I responded to Mr. Scott's little memento - "Microsoft got (and gets) in trouble for using its monopoly powers in ways which violate anti-trust laws..."
This is political opinion in and of itself, yet I don't see you excoriating him. So, play fair or stand down. If you wish references regarding the failure of antitrust in practice, and the bankruptcy of the theory, I can do no better than point you to the following resources, where you might learn a different, and I believe better, version of economics - I place the free resources first and last on the list: The Failure of the "New Economics": An Analysis of the Keynesian Fallacies - Henry Hazlitt http://www.mises.org/books/failureofneweconomics.pdf Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics - Henry Hazlitt http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250896853&sr=1-1 Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure - Dominick T. Armentano http://www.amazon.com/Antitrust-Monopoly-Anatomy-Independent-Political/dp/0945999623/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250896568&sr=1-1 Antitrust: The Case for Repeal - Dominick T. Armentano http://www.amazon.com/Antitrust-Case-Repeal-Dominick-Armentano/dp/0945466250/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250896568&sr=1-2 And, for further reading and current essays and thoughts on modern non-Keynesian, freedom-oriented economic thought: http://www.mises.org Kurt On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 15:45, Jonathan Link<[email protected]> wrote: > I really, really thought long and hard about sending this response. > Ultimately, I decided it was important, not to refute your contentions, > which I do (that's a bonus) :-), but to call on Mr. Buff to ask him to stop > bring political ideology into these discussions. > > I'm really sick and tired of this misguided right wing conservative > BUNK (theory) that markets are always efficient and government intervention > is always bad. Recent circumstances PROVE that markets are NOT efficient > and a lack of government intetervention because of DEregulation (repeal of > Glass-Stegall) was bad. That's my first point of contention with your > email. > > My second point of contention is with your intimation that Microsoft is not > a monopoly or that laws limiting monopolies are "smelly stuff". Microsoft's > OS's are on ~90%+ of computers (1). Wikipedia defines a monopoly as: > Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the > good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods. > I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader as to how one supplier or a few > suppliers of a particular good is bad but will point to the oil industry and > OPEC and the summer of 2007 as a possible example. > > Finally, I'm calling you out. It was 7 hours after the comment was made, > one might consider the thread dead. You added nothing technical or material > to the discussion. You chose not to demonstrate or prove how Microsoft > isn't a monopoly, yet took the opportunity to make clear how you felt about > anti-trust laws. This also isn't the first time that you revived a "dead" > thread to make a political comment. On August 15th, after Stu had asked the > list members to cease commenting on the Salaries thread you sent an email > three days after all discussion had ended bringing it all back to life with > nothing but your political opinion. I'm only bothering to comment at all, > because you, sir, seem to want to inject your political opinion into many > threads, but yet don't provide any basis or fact behind your opinions. > Here's what I hope: that some day all people, whether they are American or > otherwise realize that concentrating any power into any organization has a > risk of corrupting whether that organization is government or a corporation, > and when you combine the two you get a geometric increase in the rate of > corruption (example, see the past 8 years and currently ongoing). > > (1) http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp > > Yes, I am completely aware that I am responding to this thread over an > hour after your email appeared (it was initially just a few minutes) and > potentially keeping the thread alive. I am not afraid to debate, but it's > quite clear that you and I are diametrically opposed on the ideological > spectrum and will likely not change each other's minds. Further, I find > your quote from the August 15th email referenced above from the Daily > Oklahoman to be completely true and will have what some liberals would > consider to be conservative values. I have a nuanced political ideology and > hold positions that are both liberal and conservative and depend on the > issue, much like the recently deceased Robert Novak or the esteemed former > Solicitor General, Ted Olson, who is representing gays and lesbians in their > fight against California Prop 8, and finally Theodore Roosevelt, the > Republican Preseident who is largely instrumental in developing the modern > framework of antitrust laws. > > > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 07:15, Ben Scott<[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:54 PM, John Gwinner<[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> Personally, I always wondered why Ford can sell cars with 'dealer >> >> installed' tires (known to be fatally defective at one time), but >> >> selling a PC with a browser bundled is somehow different. >> > >> > Because Ford does not have a monopoly on the automotive market. >> > >> > Microsoft got (and gets) in trouble for using its monopoly powers in >> > ways which violate anti-trust laws. Not simply for shipping their >> > browser with their OS, and not simply for being a monopoly, but using >> > their monopoly to promote their browser. >> > >> > -- Ben >> >> Beg to differ. >> >> They get in trouble because they are successful, and therefore the >> antitrust laws are applied to them. Antitrust laws are a crock of >> smelly stuff. >> >> I'm no fan of MSFT, but the antitrust laws that it, and Intel, and >> others, have been slammed with are unjust and unAmerican. I expect >> this, unfortunately, of the EU, but hope some day that the Americans >> will wake up and learn that freedom is their friend, not the >> government. >> >> Kurt >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
