The infrastructure would still be there . . .

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

Welcome to IWETHEY!