May The Best Mode Win
in [Drive]
|
From: Larry Sheldon on 21 Oct 2009 18:43 Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > It is so effective that it has a 90% market share, you buffoon. So it does not have by definition, a monopoly. Why do you keep using words as if you are being disagreeable, when in fact your are in violent agreement? The term used by people who know what they are talking about for this situation is "oligopoly", and like monopoly, government intervention is required . The intervention techniques frequently use tax bribes, patents, franchise arrangements, and a blind eye to illegal or unethical behavior.
From: pbj on 21 Oct 2009 20:09 On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:57:50 +0000, Brent wrote: > On 2009-10-20, pbj <postittothenewsgroup(a)nospam.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:28:01 -0500, chrisv wrote: >> >>> Brent wrote: >>> >>>> chrisv wrote: >>>>> Brent wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>It isn't and hasn't been. There have always been other OS choices. >>>>>>There continue to be other OS choices. >>>>> >>>>> I see you enjoy showing the world what an ignorant, simple-minded >>>>> fool you are. How odd. >>>>> >>>>> Microsoft's lawyers must be totally incompetent, eh? They could >>>>> have gotten those anti-trust cases *immediately* dismissed, by >>>>> simply stating "There is no monopoly. Anyone can buy a Mac." >>> >>>> (snip irrelevancies, errors, lies, and definitions that do not rebute >>>> my point) >>> >>> Tell it to the judge(s), simpleton. >>> >>> "Anyone can buy a Mac, judge!" >>> >>> "Case dismissed!" >>> >>> *Guffaw* >>> >>>>> Idiot. >>>> >>>>Yeah, that would be you. >>> >>> Nope. You, as you prove again below. >>> >>>>Tell me, how did microsoft gain and retain this monopoly you claim >>>>they have? >>> >>> Only an idiot would ask such a question. Sheesh, you think I'm going >>> to do a treatise for you? >> >> Rex already did one. Brent was... overwhelmed. <g> > > That 300+ line post You mean, the one where the computer ate your homework? ;-) > proving my point that monopoly comes from government? LOL. Not quite, but I'll leave defense of Rex's words to Rex. Speaking for myself, I'm not denying that government CAN create monopolies - it does that all the time with utilities and by granting patents and copyrights. I just haven't seen any proof that government is a necessary prerequisite to the creation, existence, and survival of monopolies in general. If you want to persuade me otherwise then you're going to have to show me a list of modern nations where the government has absolutely no role in the economy and where I can see that monopolies, as you claim, don't form or survive. BTW I am using the grown-up definition of a monopoly here, not the simplistic "100% of the market" definition they teach in grade school.
From: Brent on 21 Oct 2009 20:43 On 2009-10-22, pbj <postittothenewsgroup(a)nospam.com> wrote: > Not quite, but I'll leave defense of Rex's words to Rex. Speaking for > myself, I'm not denying that government CAN create monopolies - it does > that all the time with utilities and by granting patents and copyrights. > I just haven't seen any proof that government is a necessary > prerequisite to the creation, existence, and survival of monopolies in > general. Let's say there is one company that provides some product. In a free market without government intervention, how does that company stop someone else from creating another company to provide that same product? Nothing. That company with the 'monopoly' can't stop the new one. Government has to be involved on some level so that the monopoly is retained. > If you want to persuade me otherwise then you're going to have > to show me a list of modern nations where the government has absolutely > no role in the economy and where I can see that monopolies, as you > claim, don't form or survive. Sounds like you've just agreed that government interference is required. But back to the burden of proof... How about you find one, just one monopoly that has endured without government help? I can't prove a negative (a lack of monopolies under X conditions), but you certainly can prove a positive. > BTW I am using the grown-up definition of a monopoly here, not the > simplistic "100% of the market" definition they teach in grade school. That 'simplistic' definition is the definition in adult dictionaries as I already provided. When one company dominates a market to a huge degree it is either because of government intervention in some form or because people simply prefer that company's products and services. Many a dominate company has lost their 'adult definition of monopoly' (since you have to alter definitions of words to have any chance at an argument) when they no longer pleased their customers sufficently. Microsoft could lose its domination of the OS market in an instant. Just a slight change in perception or companies calling MS's bluff and they are done, just like countless other companies that once ruled certain markets. Look at Motorola's cell phone business. They once had it all. Now barely hanging on to what? 3rd or 4th place in market share? Is microsoft unethical? certainly. But it's obvious that people put up with it or even like it. Why? Because people making the decisions want cheap hardware they can get from many vendors and an OS choice that won't get them fired no matter how bad it goes. If that later perception fails, MS is in for a world of hurt. For home users, that work decision is a driver as well as the lower cost in money and their time. In other words, they please their customers. When they cease to do so, MS will end up like motorola. This is of course ignoring the valid arguments that MS's market share is the result of government protection, which it may be. MS is a the 'adult definition of monopoly' because of the favor of government and its courts or it's not a monopoly. As to your snide commentary, I'm sorry it bothers you, but others tore his 300+ line post up far more than I had the time for.
From: 1100GS_rider on 21 Oct 2009 22:13 Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2009-10-19, 1100GS_rider <bmw1100gs(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Keeping the inventory at the > > lowest value added point as long as possible is a big win for everybody. > > It's an illusion. The cost is still in there. It's just part of what is > paid for the part instead. The cost just changes what column on the > spread sheet it is in. Now it's mixed in with raw materials, labor, > tooling, and other costs to make the physical part. So then some > engineer has to find ways to make the same part cheaper or redesign to > make it cheaper. The physical part is cheapened to reduce the piece part > price back to where it was before the inventory costs got added to it. None of that is true.
From: Otto Yamamoto on 21 Oct 2009 23:25
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:47:58 -0700, hancock4 wrote: > I hope you're right. But it seems these days too many everday people > get wrapped up in extreme positions. During the Bush years liberals > blamed anything and everything, like late pizza delivery, on Bush. > Today, conservatives blame it all on Obama. I'd say your statement proves my point quite handily. -- 'Smoking is Healthier than Fascism' |