is over for the season.. * "Tui grosnya Kapitalistichiskaya svinya!" Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle..
Post #7,188 by addison 8/30/01 9:38:10 AM Reply	Markets, Andrew, not Governments. Governments skew the whole situation to hell. Markets. Not Government. Sorry to interrupt the ob-nazi-reference. Addison
Post #7,197 by inthane-chan 8/30/01 10:39:19 AM Reply	False Godwin. It's not there yet - you aren't comparing each other to Nazis. "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post #7,210 by addison 8/30/01 11:19:19 AM Reply	False False godwin. I didn't call Godwin. :) I merely referenced the nazi reference, and said it was obligatory. :) Addison
Post #7,211 by Andrew Grygus 8/30/01 11:32:44 AM Reply	I fail to see the difference. Whenever businesses have been given free reign they seek to become (and sometimes have become) the government of their domain. Microsoft most certainly has in mind being more powerful than any government, and for a while there thought it already was. Bill Gates is reputed to have said so and placed himself as more powerful than the President. Business today seeks to transcend the traditional controls by "internationalization", become an international government not bound by any jurisdiction restricted by boarders and superseeding any regional governments in the same way governments have traditionally superseeded business by having greater scope. In the other direction, governments steadily evolve to totalitarianism and serving a small elite, just like businesses. In fact, on that path you will hear many claims of making government more "efficient" (totalitarian) by applying "sound business principles". So, again, I see no basic difference. They are the same thing, and if not restrained by an aroused public, become totalitarian states. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,216 by Andrew Grygus 8/30/01 11:57:39 AM Reply	The one sentence version A government is a business who's market is providing and running civic facilities (generally as a monopoly). Now I see even less difference. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,229 by addison 8/30/01 1:28:37 PM Reply	I agree, its a failing. :) Government's aren't directly constrained and controlled by market forces. While market forces can cause disruption (chaos, overthrow, coup) - they do not directly change the force that a government can exert. As opposed to a business/monopoly. If everybody stopped buying Microsoft tomorrow, they'd disappear. Addison
Post #7,193 by Another Scott 8/30/01 10:04:50 AM Reply	I disagree. Hi Addison, Microsoft didn't use market forces to gain their monopoly - and they're able to be replaced quickly, compared to past monopolies. (example, if for some reaosn they went out of business tomorrow, the total disruption would be very short term) As we know, having a monopoly isn't illegal. It's using monopoly power to destroy competition, extend monopoly power into other areas, etc., which are illegal. Couldn't you apply the same statement you're making to Standard Oil or US Steel? "If Standard Oil went out of buisness, they could easily be replaced with little disruption." Why not? It's just oil/steel/whatever. Refining/forging is well-known technology. Etc. Cisco Systems could easily be replaced by another firm too... The problem with monopolies isn't that they can't easily be replaced, IMO. It's that they can and often do lead to abusive behavior which prevents natural development of markets and new products, increase costs, cause aggregation of excessive wealth and power in few hands, etc. In short, sometimes the market needs help to control extreme concentrations of market power. It's not a short-term versus long-term distinction. It's an abuse of economic power distinction. Cheers, Scott.
Post #7,212 by addison 8/30/01 11:38:00 AM Reply	Re: I disagree. As we know, having a monopoly isn't illegal. It's using monopoly power to destroy competition, extend monopoly power into other areas, etc., which are illegal. Under current laws, yes, exactly. (I disclaim laws, because there's several hypotheticals you can use here, no laws, current laws, laws that ought to be, etc). Couldn't you apply the same statement you're making to Standard Oil or US Steel? "If Standard Oil went out of buisness, they could easily be replaced with little disruption." I don't think so. Because with those monopolies, there were HUGE infrastructure issues. Real property. Not electrons. Had SO gone belly-up, there would have been years to get the infratstructure back to that level. (Which by now would have been as "short term" as the Great Depression is to us. :)). Compare that to PCs. Microsoft makes software for commodity hardware. Novell, UNIX, OS/2 - all of whom can fill the requisite OS requirement. Yes, this might impact apps, and app development (to varying degrees). But even more importantly - if Microsoft ceases to exist tomorrow - Windows still runs. There isn't a (until hailstorm) connection needed from your PC to Redmond to let it run. If SO stopped refining - then soon the tanks would be dry. Steel stopped producing - the channels dried up. THAT is the single, biggest reason why Microsoft's monopoly is tenuous... You can stop upgrading TODAY. Move to another platform, on your same hardware. (And why Microsoft is so fearful of web services and Java, anything that further makes that a fluid transition). But Windows will work, during the distruption/transition. Not so with the "traditional" monopolies. Why not? It's just oil/steel/whatever. Refining/forging is well-known technology. Etc. But it takes a massive amount of money to get into it. Building a plant to deal with SO (who for purposes of argument, just went belly-up, and for legal reasons the plants they hve are closed) would take years, and lots of money. Cisco Systems could easily be replaced by another firm too... They could, even more easily than Microsoft. And trust me - they say that to you in lots of meetings. :) Cisco's replaced (fairly seamlessly) enough OTHER vendors... that they know that. :) And as a result, they work hard to have other reasons than just their name and lock-in... (Cisco support is very well regarded, and I've had many good experiences with it). The problem with monopolies isn't that they can't easily be replaced, IMO. Not the whole problem, no. and you're right on the disruption they cause. Cisco and Microsoft are pretty good comparisions. Both have a dominant market share. Who's repressing technology? Which is trying to prevent new tech from showing up? From my time at Cisco - they're quite happy to be competed with. They relish it. They want to kick your ass if you try - but please do try. And if you are doing really really well, well, Cisco might just offer you a ton of cash (and options) and buy you out, and keep selling your product. (AFAIK, they've never purchased "defensively" as M$ has done, and shelved products). In short, sometimes the market needs help to control extreme concentrations of market power Yes. Hense the anti-trust laws. And their slow, ineffective use against Microsoft being proper. (if only they'd do it right). But what I'm saying is - long term, Microsoft would lose their monopoly due to the power of the market. But the damage in the short term is why we have the laws, even if the market will fix it - later. Addison
Post #7,217 by Andrew Grygus 8/30/01 12:02:42 PM Reply	The infrastructure would still be there . . . . . (as would the trained employees and managers). It would simply be taken over by other companies, just as happens today when a company fails. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,230 by addison 8/30/01 1:31:49 PM Reply	That's a "presume" not a "simply". (as would the trained employees and managers). It would simply be taken over by other companies, just as happens today when a company fails. That's not what happens. Usually there's bankruptcy hearings, courts, auctions - and in the meantime - that capital isn't usable. And that's months/years of meantimes. Its not just handed to someone else (presuming there's someone there to do it, and in a monopoly situation, there (usually) isn't). The plants might be there, there might be the trucks, etc... But they aren't going about daily business. Addison
Post #7,235 by CRConrad 8/30/01 1:55:20 PM Reply	What's Microsoft's ratio of "plants, trucks, etc"... ...to employees, and how many years are employees usually tied up in "bankruptcy hearings, courts, auctions"? Sorry, Add, but you're wrong. You just want to see some mystic property of corporations, imbued into them by the holy Market[], that makes them fundamentally different from governments and other organizations. They aren't; it's all just more or less equivalent ways of organizing human endeavour. Neither do corporations differ very much from other organization types (governments, churches, armies, football associations, etc), nor are economic market forces much different from other forces that shape society and the organizations in it (religions, culture, fashions, fads, etc). Nor are they necessarily even the most important ones. Individuals, they say, should "eat to live, not live to eat". The same goes for society* -- and the economy isn't all of society; it's just how society "eats". []: What is* it with so many Americans, that they want to see something so utterly profound and "different" about markets (and, to an only slightly lesser degree, corporations) than everything else in society? Have you guys strarted some new "Church Of The Founding Fathers" religion over there (without, apparently, really realizing it yourselves), or WTF? Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #7,236 by addison 8/30/01 2:16:00 PM Reply	Erm. I think you got mixed up. Sorry, Add, but you're wrong. You just want to see some mystic property of corporations, imbued into them by the holy Market[], that makes them fundamentally different from governments and other organizations. And this is wrong by a ratio that doesn't affect anything why? I didn't say anything mystical about Corporations. I said that they, in the long term, would be brought to heel by the market. So if you're going to correct me, you might want to actually GET what I'm saying down first. Corporations are fundamentally different from governments, however. By definition. I shouldn't have to go into the details as to why. For the very first start - they're in business to make money. Governments are "in business" to provide services. Neither do corporations differ very much from other organization types (governments, churches, armies, football associations, etc),* Sorry, CRC, but you'll find little support there. You're right that they're one way to organize effort. That's about where it ends. Governments - see above. Churches - Um. Yeah. They've got a lot in common with corporations and government. What is* it with so many Americans, that they want to see something so utterly profound and "different" about markets (and, to an only slightly lesser degree, corporations)* Stop confusing the two. What is it? Its called "history". And economic theory. Name me a case where in the long term, the market didn't bring things back into equilibrium, barring governmental involvement. As to the first sentance - Andrew's presumption that in case of a (legal) major disruption, it would have been "business as usual" for prior monopolies flies in the face of history and procedure. Thus, Microsoft is more quickly removable, with less even short-term impact, than SO, or AS, or even AT&T. (Notice, this is NOT ME saying that they SHOULD NOT BE trustbusted.) Addison
Post #7,272 by a6l6e6x 8/30/01 5:02:12 PM Reply	Counterexample. Have you heard of Boston Chicken? That was a company whose restaurants had been renamed to Boston Market. You still see them, but they are now owned by McDonalds (technically a subsidiary of McDonalds). The stockholders got zip after the bankruptcy process. Most Boston Market customers never knew anything happened. [link\|http://retailindustry.about.com/library/weekly/aa120299a.htm\|Link.] A stockholder for while, and despite a loss, I bailed out before the bitter end. Alex Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel. -- Anne Frank
Post #7,449 by Decco Dave 9/1/01 11:28:08 AM Reply	SOAP " (And why Microsoft is so fearful of web services and Java, anything that further makes that a fluid transition). " Rather than being fearful of Web services MS is embracing the concept using technologies like SOAP and XML. Keep in mind that MS created SOAP and that it is now being adopted by other vendors including MS competitors. SOAP allows services running on other platforms to be consumed by MS based applications and vice versa over the Net. MS dumped Java and created C# because they could not co-opt the language. Sun reserved that right to themselves. MS has opened their application language environment in .NET by creating a common intermediate language and execution facility. Make no mistake, MS would not be headed in this direction if they didn't think they could dominate the market and make a buck doing it.
Post #7,452 by addison 9/1/01 11:56:40 AM Reply	Needs more washing Rather than being fearful of Web services MS is embracing the concept using technologies like SOAP and XML. Microsoft is terrified of Web Services. That's why they're trying to create MS-only web services. MS dumped Java and created C# because they could not co-opt the language. Co-opt is for what? Java allows you to swap the backend... Microsoft would have to compete with everybody else. Like I said. That's what scares 'em. Make no mistake, MS would not be headed in this direction if they didn't think they could dominate the market and make a buck doing it. Yes, and they're trying to force lock-in. They certainly want to make a buck - but more importantly, they don't want to have to compete with other vendors on performance. Addison
Post #7,607 by Decco Dave 9/3/01 11:16:10 PM Reply	Re: Needs more washing "Microsoft is terrified of Web Services." That's why they are marketing Web services so heavily? They are scared of it so they market it? Afraid I can't see the logic in that position. No doubt in the MS ideal, Web services are all MS-only. But, they certainly haven't moved in that direction. On the contrary they have made a big push to build SOAP and XML into their products. Re: Java, MS wanted to change Java to create their own unique, version yet still call it Java. Sun said no way, took them to court and won. Sun wants no competition from other vendors for the Java franchise.
Post #7,613 by addison 9/4/01 12:53:45 AM Reply	Needs a LOT more washing. That's why they are marketing Web services so heavily? They are scared of it so they market it? Their version(s). Yes. The interoperatability is still in question, to say the least. But, they certainly haven't moved in that direction. On the contrary they have made a big push to build SOAP and XML into their products. On the contrary? Ok, so can you show me the Microsoft documentation for non-microsoft interoperation? I don't know it doesn't exist, but my limited experience would indicate that you're repeating their PR. Re: Java, MS wanted to change Java to create their own unique, version yet still call it Java. Sun said no way, took them to court and won. Sun wants no competition from other vendors for the Java franchise. I hope you're charging by the hour for that. That's absoutely ludicrous - and why I don't believe you on the above. You might note that HP is supposedly (I don't know the status) "clean-rooming" Java. IBM puts out their own JRE and JDKs. Microsoft wanted to subvert Java so that if you used tools for Windows, it would only work on Windows. Sun wants no competition from other vendors for the Java franchise. And how much competition does Microsoft brook for the Windows franchise? Addison
Post #7,640 by Decco Dave 9/4/01 12:28:29 PM Reply	Interoperation? If you define interoperation as something like the capability to service non-Windows OS calls on a Windows platform, then you are correct, MS has no interoperation strategy. But, what is the business justification for creating this capability when SOAP & XML allow cross platform provision and consumption of services? As has been pointed out elsewhere, SOAP is a generic interface that allows processes to be invoked irrespective of the providers implementation technology. In much the same way, XML allows data to be transferred between systems with dispirit technologies. "IBM puts out their own JRE and JDKs." IBM's Java is licensed from whom? "Sun wants no competition from other vendors for the Java franchise. And how much competition does Microsoft brook for the Windows franchise?" None, which is exactly my point. IT vendors don't congregate so they can sing the Barney theme song. They all want you to use their technology exclusively.
Post #7,453 by dmarker2 9/1/01 12:06:52 PM Reply	Re: SOAP - MS 'invented' SOAP ? Actually SOAP is a very very simple envelope protocol that the other companies agreed to go with just to please MS and encourage them to stay with the standards. MS will tell us that SOAP is a great invention - which is of course piffle, SOAP is so simple that they even called it the Simple Object Access Protocol. But as you relatedly imply MS are attempting to hijack Web Services - firstly by hijacking XML from Sun (I have read press articles that blatantly implied that MS invented XML). MS saw XML and XML objects as the only next generation technology that they could use to try & deflate Java. MS have published papers that argue that XML objects passed with SOAP, actually negate Java EJBs. The argument is that Web Services is going to become the new middleware and that the concept of run timbinding & SOAP calls can eventually displace Corba, EJBs, etc: (some MS wags even include JAVA). Why MS is so into Web Services is that it doesn't exist & is just a promise at the moment - sure there are parts of the technology in IBM's WebSphere 4.0 & several other servers incl MS BizTalk, but it is all futures & not many people (if any) run mission critical apps based on Web Services as defined by UDDI, WSDL & SOAP. Because it is future, MS can rave about it and position them selves as champions of it but don't have to deliver on it. And this of course is MS at their best :-) Cheers Doug
Post #7,609 by Decco Dave 9/3/01 11:29:09 PM Reply	Pleasing MS "Actually SOAP is a very very simple envelope protocol that the other companies agreed to go with just to please MS and encourage them to stay with the standards. " No argument that SOAP lives up to its name by being simple. Simplicity is essential for something of this nature. Otherwise you get locked into one vendor or another's platform. I got a chuckle out of your assertion that other companies didn't want to hurt MS's feelings. IBM and the other MS competitors see an opportunity for their customers to use services running on MS platforms at no additional cost to themselves. They are hoping that this increased accessability will provide them with a competitive edge.
Post #7,456 by Andrew Grygus 9/1/01 1:00:45 PM Reply	Microsoft did not invent SOAP. I have been informed that SOAP was actually invented by David Winder of UserLand Software, who is reportedly a bit pissed at Microsoft for approprating his creation without acknowledging his contribution. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,538 by static 9/3/01 12:27:38 AM Reply	Dave Winer. He's been busy trying to zag when other companies - like Microsoft - zig. I'm not surprised he got burnt on this one. In his current DaveNet piece, [link\|http://davenet.userland.com/2001/08/31/microsoftsScriptingStrategy\|Microsoft's Scripting Strategy], he's warning about another way how Microsoft are going to try to displace everyone else. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #7,275 by imric 8/30/01 5:29:26 PM Reply	Antitrust law IS a 'market correction' Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #7,289 by addison 8/30/01 8:51:54 PM Reply	No, its an artificial outside influence, like ceiling/floors
Post #7,295 by imric 8/30/01 10:34:33 PM Reply	Wrong. Antitrust law came about because of the reaction of the marketplace to previous monopolies. No, its an artificial outside influence, like ceiling/floors Ok. So why were these limits put in place? Was it a reaction to market effects? Do you consider consumers to be part of the market? Are governments made up of consumers? Antitrust law came about as a correction to the abuse of monopoly power. Therefore, antitrust IS a market correction. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #7,302 by addison 8/31/01 12:24:14 AM Reply	If you insist on perverting the language, fine. I can't reply at length without being fairly insulting. But its a perversion of the whole concept to try and insist that legal forces are part of the market, and pointless to bother and argue if you'll take that stance, because its going to be impossible to dicuss. Addison
Post #7,307 by wharris2 8/31/01 4:46:23 AM Reply	noting previous antitrust vs. Microsoft Way too slow, way too inefffective. The current antitrust: way too slow, and even if Jackson's remedies went into effect, absolutely ineffective. Good point, Addison. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #7,311 by Ashton 8/31/01 6:18:55 AM Reply	Absolute faith in a simplistic concept, 'free market' appears to have similar effect - when interpreted by homo-saps - as Absolute Faith in the OneTrueGod (all the assorted ones around, I mean): A nice irrational excuse to ignore the effect of power on ordinary homo-saps, believe in magical 'consumer feedback corrections' as will always correct Any atrocities: then sit back and watch as the money becomes more and more concentrated in fewer pockets. And call that, The Market's (God's) Will. Taliban, Middle East? Adam Smith - what's the difference? (No 'market correction' ever sent a perp to jail) A.
Post #7,317 by imric 8/31/01 9:58:40 AM Reply	So hostile... To the idea that government, and law, is part of the market. Why? Now you won't discuss it without getting 'insulting'? Go ahead - will those insults help to make your point? It's not supposed to be 'us and them', is it? Here in the US, at least, it's supposed to be 'We, the People'. Laws affect the market. The market affected the laws. Why is it 'perversion the whole concept' to claim that laws are part of the market? After all, laws are what make the enforcement of contracts and agreements possible, no? Or should we hope that a company that doesn't honor all it's contracts will 'eventually' go out of business because no-one will trust them? And, after all, what is this 'concept' you are talking about? Is it the concept of 'market', or the concept of an 'absolutely free market', something that doesn't exist now, and hasn't existed so long as governments have? Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #7,321 by addison 8/31/01 10:24:01 AM Reply	Because its a "concept" that disallows agreement. Why? Now you won't discuss it without getting 'insulting'? Go ahead - will those insults help to make your point? Because you are telling me I'm wrong, and then redefining meanings. I suppose you can do that, but the argument will turn Brycian. "That's not what that means!" Because with your definition - shoplifting is a market force. Firebombing a store that irritated you - is a market force. Corrupt cops are market forces. Well, hell. With that definition - and yes, if you're going to say that in response to monopolies, laws are market forces - then by that SAME definition, EVERYTHING [just about, excluding, say, weather] becomes a "market force" - and now you can't analyze ANYTHING, even in the sterile world of economics. The whole point of "market forces" is to exclude "real" things. Laws are specifically not addressed in beginning models, more so in more complex ones. Things that increase cost or decrease the price, they can be mapped. "Antitrust" cannot. Suddenly tossing that in is wrong - yes, wrong - and makes discussion impossible. Try and draw up a simple supply demand curve. Now show me where you're doing the "antitrust" representation. After all, laws are what make the enforcement of contracts and agreements possible, no? No. Contracts are distortions of the model. Just like ceilings, and floors. The whole concept of the "free market", which doesn't totally exist, is that there's open transactions. The more elasticity you have, the better. The less elastic, the more complex the modelling gets. Laws are represented as constraints on price, and contracts would be the same way. How do you propose, in the common supply/demand curve, to show the law for "monopoly" as part of the market? Addison
Post #7,325 by Silverlock 8/31/01 11:19:48 AM Reply	Now we know You finally explain why you get so hostile "Because you are telling me I'm wrong" And, of course, you never are. </sarcasm> Life is a Cabernet.
Post #7,341 by addison 8/31/01 1:15:35 PM Reply	Re: Now we know And, of course, you never are. How about the rest of that sentance you quoted? Not when I'm arguing with people who are mangling the usage of words to be "right", no. Nah, its more fun to pull words and put things in people's mouths, than to actually bother to think. (no sarcasm) Addison
Post #7,345 by Silverlock 8/31/01 1:58:22 PM Reply	Just going by history You have never once in all the years I have followed this group, ever admitted to being wrong about anything. And you accuse me of not thinking. Irony is so...... ironic. Life is a Cabernet.
Post #7,346 by addison 8/31/01 2:08:36 PM Reply	I suggest you repeat History, you've forgotten it. You have never once in all the years I have followed this group, ever admitted to being wrong about anything. And you accuse me of not thinking. Not reading perhaps. Admitted I was wrong on many an occasion. Of course, I didn't do that just because someone decided to redefine something that's been well defined in the course of my studies. Did it because they proved me well wrong. Last time Bryce said that, BTW, I'd admitted that twice in the same week - in the thread he was posting in. (not to him, to someone else) Drat. Not more of those blasted facts. Further proof is left as an exercise to the student. (And unlike some discussions, it does exist, so its not asking you to prove a negative). Of course.. then you'd have to admit that you... what was that about irony? Addison
Post #7,349 by Silverlock 8/31/01 2:29:17 PM Reply	Sorry dude, you just rub me the wrong way Facts is facts I guess. I don't remember the occasion of you saying you were wrong. That certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen, just don't remember it. I'd say I agree with you about half the time, but the manner and tone of your arguments stick in may craw. So, even when I agree with your position, I find myself disagreeing with your personality (for lack of a better word). I'll try to keep the heat down but I can't promise I will always be succesful. Life is a Cabernet.
Post #7,326 by imric 8/31/01 11:32:36 AM Reply	Sure. Whatever. Because you are telling me I'm wrong, and then redefining meanings. And this because I think the rules of a game are part of the game? How have I 'redefined' anything? Because with your definition - shoplifting is a market force. It IS, you know. Has to do with demand. It affects supply. Changes price. and now you can't analyze ANYTHING, even in the sterile world of economics. Oh - so only simple models are possible. I suppose analysis grows more valuable, and more reliable, the less it's connected to the real world? Laws are specifically not addressed in beginning models, more so in more complex ones. So - you are saying that laws are addressed in more complex models, or are you saying that they are addressed 'less than not' in more complex models? If they are addressed more, then it seems that laws shape the market after all. Things that increase cost or decrease the price, they can be mapped. "Antitrust" cannot. But MONOPOLY can... So laws that 'prevent' abusive monopolies cannot? Sorry - don't 'buy' it. Suddenly tossing that in is wrong - yes, wrong - and makes discussion impossible. Insist all you like - but making a subject more complex does not make it 'impossible to discuss'. Try and draw up a simple supply demand curve. Now show me where you're doing the "antitrust" representation. So 'simple' is the sticking-point. Fine. Considering laws passed by the consumers that make up a market makes things more complex. So what? Contracts are distortions of the model. Just like ceilings, and floors. The whole concept of the "free market", which doesn't totally exist, is that there's open transactions. The more elasticity you have, the better. So - without the 'contract' that is implicit in having a unit of exchange, your simple model is back to barter as a means of exchange. Talk about disconnected from reality! The more elasticity the 'better'? The better for what? Modelling a so-called 'free market'? The less elastic, the more complex the modelling gets. Laws are represented as constraints on price, and contracts would be the same way. How do you propose, in the common supply/demand curve, to show the law for "monopoly" as part of the market? So - you are saying that a monopoly condition can't be represented in an economic model? That constraints or limits on that condition in said model are impossible to represent? Oh. Fine. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #7,340 by addison 8/31/01 1:12:21 PM Reply	Re: Sure. Whatever. And this because I think the rules of a game are part of the game? How have I 'redefined' anything? You redefined "market". It has a definition. It IS, you know. Has to do with demand. It affects supply. Changes price. Right. And so everything is a market force. Shoplifting does raise the cost - but its the cost that is the "market force", not the shoplifting, itself. Its the cost that is actually mapped. The delta in that can be measured, and attributed to shoplifting, but the shoplifting itself isn't a force, or a condition. Because in the "free market" its totally dependant on supply and demand. So - you are saying that laws are addressed in more complex models, As shoplifting above, yes, as a function of higher cost. Not by themselves. But MONOPOLY can... So laws that 'prevent' abusive monopolies cannot? Sorry - don't 'buy' it. Sorry, you didn't answer the question. Monopolies certainly can be mapped. So show how you map antitrust. That's the challenge presented - you say its possible. Fine. Prove it. Try and draw up a simple supply demand curve. Now show me where you're doing the "antitrust" representation. So 'simple' is the sticking-point. Fine. Considering laws passed by the consumers that make up a market makes things more complex. So what? Um. You left out the representation. The more elasticity the 'better'? The better for what? Modelling a so-called 'free market'? If you've had econ 101, then either you've forgotten, or you're being dense on purpose. I don't know which. But that question is answered there. So - you are saying that a monopoly condition can't be represented in an economic model? That constraints or limits on that condition in said model are impossible to represent? Nope. Quite easy. Covered in ECON 101. Of course, you STILL didn't bother to prove your point. I can demonstrate a monopoly condition on a S/D graph. Show me your antitrust representation. Addison
Post #7,353 by imric 8/31/01 3:09:58 PM Reply	? So - you are saying that a monopoly condition can't be represented in an economic model? That constraints or limits on that condition in said model are impossible to represent? Nope. Quite easy. Covered in ECON 101. Excellent! Then since constraints on monopoly are easy to represent, and you can "demonstrate a monopoly condition on a S/D graph", then constraints on monopoly conditions (antitrust legislation) should be (easily?) representable. Of course, I am obviously not the devotee of the hard science of economics, as you are. Of course, you STILL didn't bother to prove your point. Oh. Sorry. I guess I lack the command of econ-speak to make my point. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #7,362 by addison 8/31/01 4:19:13 PM Reply	You've gotten confused. then constraints on monopoly conditions (antitrust legislation) should be (easily?) representa Well, that's up to you to do that (and what I've been asking for). Oh. Sorry. I guess I lack the command of econ-speak to make my point You're lacking the above - show that its easily represented, first, because that's how you show "market forces". So you're wanting me to prove your point, and insisting its easy, but you're not doing it. :) Excellent! Then since constraints on monopoly are easy to repre And that's not constraints on a monopoly, its monopoly conditions. That's showable. But the entire crux here is back the first part -that's YOUR job to produce that to prove me wrong. Addison
Post #7,327 by Andrew Grygus 8/31/01 12:02:23 PM Reply	Shoplifting is a market force . . . . and so is the weather. Shoplifting affects pricing, packaging, display methods and retail employment - and creates markets for anti-shoplifting devices and consultants. The weather is why we have "seasonal markets". How can you say that isn't a market force? Everything in human experience is part of "the market". Marketeers that understand that are the ones who make the big bucks. Those who try to intellectualize "the market" into a separate playing field will be forever bewildered. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,339 by jbrabeck 8/31/01 1:08:52 PM Reply	WOT What's with the new icon Andrew? I should be using that one!! (See Disaster Recovery thread ;)) [link\|mailto:jbrabeck@mn.mediaone.net\|Joe]
Post #7,342 by addison 8/31/01 1:24:39 PM Reply	Not really. They affect the market. They aren't part of it. Shoplifting might count, but insofar as much as its a CHANGE in the "cost". The whole definition of "market" is inclusive. It certainly is influenced by outside effects. And laws are passed in response to markets, and they may have an effect, but that doesn't mean that they are market forces. (by definition) Weather, doesn't respond (at least on a easily figured scale) of supply and demand - the supply is completely divorced from the demand. (Hense irrigation, desaliniation plants, where supply/demand are interactive. And that's the problem with Imric's assertation. Antitrust law isn't a part of the market, its an outside influence on it. Having said that, some laws (such as price ceilings or floors) can be modelled seperately, since they don't just put a delta to supply or demand. They create an artificial boundary for the demand/supply meeting. I'm eagerly awaiting Imric's representation of antitrust law on a classic graph. Addison
Post #7,378 by CRConrad 8/31/01 7:12:14 PM Reply	Huh??? Addison writes: The more elasticity you have, the better. Elasticity just is a neutral measurement, not something normative that's "better" at one end of the scale and "worse" at the other. I do wish you wouldn't pontificate with such absolute self-confidence on economics -- it really doesn't seem to be justified. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #7,389 by addison 8/31/01 9:43:06 PM Reply	Context, CRC, context. Elasticity just is a neutral measurement, not something normative that's "better" at one end of the scale and "worse" at the other. We're talking about markets, and economic modelling.Classically, the "free market" has infinite buyers, sellers, 0 elasticity, and perfect knowledge. A true "free market" really doesn't exist. (which has 0 elasticity, everything's interchangeable). But the closer you are to the "free" market, the better. (Or, why is it not better?) The more elastic things are, the more interchangable, the closer to said "simple model". The less elastic, the less interchangeable, the less you're able to negotiate, and the more you're tied to monopolies. I do wish you wouldn't pontificate with such absolute self-confidence on economics -- it really doesn't seem to be justified. When BP tells me shut up, I'll hush. In the meantime, I'll keep on being self-confident. :) Unless you'd like to cite differing theories, that is. Addison
Post #7,513 by CRConrad 9/2/01 7:09:18 PM Reply	What, you think BeeP is the only economist in here??? Addison writes: [Quoting me:] I do wish you wouldn't pontificate with such absolute self-confidence on economics -- it really doesn't seem to be justified. When BP tells me shut up, I'll hush. In the meantime, I'll keep on being self-confident. :) So what's he got that's so much better, in your opinion, than my B.Sc in Econ and BA -- with specialization in econometrics -- from Uppsala University, 1992? A Master's, perhaps? I wasn't too far off from that myself either, what with the extra courses I took, beyond the requirements for a Bachelor's, if that's any help... (What economics exam did you take, BeeP, and where and when?) Why should you doubt my word on shit like this in the first place, Addison, considering it's exactly this kind of shit that I've studied full-time (before you say it: from mostly American textbooks, so I'm not indoctrinated in some weird special kind of pseudo-Soviet Swedish Economics...) for far too many years -- which, AFAICT, you haven't? Oh, and either I'm reading you wrong, or your "0 elasticity, everything's interchangeable" and "The more elastic things are, the more interchangable ... The less elastic, the less interchangeable" seem to imply you think elasticity is somehow synonymous with interchangeability. That's a new one to me... Any input, BeeP? (ObPrescientLRPD: "(It's only a model...) SHHHH!") Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything (Yes, When It Comes To Economics, He Really Fucking DOES Know!)
Post #7,523 by addison 9/2/01 10:45:15 PM Reply	No idea how many there are in here. But I'll say that your initial forays certainly didn't seem to indicate that level of education. Whether that's a mark on the learning, or the individual I won't comment on. :) Why should you doubt my word on shit like this in the first place, Addison, considering it's exactly this kind of shit that I've studied full-time Because I made a statement that should have been very easily understood by someone with econ background, and you jump and ridicule it, and say something that I consider to be at odds with that education you boast? Even with that knowledge now, I'd have to go back and edit and say "you should certainly know better". If you've had that much econ, then you know what I'm talking about. So to make the comment you did, that's at the time all I've got to measure your knowledge by. I'm not indoctrinated in some weird special kind of pseudo-Soviet Swedish Economics...) for far too many years -- which, AFAICT, you haven't? You're right. I've never studied any pseudo-Soviet Swedish Economics. Oh, and either I'm reading you wrong, or your "0 elasticity, everything's interchangeable" and "The more elastic things are, the more interchangable ... The less elastic, the less interchangeable" seem to imply you think elasticity is somehow synonymous with interchangeability. D'oh. You're right. There are seperate conditions, and they are in some cases related/linked, (which is what I was thinking about). They should be considered seperately, sorry about that. Mea Culpa. Addison
Post #7,531 by bepatient 9/2/01 11:34:12 PM Reply	Econometrics...cool I hated that ;) Even though it was probably one of the more interesting aspect of economics ...it was also not easy....until the teacher finally broke down and let us solve a model or 2 using an actual computer (the bastard)....we spend nearly 6 weeks solving a model by hand that we ran through the computer in about an hour.... the teachers explanation...(and unfortunately he was right)..."Now you understand the output...don't you?" Want a word that still makes me break into a cold sweat...multicollinearity. Your's is a BS also...most schools only offer BA in Econ anymore...seems like the new crop of kids don't feel that differential equations should be required study... Several exams...42 hours of economics.(that would be 14 college classes)....and an academic award. So figure at least a midterm and final in each...would be 28 exams...and say 2 more in at least half...so ...conservative estimate...42 exams. I still have the term papers (30 pages or more, each)...there were 6 of those. Add to that the other basic biz courses...Accounting, Marketing, Management, Finance...plus the basic psych, sociology, French, German (don't quiz me there...ich everything forgotten ;))(but I still have the book) Then grad school... No biggie. Econ was fun...the speciality really is antitrust. Main paper in graduate school was a full comparison of US and EU antitrust. And the current job requires yearly updates in antitrust...got to stay current so's to not get my employer into any trouble. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,447 by hnick 9/1/01 10:54:07 AM Reply	Good point... I suspect you were being sarcastic, but you made an excellent point. >>"Because with your definition - shoplifting is a market force. >> >>Firebombing a store that irritated you - is a market force. Corrupt cops are market forces." Shoplifting is a market force. Look at grocery stores in 'bad' neighborhoods. The prices are higher because of theft and the higher insurance premiums that result. The only people who shop there are those who lack transportation to 'better' stores. They (obviously) have less money and the same caloric needs, thus theft... Can you say positive feedback? Vandalism and corruption work toward the same ends. My point is of a more local nature than global economies but the analogy is useful. On a global scale, replace shoplifting with nationalizing, vandalism with insurrection, and I don't think corruption needs a conversion. Just a minor point.. Hugh
Post #7,455 by Andrew Grygus 9/1/01 12:37:56 PM Reply	Two approaches to "the market" Addison subscribes to a narrow academic model where the problem is simplified to the point where calculations can be made. Everything is eliminated but supply, demand and pricing. Anything else is by definition "external" to "the market". Now all you have to do is determine the supply and the demand to predict pricing, or supply and pricing to determine demand. I subscribe to a marketing model where anything and everything that affects selling the product is a "market force", including weather, shoplifting and the shifting sands of "fashion". Should I write a textbook on "market forces", Addison and associates would can it as the ravings of a demented crank. Should any business try to market in accordance with Addison's definition, it would be reading Chapter 7 pretty damned fast. For a view of both approaches in action, have a look at this fall's "back to school" clothing market for young men. There is a great deal of supply and no demand at all, and pricing is sure to follow theory. This is due to a fashion misjudgement by the clothing industry. Young men are haunting "closeout" stores in hope of finding some of last years stuff. Addison would consider fashion an "external force disrupting the market", and I would consider fashion the primary "market force" because it has totally distorted the supply / demand ballance. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,457 by addison 9/1/01 1:14:28 PM Reply	Re: Two approaches to "the market" Addison subscribes to a narrow academic model where the problem is simplified to the point where calculations can be made. Not at all. Everything is eliminated but supply, demand and pricing. Anything else is by definition "external" to "the market". Pretty much, yes. That's the basic market. LOTS of things AFFECT those, but those are what its about. Should any business try to market in accordance with Addison's definition, it would be reading Chapter 7 pretty damned fast. Hrm. Last I checked, there were lots. Doing exactly what you say they can't. There is a great deal of supply and no demand at all, and pricing is sure to follow theory. This is due to a fashion misjudgement by the clothing industry. Young men are haunting "closeout" stores in hope of finding some of last years stuff. Let me get this straight. So since there's no demand, price is going down (just as would be predicted), and since there's demand for the (older stuff), the price is going up, and I'm the one talking out my ass? That's exactly what these idiots you're sneering at would have predicted. Addison would consider fashion an "external force disrupting the market", and I would consider fashion the primary "market force" because it has totally distorted the supply / demand ballance. How about you ask, rather than state authorititatively what I would think? I'd suggest taking an econ class, but since you're still insisting that you had NO part in making the Microsoft monopoly, I'm not expecting you'd learn much. :) (for anybody else) Fashion and other things affect supply and demand. As do elasticity, switching costs, and many other things. Some things can be modeled. "Fashion" is about impossble, since its subjective. But the effect of "Fashion" is to change the DEMAND curve - as Andrew noted correctly, in his incorrect assesment, thus changing the price where it crosses the Demand curve. Addison
Post #7,458 by addison 9/1/01 1:15:40 PM Reply	BTW: Anybody who would like to DISPROVE what I just said - do me a favor. Show me. Show me the graphs where you're talking about something else. I won't say you're wrong, ahead of time, but I want you to SHOW me what you're saying. Don't just insist that something exists. Show me. Personally, I expect you'll find that you're drawing supply/demand curves.. and that either one, or the other, is being moved. Addison
Post #7,460 by Andrew Grygus 9/1/01 1:55:31 PM Reply	Which is why you adhere . . . . . . to the narrow academic definition - you demand graphs and charts. Anything that can't be charted is by definition an "external influence". Of course any chart presented will be just a supply/demand/price chart, that's the only part that can be charted - how do you chart fashions, for instance, or the antics of legeslators? If your model worked in the real world, companies wouldn't have marketing departments, they'd just have a computer program, but those pesky, unchartable "external influences" can (and often do) have an overwhelming influence on the demand variable (and sometimes the supply variable) of your supply/demand/price calculations. Valid supply/demand/price calculations tend to be "after the fact" - after the "external influences" have already had their way with the market. It's up to the marketeers to try to anticipate those "external influences" - to the marketeer, those are the primary market forces. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't, it's not something you can graph. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,464 by addison 9/1/01 2:56:56 PM Reply	Which is why I asked... You to show something. Of course any chart presented will be just a supply/demand/price chart, that's the only part that can be charted Let me get this straight. You're insulting me because I've said that according to economic definition, you can only chart this, thus its what you measure. Now you're telling me its all you can. - how do you chart fashions, for instance, or the antics of legeslators? The question for you was how do you do that. To answer your question, since you won't, is that those are "shifts in the supply or demand curve". Fashion shifts demand. Doesn't touch supply. Legislation can affect either - or impose a artificial equilibrium out of whack with the "natural" eq. If your model worked in the real world, companies wouldn't have marketing departments, The model does work in the real world. Heard of "economies of scale?" What about "super buys" at your local store? Companies want to maximize their profits. Marketing is an attempt to get you to buy THEIR product, pay their premium, for some reason. You don't need to market when there's not competition. Marketing surely exists - BECAUSE (YET AGAIN FOR THE HARD-OF-READING) THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A TRUELY FREE MARKET. There isn't perfect knowledge. There isn't complete elasticity, there aren't infinite suppliers and buyers. Differing people have differing demands. Personally, I don't give a flying fig about Tommy Pull-my-finger crap. I don't buy it. I buy generic, good clothes. Want me to buy your clothes? They've got to be in my price point. Other people put more of a premium on these things. Does this change the basic point? Nope. Means that there's a shift, and even then, you can even put up a S/D curve on fashion items. I have a cousin who only buys/wears Nike stuff. But there are still things he can't afford, he has a S/D curve for that stuff. Fashion, with a S/D curve. Now, if you want to tell me I'm wrong, get your cerebrum in gear, and SHOW ME. Right now you're telling me I'm wrong, because I'm right. You can chart fashion - people make quite a lot of money doing exactly that - because it shifts the Demand curve up, without increasing the costs more than the increased profits. Or sometimes not, witness the dot-com failures, where they didn't have the S/D curves right - no matter how fashionable. In short, you don't understand the econ theory.... If you'd start to, you'd stop telling me I'm wrong. :) Addison
Post #7,465 by Andrew Grygus 9/1/01 4:10:50 PM 9/1/01 4:25:28 PM Reply	How "Super Buys" work . . 1. Superstore A negotiates huge lot toilet paper deal at the best price and terms they can get from manufacturer B. 2. Superstore A does a "special", bombs the toilet paper at cost or less, and moves the whole buy in one week. 3. Superstore A invests the money they owe to manufacturer B in money market, Eurodollars, or whatever investment is hot at the moment. 4. Superstore A drags payment to manufacturer B for 90 days or more and pockets the money earned. With enough simultaneous deals going, that can be significant income, plus it brings people into the store, and they're likely to buy some of the profitable stuff while they're there. "We lose money on every sale and make it up in volume" is literally true. And a couple of other things: 5. Since superstore A is selling so cheap, retailers C,D,E,F and G have reduced sales and reduce their orders to manufacturer B. 6. Since orders from other retailers have dropped, manufacturer B is desparate to meet their quarterly sales figures, so when superstore A comes back for another round, they're all ready to lube up, bend over and get screwed again - just a little deeper this time because they've become more dependent on superstore A. 7. Finally, manufacturer B files Chapter 11 because of low profit and cost of money to float receivable for 90 to 120 days. 8. Manufacturer F is approached by superstore A. Manufacturer F's sales have been down because all the volume has been going to manufacturer B, so they're all ready to "make that big deal" to meet their quarterly figures. Lube up, bend over, repeat until done. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx] Edited by Andrew Grygus Sept. 1, 2001, 04:25:28 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #7,468 by Ashton 9/1/01 5:12:49 PM Reply	Hey! I think I see a 'graph' in there________:-\ufffd Or maybe just an epitaph.. Blessed are the numerologists, for they shall chart their demise - after the integrated vastly complex Real Market (the world of random homo-saps) makes it happen - to 6-digits of precision. And.. it will look so Kewl! on that Power Point demo to the auction house, of the er 'recoverable assets': the 95.2312% of the Hill-O'Fingers Transistorized Banana Corer, still 'in stock'. Ahhh.. numbers are so sooothing, so like P&G Ivory soap's crooning of, 99 and 44/100ths percent Pure.. It Floats !! (Hey! it sold a lot of soap!) 3.1415928... ah it's almost as satisfying as a Real Pi(e), except in the stomach, of course. Ashton 99.87234% Sure! that Certainty is a chimera - and not only in regular religions.
Post #7,470 by Andrew Grygus 9/1/01 5:56:44 PM Reply	Adventures in marketing #48734655j A century ago in a soap factory, a production mistake was made. A mixing machine was left running for way too long and ruined a batch of soap. The soap had stiffened and a lot of air got worked into it. Production now had a very large and very "odd" batch of soap on their hands. They called in marketing to see if it could still be sold - a full scale new product introduction campaign followed immediately. You see, due to the fscked up processing, the soap floated. Further, due to the air in it, it disolved faster than regular soap, a convenience to the user, but one which would cause them to need to buy soap more often. This is like the much earlier case in France, where the baker's apprentice, after preparing a large batch of dough, realized he had forgotten the butter. Desperately, he folded in the butter, but the dough was lumpy, so he rolled it out and folded it again and again until it finally looked normal. It looked normal, but it didn't bake normal. The boss cornered his apprentice and sternly asked what had happened, and the kid confessed. He was not punished, however, because the baker was a marketeer, and launched the puff pastry industry, making possible the croisant and other popular products. Disclaimer: the puff pastry story may or may not be true in reality (but if it isn't it ought to be). The soap story is true. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,469 by Ashton 9/1/01 5:38:24 PM Reply	Or, for the 'engineering model' Hey! I've got a model for The Car - tells ya everything you need to know about making one: ______......______ \|Box A \| + \|Box B \| = The Car \|_____\| + \|_____\| What's in box B? transmission, clutch, drivetrain, wheels - simple! What's in Box A? The Engine - simple! OK.. I see how the principle of the lever covers gear ratios and, friction reduces power and.. wheels turn - all that B stuff. But what's in Box A? Oh, Laffercurves and Cost/Benefit ratios and extrapolated depreciation on the mean replacement cost and ... ^h^h...etc. I mean! er, gasoline, air, metal, rubber, water, glycol, electrons, sludge, varnish, carcinogens - why ya wanna know all that stuff? But how does The Engine work? Nobody Knows, but we call it: 'Economics' and.. we can graph it to a fare thee well. It's enough. We've got the $; we make the rules. I don't see how the Engine WORKS! Look kid, if you wanna pass this course and get that MBA and start playing Solitaire in that corner office, in yer Regimental-striped tie - before Wednesday golf with the Doctors? Shut up and mark those boxes [T][F]. Oh, sorry - guess I don't need to know Everything! Open Book quiz at 11:00:12.72 Bring your calculators; no essay questions allowed - and NO PENCILS. It's Power Point ONLY Class dismissed [click] Class dismissed [click] Class dismissed [click]
Post #7,471 by Andrew Grygus 9/1/01 6:52:49 PM Reply	No problem - it's "Faith Based" [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,582 by wharris2 9/3/01 7:11:36 PM Reply	Missed item Cost leaders. Superstore A has a great deal on toilet paper, but gets revenue on whatever else teh buyer may buy at the store. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #7,598 by boxley 9/3/01 9:23:43 PM Reply	dollar stores also things you would never consider going to the store for but they are only a buck. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #7,601 by Andrew Grygus 9/3/01 9:41:16 PM Reply	No, I got that . . . . . paragraph under item 4. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,499 by bepatient 9/2/01 1:24:22 PM Reply	Boys boys boys.... There are ALOT more factors than Supply and Demand...(pricing falls from these 2...and is thus derived...in >theory< :-)_) BUT...I feel inclined to poke my head in here... Weather, shoplifting and fashion ARE market forces...because they relate to how product cost or material supply is derived. Bad weather does indeed affect the supply of citrus fruit...for example. Shifting fashion sense has certainly reduced demand for double-knit polyester leisure suits...has it not? HOWEVER...this thread, IIRC, began by someone trying to call government intervention a "market force". THIS...is not correct. While government intervention does indeed affect the market...by economic definition it is NOT a "market" force....but an external influence to the "market"...needed to ensure an adequate supply of "public" goods that would NOT be produced by the market itself (national defense...pollution control...etc...) AND...just to make another point...I can graph a shitload more stuff than just supply and demand...there's resource allocation, indifference, marginal outputs, interest rate and fx affects on money, money multipliers... Only Father Guido Sarducci can get away with all of econ being supply and demand based. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,508 by Ashton 9/2/01 4:30:42 PM Reply	Now don't spoil it, BP By introducing rational qualifiers. My guess is that the visceral antipathy to all the boffins is - that they tend to perpetuate the idiotic ideas that (say) A) The Market is... anything other than a highly idealized er 'massless rod of length h'. B) That its entire dynamic may be expressed in mathematical model, displayed in 2D or nD 'graphs' -- which 'explain' it all. (Though unlike the scientific ideal: rarely predict events with more than owl-entrail accuracy) Agreed that we 'want' Some methodology a bit better than owl-entrails; it's our nature to seek explanations (some folk even imagine there's an ontological 'proof' of er God!). I suggest that the concept 'market forces' is simply an open-ended labelled container into which, with perfect 20/20 hindsight: are tossed each new factor as was seen to have affected That particular run-up or run-down; factors as varied as The Weather and - Imagine an idea, sufficiently sophisticatedly noised about that: The phosphorous in Coke (the liquid kind) + the accumulated random DNA from the millions of steer carcasses intermixed into any one Big Mac: are asymptotically approaching a certain date (elapsed time) ~ a la Code Red algorithm - at which time flaming kidney stones shall appear in millions of fast-diners, all within a likely window of just 'weeks' = excruciating pain! (How many $B support, feed-off UFO sightings overall?) Economists thus purport that their algorithms work, yet that 'market forces' container is as malleable as gold leaf hammered between leather sheets. It's no nearer a science (however unarguably it is Dismal) than is 'socio'logy; but it must pay well, and soothe lots of CIEIOs - and after all they Are the most important ones to buy the snake oil: they own most of the stuff (even the patented ideas!) [/Aummmm]: Dollllarrrrzzzzz Unite against the Dismal Doctors of Deception D\ufffd ? Don't be a Rube !!
Post #7,661 by drewk 9/4/01 4:35:31 PM Reply	How much is this a semantic argument? While government intervention does indeed affect the market...by economic definition it is NOT a "market" force. Someone (Ashton?) recently brought up the concept that professions are just the way to keep non-professionals from playing your game through the use of technical jargon. I'm not an economist, but a layperson ... one who pays attention. It seems there is some disagreement even from the people with formal training in the field as to whether government intervention should be classified as a "market force." To the extent that anything that affects the market is a market force, it is. To the extent that the "idealized market" only consists of supply, demand and price, it isn't. The "truth" must lie somewhere in between. My understanding, as I said in my other post, is the simple Supply/Demand graph, and that everything else is just inputs into determining these curves. The simple chart, by itself, is not predictive or useful. But even at this level of understanding, I see government intervention -- in the form of patents, anti-trust regulation, price fixing, nationalized industry, etc. -- as fundamentally different from buyer/seller inputs. In this sense, supply is the idealized end-point of all inputs involving the seller, and demand is the end-point of all inputs involving the buyer. IMO government input is still orthoganal to these forces. I suspect that Addison's viewpoint is farily close to this. FWIW I believe that's the "proper" way to view government input since "the government" is theoretically a representative of "the people," which should include the buyers and the sellers. Slightly OT: A gas station franchise owner in Alabama (he only has one station) has sued OPEC under anti-trust legislation for price fixing. At the first hearing, OPEC didn't appear and the judge entered summary judgement on behalf of the plaintiff. Another judge has set aside the verdict, and a second round is under way with OPEC taking the matter somewhat more seriously. The US Attorney isn't weighing in, claiming they don't have a mechanism to pursue the case. OPEC's position is that the plaintiff has no standing to pursue a multinational, due to sovreign immunity. They are explicitly holding themselves up as equivalent to the U.N., as deserving of immunity to local prosecution. This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #7,668 by bepatient 9/4/01 5:03:41 PM Reply	Definition... I can understand why the confusion exists. Public finance (government intervention in the economy) is a couple of full time courses in economics. The basic principle is that "market" forces are those inherent in the interaction between the "suppliers and demanders"...where government intervention is "enforced" on the market from the outside. Both have influence on the derived outcome of the market...so the net effect is pretty much the same. So... ...I understand both points of view...but to really be true to my school...have to split laws and other government issues away from the naturally occuring "market". You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,476 by boxley 9/1/01 9:46:19 PM Reply	hate to let a perfectly degenerating thread go to waste. A man taking a dump in california in 1849 picked up some gravel to wipe his ass and the gold rush was on. Everything is a market force, even the fact that a couple of guys went surfing a few years ago and now we have Microsoft Corp instead of CPM corp. Shoplifting indeed is a market force as it defined the need and market for anti shoplifting devices. Go into a Home Depot and go the the power tool section and tell me shoplifting isnt a market force. :) Cant help arguing with you some times because you dissed my fav chinese Ginger House just because they like to use ginger:) thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #7,491 by Ashton 9/2/01 6:41:26 AM Reply	Ah.. but the Biggest 'marketing force' has to be Suggestibility (I Need This) Gullibility (I Really Need this - that ad is so Pretty) Insatiability (I Really need All of Those) All lumped together under the root cause of the symptoms (Gee I'm maxed out on 4 cards, but.. I Just Gotta HAVE This NOW) [all verified by the US er 'savings rate' and growing % of those with 0 net worth] summarized as: Dumbth. I assert that every mercantile economy counts on Dumbth at its very core, fosters it, and via its now omnipresent ads: makes every effort to counter any tendency towards Smarts. Consumer as Patsy, by definition of the system. Watched any UAV, truck ads lately? - noticed the fantasyland depicted as reason for running out to get one? (Hmmm tattoo Caveat Emptor on every newborn's right hand? Would make a lot more sense than circumcision, for females OR males.) "'Market forces' on some nice neat graph" - indeed. Snake oil for the academics and MBAs and by the same -- no reps for the consumption-besotted on any of Those committees -- formed solely to get the marks to go into hock more, and for longer. No matter what. THERE's the Real Market Force\ufffd So.. does Dumbth belong on the ordinate or the abscissa - or is it a Constant offset, with an annual CODA rise? A. Innumeracy leads to consumerism. We have both in spades.
Post #7,338 by ben_tilly 8/31/01 1:03:53 PM Reply	I think there is a definition issue here Anti-trust is a correction of the market. It is not a correction arising from the basic mechanisms of a capitalist marketplace. So if we interpret the phrase market correction as a correction belonging to the market, I see 2 plausible definitions. The one that I see fitting your usage is that the correction belongs to the market in that it is correcting said market. The one that Addison's usage fits is that it belongs to the market in that its proximate cause is due to the buy/sell decisions that people are constantly making. I am no economist, but I would guess that Addison's definition is closer to the common usage in economics. With that said, I now return you to your scheduled flamewar... Cheers, Ben
Post #7,343 by addison 8/31/01 1:26:31 PM Reply	Exactly. Thanks. It is not a correction arising from the basic mechanisms of a capitalist marketplace. Exactly. Left to its own devices, the markets will correct BY THEMSELVES for monopoly - in some manner of time. That's not to say that antitrust/anti-monopoly legistlation doesn't have an effect - but its not one that's a "market force". Addison
Post #7,351 by imric 8/31/01 3:01:33 PM Reply	Fine! smile That's not to say that antitrust/anti-monopoly legistlation doesn't have an effect - but its not one that's a "market force". Ok. Fine... Then please define what a 'market force' is - and what it is not. I have never claimed to be an economist. ...Silly me. Since laws are determined by the consumers and producers in the market (in democratically influenced societies, anyway), I had the misconception that the market influences laws, which then in turn, influence the market. So, to me, I thought that since antitrust legislation was a 'correcting' influence on said market (legislation produced, as it were, by marketplace conditions), it was therefore a 'market force'. I am puzzled as to how effects produced by the marketplace, influenced by the marketplace, and that in turn influence the marketplace, are not market forces. Please elucidate. Left to its own devices, the markets will correct BY THEMSELVES for monopoly - in some manner of time. That seems to be a matter of (religious?) faith to me... Can you PROVE this? Mathematically, that is. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #7,355 by drewk 8/31/01 3:30:55 PM Reply	Market theory assumes idealized conditions. It's like physics in that way. "Assume a rod of length one meter with zero thickness and mass of one gram." Well, it can't exist, but we can do the math on it anyway. In the same way, and idealized marketplace is one where the only forces are supply and demand. They meet at some point to determine price, the only output. Second order effects include the change in supply due to people buying and selling. Production and consumption can be added in, as can depreciation and advertising effectiveness. But these are all only the drivers of supply and demand. In reality, players try to influence one or more of these inputs. Copyright and patent legislation can create artificial scarcity. Price caps and minimums can put floors and ceilings on prices. Contractual obligations can affect price, but can also disguise or manipulate the apparent supply and/or demand -- see Microsoft's "trade secret" contracts with OEMs. "Dumping" can artificially inflate supply as a long-term strategy to drive out smaller players. Anti-trust legislation is intended -- in the view of "pure" marketplace economics -- to restore the "proper" functioning of a market that has been excessively manipulated by a player that can wield too many of the previously mentioned tactics. This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #7,363 by addison 8/31/01 4:21:11 PM Reply	Oh, shut the (#@$ up. I spent an hour and a half writing my opus, and you summed it up that fast? #@$&@@@#(&@(&@)$&@#&$^@&^($%%%$@#$)(@&$_&@&$)#@&)&$ And ($&^$@^$@$_$&@$^&@$ your little dog, too! AUGH Addison
Post #7,376 by imric 8/31/01 6:59:00 PM Reply	chuckle Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #7,361 by addison 8/31/01 4:15:20 PM Reply	Re: Fine! Ok. Fine... Then please define what a 'market force' is - and what it is not. I have never claimed to be an economist. "Market force" is the push towards equilibrium. First, in classical econ, if you presume starting with a "free market" - many buyers, many sellers, and perfect knowledge, you get a supply/demand curve. sigh. Just look at this with a fixed font: \|\\S /D \| \\ / \| x \| / \\ \|/ \\ ---------- ^Cost > Units X is the equilibrium point - where the most buyers and sellers agree. As we all know, that's not realistic. Some items, for instance, aren't elastic - if you've got to have a drug to stay alive, and its made by one company, then that throws the above out of whack. If you were in a "free market" - then anybody could produce that drug, and soon the cost would be slightly above what it takes them to make it (back to equilibrium). (pardon me for not trying to do a more complex graph showing an out of eq condition). The market always drives towards equilibrium. Yeah, that's slightly religious, but you can see it with just about anything. How many people who just got laid off ran out an bought luxury cars? Around here, at least, the car dealers are offering much better deals than they had been, because they're selling lots less new/slightly used cars. Things like imperfect information are corrected, over time. (as more people come to find out the information, buy less), etc. etc. Now, a monopoly is a market imbalance. Because of the monopoly, the S curve moves up, as they can charge more, the Demand stays about the same. (I need a whiteboard). But basically you're now charging more than the market bears. Which means, profit. Which means, somebody else is gonna say "We're not just doing this for money... we're doing it for a SHITLOAD of money!" and jump in. Thus for a monopoly to succeed (to digress slightly), there can't be easy subsitution (elasticity), and there can't be perfect knowledge. So you can show monopoly on these sorts of charts. But - if they charge too much, eventually SOMEBODY will find a way to open that up, and make their own money. Which is why you have trademarks and patents and "government enforced" monopolies... But back to the "simple" market. You and I make widgets. Interchangeable for all intents and purposes. We charge 5 clams apiece, and sell 4 goombahs a day of them (each, total of eight). If you raise your price to 7 clams - and I don't raise mine - what happens? I'll sell 8 goombahs. Assuming I don't have 8 of them, I'll sell the 6 I do have, and you'll sell 1. The last will drop off, because the seller will say "that's too much" (the demand drops to 7 at your price.). Can you afford to do that? Depends on a lot, on your costs, on my costs. Maybe I'll raise my price to 6 clams, maybe I can increase my production then, and sell all 7 goombahs of 'em, and you don't sell any. Oops. you're in trouble. So you'll have to drop your price to 6... and then you'll sell 3 goombahs. That's market force. Say for instance, you can't charge less than that. You've got to charge that much to cover your expenses. Either you'll sell less - or I'll raise my price and make more money, selling less (because you'll again get 1/2 the sales). If I'm making too much, then we'll get a 3rd seller in soon, and he'll sell for 5 clams again, and be happy with those results, and we'll all have to drop prices. Its the competition between buyers (and sellers) that drives the equibrium. And as you know, there isn't perfect knowledge. But as things are cheaper, you'll sell more. More expensive, less. That's market force. So you get the "realities" in. Especially in constrained areas. Say, for instance (Hi, Ben), New York City housing. Now, there's a problem with the "simple" model here - that its not easy to ramp up more housing. So the demand goes up, and the supply goes down. So the prices go higher and higher. So, since its so expensive, and democracy is great, the government steps in and puts a ceiling on what you can charge. So your apartment is "worth" 500 clams, now. But the government says you can't charge but 250. So you're "losing" 250 clams. Is this market force? No. Its an external influence on the market. Supply and demand aren't coming to an equilibrium. (Otherwise, it would be worthwhile for more apartments to be built/buildings converted/renovated, etc, until it wasn't profitable). With the ceiling in place, there's a limit to what you can charge/profit, so its not worthwhile for other people to enter the market. (And the actual laws, as I undertand them, are pretty byzantine). Back again to the monopoly. Since you can't subsitute, since you have to buy from the monopoly, the monopoly gets to charge what it wants, and artificially change the S/D curve. Now - notice that for the most part, the sales will decrease under a monopoly. wait, you can't notice. Argh. I need a whiteboard. [link\|http://www.westvalley.edu/wvc/ss/econ/micro.html\|Graphs] In that graph, with Microsoft, rather than selling X at $70, they sell Y at $190 (and theoretically make a lot more). Drat. can't find better graphs on a quick search. Anyways. So antitrust (remember Antitrust, its a song about antitrust) doesn't show up here anywhere. I see what you're getting at now, but its still not a market force. What antitrust attempts to do is be another external influence, that ALLOWS the market force (price versus demand) to take over. Take Standard Oil (please). Antitrust didn't lower prices, it created seperate companies - so that THEY would compete (and in theory, lower the price to the equilibrium). So its wasn't a market force, itself, but (in theory) would allow market forces to re-control that market. This makes it an external influence, but not a market force, no matter whether it was because of the market, or Nancy Reagan's astrologer. (Which notice, would be just as valid a reason as a monopoly getting people to call their congresscritter....) That seems to be a matter of (religious?) faith to me... Can you PROVE this? Mathematically, that is. It is, to a degree. And there's a lot of economist blood spilled over that point. I take the viewpoint that eventually, it will be made irrelevant, based on past history. Had AT&T kept their stranglehold on telephones, instead of satellites attacking cable, they'd have gone after the more lucrative phone market, (for a possible example). IBM's monopoly on mainframes was hampered by the ready supply of "minicomputers" by Digital and others. So its my belief that in the long term, the market will correct for a monopoly, but that's not a reason not to have antitrust. Addison
Post #7,375 by Ashton 8/31/01 6:58:46 PM Reply	Thanks for an illuminating thread, all. I summarize ~ as heard here and mulled: We may not 'blame' the economists for their simple models, though twit same, whenever the dialogue becomes too religious. These have demonstrated utility -- about the buy/sell process only. Clear enough now re 'market forces' and the need to separate that idea from meta-(market forces). Then maybe we can define~ a mercantile culture is one in which buying/selling is a major daily occupation and, one might say - becomes also a preoccupation (the buy/sell process). Then it seems: whether inevitably? or just usually - the "means of barter" (money) Itself becomes a Larger aim than, the more tawdry details of the exchange mechanism. It follows: maximizing personal advantage becomes the (for some.. only?) major goal - certainly Not 'equitable distribution for least overhead possible'. Psych enters too: "what the traffic will bear" - always sets price more than does cost - except as limits are reached. Further, at least in our case: the items exchanged.. long since have gone beyond any idea of "those things needed to support life" and on into the land of er 'manufactured Wants' (an industry we call marketing, one based largely upon exaggeration and other forms of lying-for-$) So within this context, however imperfectly described: It appears that The Market is ever agnostic; is irrelevant to - specifically - any smallest idea of say, "quality of life produced" via mere, laissez-faire er marketing forces No? If this is close enough for government work (?) it would seem that, vastly most important to any idea of "the quality of life" is precisely: Some (wise! but at least responsive?.. effective then) means of meta-market oversight. And necessarily, for reasons of the limits of language and within our employment of phrases like, quality of life - the exploration and implementation of this 'function': Can never have the pseudo- 'mathematical precision' of the mere "ideas of a free market left to equilibrium via the named simple forces". I believe that these may be some of the clashing concepts lying behind ~ why.. much in Econ 101 leaves many a bit too cold and others a bit over-heated in zeal (to apply math to: human events). (Hell, it may even 'explain' why some of the polarized labels get attached, as for ex. to er Repos (not to be confused with the 'Republican'-half of the single party with 2 Right-wings) Darwinian Capitalism? Perhaps Repos are ones (of whatever other 'politics') who really do imagine that math can cover it all. Libruls tag might be for those who imagine that the math is irrelevant; social consequences are all. So much for the extremes but, seems clear enough that the math AND the social consequences ever must modify any idea of Capitalism else: it, being amoral in every sense - can indeed morph into (whatever brand of) Totalitarianism, hegemony of the few; anti- any concepts of 'democracy'. As.. lately, perhaps? Billy n'Bally our D.E.W. line.. focussing attention on the weaknesses of integration, to date. My 3 zlotys.. Ashton Smith G\ufffddel
Post #7,382 by imric 8/31/01 7:53:09 PM Reply	Aieee! Well, I've tried to reply point-by-point asking for some clarifications, etc., but something is killing Mozilla. Three times now. During the course of those replies, I answered my most of own questions, though. Thanks for the excellent reply! Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #7,477 by boxley 9/1/01 9:56:04 PM Reply	In support of your position Where are the railway monopolies, self corrected by new technology. Any monopoly must indeed fail under its own weight as the market that hits the monopolistic wall will find a way to go around, unfortunately this usually leads to violence and social upheaval. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #7,377 by CRConrad 8/31/01 7:11:55 PM Reply	Where do you get this stuff from??? Addison writes: Left to its own devices, the markets will correct BY THEMSELVES for monopoly - in some manner of time. Which economics textbook did you get this from? Whichever one it was, throw -- don't give! -- it away, because that's just not true. (Now do you see what I mean, about your "blind faith in the Holy Market"...?) Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #7,387 by addison 8/31/01 9:25:02 PM Reply	Many years of econ classes. (Now do you see what I mean, about your "blind faith in the Holy Market"...?) I know what you mean. I told you that you were mistaken for combining a blind faith in Holy Corporations and Markets, and attributing it to me. Markets, yes. Corporations, no. And for the nth time - it is my opinion, that IN TIME, that will occur. I'm not sure what books you'd prefer. That does NOT MEAN you should WAIT FOR IT.(IMO) In other words, you keep presuming (apparently) that my faith here, means that you shouldn't take other steps. I'm telling you - in my opinion, based on how things work - that a monopoly will apart because of market pressures. Eventually. Yes, its a theory/belief. I see a lot of support for that. (What do you predicate your denial on?). And I KEEP disclaiming this - that antitrust/anti-monopoly legislation is needed, nay, crucial IN THE SHORT TERM, so you don't have to WAIT for the market to take its effect. (And there is a school of thought, with some good support, that antitrust law like that helps monopolies, but I shan't get into that, the tangents it would introduce... :)) Addison
Post #7,511 by CRConrad 9/2/01 6:46:18 PM Reply	How many? And of what -- Econ 101, over and over again...? Addison writes: [Quoting me:] (Now do you see what I mean, about your "blind faith in the Holy Market"...?) I know what you mean. I told you that you were mistaken for combining a blind faith in Holy Corporations and Markets, and attributing it to me. Markets, yes. Corporations, no. Can't say I've seen you explain this distinction you (now claim to) make very much, if at all... But OK, never mind that. I'll concentrate on your main misapprehension below, in stead: And for the nth time - it is my opinion, that IN TIME, that will occur. I'm not sure what books you'd prefer. Oh, say, Econ 102...? (Or 201, or whatever comes the semester after 101 in your numbering system.) That does NOT MEAN you should WAIT FOR IT. (IMO) In other words, you keep presuming (apparently) that my faith here, means that you shouldn't take other steps. No I don't -- that's just you presuming (explicitly) that I do. I'm telling you - in my opinion, based on how things work - that a monopoly will apart because of market pressures. Eventually. Yes, its a theory/belief. I see a lot of support for that. (What do you predicate your denial on?). On guys like Adam Smith[] and Pareto and Ricardo and... Oh, I can't remember them all. In short, on what came AFTER Econ 101. And I KEEP disclaiming this - that antitrust/anti-monopoly legislation is needed, nay, crucial IN THE SHORT TERM, so you don't have to WAIT for the market to take its effect.* I know, I know... And I wish you'd STOP, dammit, because I've NEVER SAID you said it wasn't needed. (At least, that is, I wish that you'd stop going on about this to ME.) What I am actually saying is, it's even MORE necessary than you're acknowledging, because the market actually DOESN'T correct ALL such "errors", in either the short OR the long run. That's what the concepts of "market imperfections" and, more specifically to this case, "natural monopolies", are all about. (And there is* a school of thought, with some good support, that antitrust law like that helps monopolies, but I shan't get into that, the tangents it would introduce... :))* OK, so let's not. []: Side note to Ashton: Yes, the sainted father of economic science, Adam Smith hissveryownself, said the Invisible hand does NOT always work perfectly, and can in fact sometimes lead to (side-side note to Addison: PERMANENT) "market imperfections" such as monopolies. So STOP DISSING THE GUY, willya? Sure, Ayn-Randian Ultra-Libertarian whackos of the "there ARE no 'monopolies', except govertnment-created ones!" stripe (the kind Harris definitely, and Addison to only a slightly lesser degree, either are or are at least coming off as here) often take his name in vain, as a would-be proponent of total Laissez-Faire... But that's not his* fault, and by apparently accepting their characterisation of him, you're only perpetuating what they're doing to his name; which is, as far as I'm concerned, besmirching it. Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #7,524 by addison 9/2/01 10:59:10 PM Reply	3. Can't say I've seen you explain this distinction you (now claim to) make very much, if at all... But OK, never mind that. Then you're just being insulting, for I replied to you the other day with exactly that distinction on YOUR misconception. It just came UP the other day, when you made it up, and I corrected it. And now you're saying that somehow its my fault for your failure to bother to read it? No, don't never mind that. No I don't -- that's just you presuming (explicitly) that I do. Its the impression that I received. My apologies if thats incorrect. I know, I know... And I wish you'd STOP, dammit, because I've NEVER SAID you said it wasn't needed. That's what I interpreted " throw -- don't give! -- it away, because that's just not true." to mean. What I am actually saying is, it's even MORE necessary than you're acknowledging, because the market actually DOESN'T correct ALL such "errors", in either the short OR the long run. I still believe that it will. You can of course disagree with me, and apparently you will. But I'll point to things like IBM/Sun/Oracle/etc/etc/etc's support of Linux as evidence - the market will work around a monopoly (or attempt to). Even without the DoJ's attempt to reign in Microsoft's monopoly, the rest of the market is reacting (to push it back into equilbrium). Addison
Post #7,532 by Ashton 9/2/01 11:45:04 PM Reply	Apologies to Mr. Smith, for having blamed him for the er Fix-Packs added by successors, in his name. I didn't know he Hisself had gone so far as to mention permanent aberrations.. This would make him even more prescient; was he the last Great one as well as the first? I'm a bit surprised that you suffered through so much of this dismality [ugh! what a horrible non-word] - though I couldn't know whether the exercises can indeed sharpen one's powers of observation (?) But can guess why Ayn-baby's doggerel (and her fan club of - those who call selves strict constructionists here, meaning often reactionaries) - might piss you off. That is, I haven't encountered an Ayn fan who wasn't a reprobate social Darwinist in all other noticeable areas as well. I guess what I notice often in such screeds too, is a form of the faux precision encountered in budding science students, before they have grasped concepts of, 'Redundant constraints' - as that applies to geometrical models of machines (3- vs 4- legged stool and such) and 'false precision' - incomprehension of the quite different meanings of, '5' and of '5.0000' (The umm 'significant' difference). If I can bear it, shall attempt a brief reread of Wealth of Nations, in atonement. It has been some time.. A.
Post #7,533 by bepatient 9/2/01 11:50:10 PM Reply	Natural monopoly From Auburn University website A monopoly that does not arise from government intervention in the marketplace to protect a favored firm from competition but rather from special characteristics of the production process in the industry under the current state of technology. Theoretically, natural monopoly arises when there are very large "economies of scale" relative to the existing demand for the industry's product, so that the larger the quantity of the good a single factory produces, the cheaper the average costs per unit get -- right up to production at a level more than sufficient to supply the entire demand in the relevant market area. This might occur when production of the good requires extremely large initial capital investments to even enter the market in a modest way but then producing additional output requires only very modest additional outlays beyond the fixed initial investment. Under such circumstances, the firm that initially starts out with the largest share of the market is in a position to price its output at a level below its (higher cost) competitors' costs of production and still make a profit while driving them out of the business -- and the larger its market share gets, the lower its unit costs become, until a monopoly position is finally obtained. (It is often argued that local telephone service, natural gas supply, and electrical power distribution fall into this category because of the heavy initial investments in networks of telephone lines, electrical lines and gas lines that are involved.) From the point of view of the rest of society, this single firm monopoly is potentially a blessing, since the one firm can in fact produce the amounts of the good they will demand at a lower total cost in resources than multiple competing firms could. However, once the firm has attained a monopoly position, there is the likelihood that it will use its unusual dominance of this market to maximize profits by restricting output below the level which a competitive market would lead to and raising prices above competitive levels. This would lower overall social welfare below the maximum theoretically achievable because price would be set above marginal costs of production. It is therefore argued by some economists that such natural monopolies represent instances of "market failure" and that this justifies government stepping in to regulate prices and output levels in such an industry so that price will more closely approximate marginal costs of production. (However, since the "natural monopolist" by definition faces a situation where his marginal costs will be lower than his average per unit costs, forcing him to accept a price equal to his marginal cost will result in his always making a loss rather than a profit from his business. Consequently, the government regulators would either have to pay the monopolist a subsidy to allow him a "fair return" on his investment or else fix the price of the product above its marginal costs of production anyway to accomplish the same end at greater social cost -- which is the usual approach taken.) Critics of government regulatory practices point out that: Instances of true "natural monopoly" situations seem upon close and systematic investigation to be extremely rare. The vast majority of actual real world monopolies are not "necessitated" by economies of scale but instead have been politically conferred by government at the instigation of formerly dominant firms grown fearful of emerging competition. Where natural monopoly situations do exist, they tend to be of comparatively short duration, since advances in technology quite regularly seem to create opportunities for new competitors to undercut established giants of the industry. Even where natural monopoly situations exist for prolonged periods, high elasticity of demand due to the availability of substitute goods very often means that "monopolistic" levels of price and output turn out to differ very little from the theoretical competitive optimum. Even where natural monopolies exist for prolonged periods and potentially would cause sizeable divergences from socially optimum levels of price and output, there is very little reason in theory or in historical experience to expect that real world regulatory agencies will in fact bring output and prices any closer to the theoretical optimum, because regulatory policies in practice are almost always much more responsive to arbitrary political pressures (especially from the regulated industry itself) than to any burning desire to have price equal marginal cost. Moreover, financing the regulatory agency's large and highly paid staff (as well as the payroll for the regulated firms' expanded legal department and lobbying organization) is itself a sizable social cost imposed by the regulatory process that often outweighs any social benefits achieved. Just to clarify the argument somewhat. It also carries my thoughts on the matter....that even in the case of "natural" monopolies...the market will eventually (via technology and/or substitution) correct itself. Its just that society (and I happen to agree with this also) doesn't feel inclined to wait (in some cases up to 100 years) for the market to do it. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,547 by boxley 9/3/01 1:08:08 AM Reply	yeah right Auburn :-) Although if I had the money back I spent in bets on their football team:) thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #7,548 by boxley 9/3/01 1:08:09 AM Reply	yeah right Auburn :-) Although if I had the money back I spent in bets on their football team:) thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #7,562 by bepatient 9/3/01 9:53:50 AM Reply	Just had to give the credit.... ..it was actually a pretty well put together index. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,645 by mhuber 9/4/01 1:34:20 PM Reply	Not just time but method It isn't just that monopolies take too long to be destroyed by market forces, but the way they may be destroyed that is objectionable. For example, I see a possible scenario in which Microsoft succeeds in their current plans, not only being allowed to monopolize but using the UCITA and DMCA to great effect. And within a few years, the software industry is reduced to Microsoft on the one hand and gratis open source (with the United States as a pathetic backwater where you can't even hold a conference, much less run a major project) on the other. And eventualy the Microsoft hand becomes irrelevant. That would, to use the technical term, suck. Gratis is great, as part of a thriving technical marketplace, but there is a real need for commercial software. And while I'm not chauvenistic, I would prefer that the country where I live remain a place where significant technology happens. White guys in suits know best - Pat McCurdy
Post #7,653 by bepatient 9/4/01 3:53:36 PM Reply	Yep...sometimes what is substituted... ...is not what you would have chosen given other options. I actually like antitrust law for that reason...as long as the punishment is suitable to the offense and well thought out. So far...it appears that neither will be applied in the case of Microsoft. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,655 by Silverlock 9/4/01 4:05:31 PM Reply	How so? A suitable and well thought out punishment? Why do you think this will not be the case? What, in your opinion, would be a suitable punishment/remedy? I am inclined to favor the "burn them at the stake" remedy. Life is a Cabernet.
Post #7,660 by bepatient 9/4/01 4:26:50 PM Reply	Issues... A breakup creates 2 monopolies instead of one. Given Microsoft's history, that means that the monopoly abuse will just be twice as prevalent. A good remedy would involve a full disclosure of windows source...making it public domain....(not NT/2000...just win9x code base) any further development of that code base could be conducted by anyone...including MS. Combined with some type of licensing restriction that limits the MS ability to establish quotas on the OEMs...allowing (and quite possibly forcing) the OEM channel to offer an alternative OS upon purchase of the computer. I'm just not a big supporter of the current "penalty" of breakup. I don't think it solves the underlying problems. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,669 by Ashton 9/4/01 5:23:42 PM Reply	Good! the nitty-gritty.. finally. I agree with Mike's prognosis - were laissez-faire to be again the default non-chosen non-remedy. Agree also with your take on the likely effects of mere 'split in 2,3 or 4' clones of the same malignancy. Believe the cancer metaphor an apt one: M$ is demonstrably a cancer on any idea of 'innovation' and therefore, especially magnified by the hideous repercussions of DMCA, UCITA (and maybe even NAFTA?) - a not merely potential.. but near-certain root-cause of inevitable decline in the er 'relevance' of any US work in the entire IT field. Does such a situation, if ~ true, not define something like a dire emergency ?? And if that is not suficient reason for - an unusual application of the spirit of 'antitrust law' directly towards STOPPING this behemoth cold: then what ever, could qualify? (Natch I hope that DOJ et al Get This, but esecially also the congress-critters - yes, even the Repos amidst the so-called Demos and Repubs! Because if they do not get this, do not see the looming scenario, via mere inspection of Passport, Hailstorm, .net and XP: IMhO, we're Dead. Soon enough.) My 3 Euro-Dollars. (And those will form the economy of the New Non-US worldwide er "IT"). Hey! you monolingues out there: best to start learning yer C in French, Japanese, German and esp Russian.!. SmallTalk becomes er KleinesGespr\ufffdch 'Jump indirect to self' becomes.. well, get busy.. Personally I prefer a nuclear answer; reform of such diseased minds is as improbable as Jesse Helms marrying a black man.. with Swahili rites, at a rave, while toking on an aromatic leaf... Ashton who doesn't hold out much hope, given our Repo record to date
Post #7,671 by Andrew Grygus 9/4/01 5:37:30 PM Reply	I figured Billy needs a personal punishment. I figured Janet Reno could dress up in scanty leathers, fishnet hose and pointy heels with plenty of chains and rivets. Strap Billy to a post and let Janet at him with a cat o'nine. Then I thought, "Hell, the little pervert would probably enjoy it so much he'd try to get punished again and again". [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #7,676 by bepatient 9/4/01 7:59:40 PM Reply	Well... ...we could sub Reno for Balmer.... shudder...after seeing the monkey boy routine...he might like it too much too. Ew...yuck You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,684 by static 9/4/01 9:23:24 PM Reply	Then why didn't you describe one? :-) A personal punishment for BG would be to disbar him from running a business. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #7,693 by Ashton 9/4/01 10:48:04 PM Reply	Nope. Then he'd go into politics directly, 'stead of buying'
Post #7,690 by addison 9/4/01 10:16:30 PM Reply	Re: Issues... A breakup creates 2 monopolies instead of one. Given Microsoft's history, that means that the monopoly abuse will just be twice as prevalent. I don't think that's totally right, but close. The problem is that 2 microsoft's don't have any incentive to behave. 5 would. (Well, I think so). If you break them into: * OS (possibly into client/server) * Internet * Applications * Media * Hardware For example, now there's much more REASON for API's to be documented.. because now there's no benefit to hiding them. (With 2, you've still got groups that benefit from having the hidden API's). A good remedy would involve a full disclosure of windows source...making it public domain....(not NT/2000...just win9x code base) any further development of that code base could be conducted by anyone...including MS. I'm going to have to disagree 100% here. That's a bad remedy. It doesn't "gain" you anything. Sure, now anybody can write to the old Win32 standard, and had this happend 3 years ago, maybe. But now its past that point where it would be (very) useful. So they open the old code they've abandoned, as they're moving onto the NT codebase for all client machines. Combined with some type of licensing restriction that limits the MS ability to establish quotas on the OEMs...allowing (and quite possibly forcing) the OEM channel to offer an alternative OS upon purchase of the computer. I don't like this, either. My alternative would be that OEM contracts are no longer secret, and that there are a certain number of "tiers" established for discounts. So Compaq.. err. HP, knows what Dell paid for its 10k licenses. Take away the possibility of playing each other off of each other, and take away the possibility of getting the licences "yanked" (Which actually, having 5, say, companies reduces dramatically. Since all the software would be licensed individually, a OEM yanking say, Media Player wouldn't change the OS issue...). Tie that to prices that are fixed for some amount of time, and publized (so if they drop the price to run Be out of business, oh wait, well, you get the picture) - all the OEMs can buy THEN. And their product announcements are under restrictions like IBM was - can't talk about it until its ready to ship in 90 days ( of course, Microsoft shipping alpha code ANYWAY makes this less effective, but still would cut down some of the crap (like AD)... And I think Microsoft's abuses would be brought far more into line. Addison
Post #7,399 by bepatient 8/31/01 10:18:01 PM Reply	Oh it will... ...but the time to wait could be very long. Correctiion will occur...and in most cases it will occur by replacement. Fer instance...had there been no regulation of electricity production this would've happened quicker...a cost effective way to power your own home would have been developed (its here now..seen the new propane generators?) Had natural gas prices not been regulated...bullet tanks would have been more prevalent. Telephone service at the local level in Europe is responding to monopoly by a mass shift to digital phones. So...the real issue becomes...how long should society allow the severe misallocation of resources caused by companies operating as a monopoly....and how far should society allow them to leverage that advantage. Clearly...the 2 major economies on the planet (US and EU) have agreed that as long as a monopoly is fairly gained and not abused....they will be tolerated....however...if that advantage is used to destroy other markets...it will be dealt with. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #7,420 by Ashton 9/1/01 12:37:37 AM Reply	Well... we are still waiting on that last supposition No? I (ahem) see the next and near-term performance of our er justice system as, very much Unknown. I am supposing that, judges being human and all, and Not disconnected from the media (including the preponderance of InfotainmentWorld over umm zIWETHEY Illuminati ?) - then adding in some cockamamie impression that say, as Microsloth goes, so goes the Economy.. -- it is ALL very much still a crapshoot, whether any sane remedies occur AND, whether occurs anything approaching fair PUNISHMENT, for the principal architects of the M$ Scam of the century. As of today. And what are the odds that any compensation shall ever accrue to the - surely more than several - Ed Currys ? What's good for General Motors is good for the country.. This may be before your time, depending upon what passed for Econ as you were tortured by those (poor baby) successive texts.. It was indeed uttered by one Charlie Wilson, in Ike's cabinet. I'd say that we most often hew towards the Repo mindset, and that hewing always and everywhere - benefits One Class only; it is exceptional when that is less true. There is no longer any significant organized opposition to this hegemony (however we argue: how it got this way), and It Shows. Ashton Blessed are those who expect nothing, for never shall they be disappointed..
Post #7,429 by wharris2 9/1/01 3:23:32 AM Reply	AT&T eventually the monopoly got corrected. Or, slightly more corrected. AT&T was a century-long government sponsored monopoly that was eventually broken. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!

Welcome to IWETHEY!