NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/comp/os/os2/advocacy/10978

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-27 | 5.3 KB

Xref: sparky comp.os.os2.advocacy:10978 comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:3448
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!emory!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!comp.vuw.ac.nz!actrix!Steve.Withers
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: FCC will proclaim Microsoft is run by Communists! :)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 21:04:54 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Steve Withers)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Lines: 89

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>
> >Your argument is neat and tidy and ideologically driven. You are completely
> >correct, of course, but the *practical* outcome (ie. final result) of the pure
> >application of your point would see us living in a very unhappy world
> >dominated by one or two massive monopolies.......and no market.
>
> How do you know that I did not learn history ? Do you think that
> if one studies history then he/she must reach _your_ conclusions
> and nothing else ? Your historical conclusions are far from being
> uncontested.

I suspected your historical knowledge in this area because your conclusions do
not seem to benefit from any understanding of the history in this area
(anti-trust). As for whether my conclusions are contested.....sure they are.
But most people seem to agree that there is no perfect market and that
un-restrained market activity tends to porduce monopolies.......purists who
argue that if we could *only* get rid of all these perverting, co-ercing
forces we would end with a pure market don't like in the real world.

I usually hate to talk about the "real world" because it is so
subjective...:-). Let me simply say that my 35 years and education have led me
to the conclusion that the "real world" involves people and their
relationships and all the bagage that brings to any "system" that tries to
describe what these people are doing. The pure, market theorists don't
recognise this....which is why much of modern economics is a
crock...especially the New Right variety.

> At least in this case there is no shred of evidence for price-fixing.
> But these _contemporary_ facts does not even trigger you to _question_
> your historical conclusions. You take your historical conclusions
> as _absolutes_, not as an hypothesis.

Oh dear. I can sum up my views by saying "I know what I know." I long ago gave
wondering about whether some things are good or bad....I have reached
conclusions in many areas based on my own experiences in business, society and
life in general. You call them absolutes, if you like. There are just some
issues I no longer vascillate on.

As forthe particular case of MS: The FTC has been investigating for some time.
They have found evidence of breaches and recommended action be taken swiftly.
I don't think you or I are ina position to dispute the information they have
gathered, are we?

I work for a company that sold MS-bundled PC's. I know the terms of that
agreement. I can see where the FTC are coming from on this. Further, I agree
with it. You can waffle about absolutes and hypotheses all day if you like.
But the MS monopoly-being-born needs to be curbed. Period.

>
> >The FTC is just another
> >market "force". It acts to restore competition when the market fails. Yes,
>
> Why do you insist calling it a _market_-force ? It is just force
> in a literal sense. Simply say that in your opinion force should be
> used against MS to restore competition.

I have said nothing else! I don't see "force" as a bad thing. You use it as an
expletive, certainly, while I do not. MS operates in business environment
which is regulated by government agancies whose job it is to se that business
is conducted in such a way that is fair and above board. When one company -
whether through fair trading or foul - gains such an advantage that it
controls the entire market to the detriment of competition - to the point
where there is *no* market......hen the regulatory agencies kick in.

Clearly this aspect of modern commerce in most countries is something you find
repugnant. OK. That's fine. But these agencies were created as the solution to
the problem of laissez-faire capitalism degenerating into a small number of
very powerful monopolies.....as it appeared to be doing during the early part
of this century. In doing so, it was becoming a thread to social order and
responsible (in the sense of representative and accountable) government.

So make room in your market thoeries for the FTC and simialr agencies. They
exist. They will continue to exist. They are a real market force. Think of
them as Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand".....keeping the markets in balance.

Or continue to rail against them and spew vitriol at those who recognise the
important role they play.....

Steve



--
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | On Sept. 19th, 88% of NZ voters opted
[e-mail]         | for proportional representation. It
[phone]                          | looks like we may get a more
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | democratic system "real soon now".