At 9:35 PM -1000 7/24/00, Reese wrote:
>"It occurs to me that if you saddle a company with a restrictive contract
>like the US did with S&W AND the contract makes the firm unable to sell
>its products to anyone but govt agencies AND the govt preferentially
>buys all the output of that company--you have effectively nationalized
>the firm."
>
>Comments?
Yeah, you're a lightweight.
First, "saddled" suggests a company had no choice. S&W did.
Second, there are many companies which sell exclusively to government agencies.
Third, you need to work on your understanding of the word
"nationalized." Who owns the shares? Who gets the profits? Who gets
to renegotiate contracts when they expire?
I don't expect you to understand these subtleties.
--Tim May
--
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
