Where do you get this stuff from???

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!