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