Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 67

Thread: There's a flaw in deregulating corporations

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Microsoft is no monopoly.
    Ever heard of Linux?
    Ever heard of Apple?
    Ever heard of IBM?
    Ever heard of Lotus? Novell? SAP? Peoplesoft? Oracle?

    ...and you think they have a monopoly?
    What percentage of the market do they have for desktop operating systems? Maybe 90%? They were certainly big enough to be hounded by the justice department.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    I don't see how lack of competition is a problem. So that's not a "flaw".



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    What percentage of the market do they have for desktop operating systems? Maybe 90%? They were certainly big enough to be hounded by the justice department.
    First, monopolies are not defined by their market share - that changes hourly!

    What the "un"justice dept. may or may not understand about what is a monopoly is moot.

    They are not economists, but lawyers who enforce a law created by lawyers who were "paid off" to help another bunch of business men to attack another group of business men.

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    My point exactly. So aren't monopolies possible in a free market?
    First, I'm sure you will agree to the reason why monopolies are bad.
    They can control the price and push it higher which will tend to make the goods they supply overpriced and poorer quality and you, the customer, has no recourse to avoid this.


    So how can a monopoly occur in a free market?

    The company would have to price their product so low while maintaining the highest quality while at the same time capable of supplying sufficient quantities to fill the demand so that no other competitor has a chance.

    The competitor couldn't compete on price.
    The competitor couldn't compete on quality.
    The competitor couldn't compete on delivery.

    But what do you have?

    You have the cheapest good of the highest quality always available!

    And this would be something you want to make against the law?????????


    But let's go into why a monopoly is IMPOSSIBLE in a free market.

    For a company to have the cheapest price for its good, while maintain the highest quality, and managing to supply all the demand requires all of its suppliers to supply the cheapest, best and abundant inputs!

    You would need the cheapest labor, but they would need to be the best, and abundant to fill all the jobs necessary to build this good.
    You would need the all the guys who build the parts to your product to sell the cheapest, yet the best, yet always able to supply their goods.

    In other words, for a free-market monopoly in one good requires all the goods within the marketplace to be provided by free-market monopolies

    Well, that is impossible - and thus, it is impossible to have a free market monopoly.

    There is always some imperfection in the production, organization, structure, supply, labor, management, finance, etc. in every company that can be exploited by a competitor to the competitor's advantage.


    Humans are imperfect, and a free market monopoly demands perfection, thus such a thing - a free market monopoly is the dream of every company ... the golden ring that all companies would love to attain but in a free market, monopolies sit beside the leprechaun's treasure at the end of a rainbow.


    PS:
    We are talking about market monopolies - not local monopolies.

    Local monopolies can exist temporarily because -usually- the supply constraint is very high for any other competitor.

    As long as this constraint is not artificial - that is enforced by government writ - this constraint will be naturally repaired by free market forces, which then will undermine the local monopoly and it will stop being such.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 03-11-2012 at 07:45 PM.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    What percentage of the market do they have for desktop operating systems? Maybe 90%? They were certainly big enough to be hounded by the justice department.
    I seem to recall reading that the honchos at MS weren't in the habit of making political donations or lobby prior to the justice department lawsuits. They do now. Came off to me as one big shakedown. I know google took that lesson to heart.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Xhin View Post
    I, like almost everyone at this board, agree that government-imposed regulation harms the market. Deregulating the banks would prevent recessions, deregulating the medical industry would make health care less expensive, etc. Consumers should rely on personal responsibility rather than government intervention.

    The problem I see is what happens when a national/international corporation out-competes local businesses to the point of them having a monopoly over the market, or conspire with other corporations towards price-fixing, etc. When this happens, you can no longer make the argument "Well they should shop somewhere else", or "Well, they should work somewhere else" because that "somewhere else" has been out-competed by a larger corporation.

    I can't see a way around this other than the government regulating large corporations. Any help?
    You can't really deregulate beyond unreasonable regulations UNTIL you have hard/honest money. With fiat currency, you are required to have regulations in place to offset the abuse of the currency because it won't matter if they abuse consumers, they can continue business as usual with a manipulated credit market. Once you have hard/honest money, then you can rely more on contract and property rights because abuses will be met with with less income and the need to have built up the ability or history of trust to access credit and capital.
    For the Republic! For the Cause!
    The Truth About Central Banking and Business Cycles
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaxIPPMR3fI#t=186

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    What percentage of the market do they have for desktop operating systems? Maybe 90%? They were certainly big enough to be hounded by the justice department.
    As stated, 90% is not a monopoly.
    Also, I don't really agree with the premise of this thread (that large corporations are able to run small businesses out of business), but it's kind of hard to escape the idea that the only reason MS manages to hang on to its market share is because it's a large corporation.

    If it was possible to get a media player on Linux that had all the necessary codecs already installed (without getting into jackassery like compiling from source, anyway), maybe Linux would have more market share.
    If MS hadn't slithered their way into Netflix and had them using an MS product to show online videos, which doesn't exist on other OSes (besides mac), then maybe Linux would have a larger market share.
    If developers of desktop applications didn't generally start with Windows and, even if it's possible to go cross-platform, still completely ignore other OSes, then maybe Linux would have a larger market share.
    If MS didn't hand dicta to hardware suppliers that they're going to sell a copy of Windows with every new machine or they aren't going to sell Windows at all, then maybe Linux would have a larger market share.

    All of these are directly caused by the fact that Microsoft has the largest market share, the largest profit margin, and the largest war chest.
    It's hard not to see Wal-Mart the same way: we're the biggest and we're going to push everyone around and stay biggest.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  10. #38
    Corporations were introduced to rig the free-market. They are unnatural and should be dismantled. They are are dangerous and not wrth the bother offer no value to society and the world in general.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    If it was possible to get a media player on Linux that had all the necessary codecs already installed (without getting into jackassery like compiling from source, anyway), maybe Linux would have more market share.
    It is accurate to say that Microsoft and Apple each have tens of thousands of monopolies. These come in two forms: patents and copyrights. When big corporations compete in the same area, the are constantly suing each other and/or engaged in cross-licensing agreements to keep competitors out.

    Another form of monopoly is the copyright which no longer exists for limited or reasonable amounts of time. More so, its enforcement is increasingly based on criminal law - so as to attack citizens - rather than civil law which would be better suited to keep corporations behaving nicely. You are also presumed guilty which is why DRM and capabilities to spy on or control how consumers use their equipment are constantly evolving.

    The day may come when off-the-shelf consumer grade equipment will not be able to film the police (brutality is a live event):

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...martphone.html

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by The Free Hornet View Post
    It is accurate to say that Microsoft and Apple each have tens of thousands of monopolies. These come in two forms: patents and copyrights.
    It is kind of hard to discuss corporations without going Kinsella on everyone, isn't it.
    IP is a pretty large piece of this puzzle.....
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Corporations are, by definition, regulated by government, since they are created by government.

  15. #42
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    841
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    It is kind of hard to discuss corporations without going Kinsella on everyone, isn't it.
    IP is a pretty large piece of this puzzle.....
    That's true. Intellectual property is what should be contested, not 'deregulation'. Besides government enforcement of IP monopoly laws, the only way for a company to have a monopoly in a free market would be to literally offer the product at a loss. And it's funny how the establishment seem to think that cheap and free stuff is bad for the economy. Like how Greenspan said that they should actually burn down excess houses built during the housing boom in order to drive the prices of houses up. Or how FDR's administration paid farmers to burn and destroy their crops and livestock. Keynesian inspired economics is all about wasting resources that people in need could use, yet it's somehow sold as the compassionate economic philosophy. As opposed to us greedy capitalists who would have poor people be able to purchase necessities for cheap rather than destroy them.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Xhin View Post
    Yes, but as a larger entity, they're more capable of keeping prices low and service at high quality, especially if they outsource their actual production (and as a large entity they're more capable of doing so).
    False. What makes you think this BS? Smaller entities can provide better service and keep quality high. A sole proprietor can discount his labor and make pricing decisions without consulting anybody. The smaller business with have lower overhead, more flexibility, and will react far more quickly to changing market conditions. If the local saw mill just ceased production, they will adjust on the same day workers get their pink slips. Larger entities may take months to realize that the branch near the saw mill is underperforming. Then they may take years to actually do something about it.

    Also, a lot of business is done based on loyalty and trust. Price is not always the primary consideration. It is the difference between going to your favorite restaurant with the food and service you trust versus and unknown location run by a-holes.

    The problem is that the capitalistic model falls apart when smaller entities are unable to compete, because then the company that has the monopoly can do whatever they want and people will still buy from them because there's nowhere else to go.
    What makes you think a monopoly can do "whatever they want"? Unless it is a government created monopoly, there will be oodles of choices. Even if it is a government monopoly (like many utilities), there exists alternatives. Take electricity. You can do countless things to use less or buy a generator or add insulation to your house or a solar water heater (or solar/wind power) or go without as much as possible. You can also waste their time with complaints to politicians, media, utility boards, and there is not much they can do about it. If they piss off too many locals, expect a rash of backhoe "accidents".

    More importantly, what makes you think you have the right to government favors to compete? Am I allowed even ground to compete with Wal*Mart? If my store is 1000 square feet and they are 200,000 square feet, why should there exist some entity that hobbles them to my advantage?

    I think you're living in a dream world. Yes, I agree that the government can create monopolies, however in an unregulated market, monopolies can still emerge by virtue of being big enough (and therefore better since they have more minds working for them) to outcompete smaller local businesses.
    It is not about size. Standard Oil is a close example where economies of scale are important but in most instances, size is a cost disadvantage. Also, if you are a Standard Oil, it means you have lowered prices to the benefit of all. That your competitors are behind is likely a good thing if they are inefficient. Energy is obsessed with efficiency, to our benefit.

    Whaaaaaaat. Where do you live? Around here, Wal-mart has beaten not just local supermarkets into the ground, but also smaller corporations.
    To the benefit of consumers. Why do you want to hobble Wal*Mart so K-Mart or Mom & Pop can compete without changing? Other businesses whether small or large should have to build a better mousetrap that is superior to whatever Wal*Mart is doing. If they can't - oh well. The era of the small general store is mostly long gone. Consumers demand access to so much stuff that you need a large footprint and distribution chain. Until someone figures out something better.
    Last edited by The Free Hornet; 03-12-2012 at 10:42 AM.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    It is kind of hard to discuss corporations without going Kinsella on everyone, isn't it.
    IP is a pretty large piece of this puzzle.....
    If I knew what "going Kinsella" meant, I'd agree 110%! I fear IP is a growing piece of the puzzle too and one that people are most likely to confuse with capitalism when it is 100% pure undiluted statism.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by The Free Hornet View Post
    If I knew what "going Kinsella" meant, I'd agree 110%! I fear IP is a growing piece of the puzzle too and one that people are most likely to confuse with capitalism when it is 100% pure undiluted statism.
    Enjoy!
    http://mises.org/books/against.pdf
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    it's kind of hard to escape the idea that the only reason MS manages to hang on to its market share is because it's a large corporation
    Anyone who believes this is a fool or ignorant or both.

    People pay Microsoft because Microsoft delivers.
    No one throws money at these guys because they fail.

    If it was possible to get a media player on Linux that had all the necessary codecs already installed (without getting into jackassery like compiling from source, anyway), maybe Linux would have more market share.
    They own the hobbyist - and MS owns the corp. market - because a hobbyist can be down for a week repairing his OS screw up, but a company cannot.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Anyone who believes this is a fool or ignorant or both.

    People pay Microsoft because Microsoft delivers.
    No one throws money at these guys because they fail.
    No, as I already insinuated, I only use MS products because other products which I actually want only work on their operating system.
    Windows is a $#@!ing joke compared to other OSes.
    When I want to "upgrade" to an operating system that completely eliminates my ability to search a hard drive for a file by filename, I'll go with Windows.
    When I want an operating system that is capable of running continuously for over a year at a time and has a 40 year reliability track record, I'll go elsewhere.
    Knowing the difference between POSIX and GNU standards has earned me a living.
    Having to $#@! around with registry editors has only gotten in the way of it.
    The only thing MS delivers is electronic crack that was developed by third parties. Crack that is only on Windows because of bull$#@! IP laws.

    They own the hobbyist - and MS owns the corp. market - because a hobbyist can be down for a week repairing his OS screw up, but a company cannot.
    Right, which is why companies either
    a) Use real operating systems because the number of times they screw up will be few
    b) Use Windows because when they pay money they can hold MS accountable for the screw up instead of having to fix it themselves.

    Windows is nothing more than an unquenchable appetite for processor cycles which for ten years has delivered nothing more than translucent windows.
    In the footprint taken up by 7 home you could be running your own webserver.
    It's literally a joke at this point. It had something going for it in the 90's but it's gone. Gone.
    And that war chest they built up in the 90's (and the IP BS) is the only reason why people get Windows now.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Windows is a $#@!ing joke compared to other OSes.
    Given they earn billions, your opinion does not carry.

    And that war chest they built up in the 90's (and the IP BS) is the only reason why people get Windows now.
    Because Microsoft has money is the reason people pay them money.
    Egads.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Anyone who believes this is a fool or ignorant or both.

    People pay Microsoft because Microsoft delivers.
    No one throws money at these guys because they fail.
    What does Microsoft deliver that has people lining up to buy? Nothing since 1995. Who is it that fails and doesn't have money getting thrown at them? Lots of dough is tossed around in the open source arena. Not only do they deliver, the products are available prior to release and downloaded freely and willingly. They aren't bundled onto a desktop or auto-updated into our lives.

    If I owned MSFT stock the last 8 to 14 years, I wouldn't be too happy with them as a company. Very little dividend, crap investments, and they have had their clock cleaned by Apple who know has way more cash on hand and could buy Microsoft.

    They own the hobbyist - and MS owns the corp. market - because a hobbyist can be down for a week repairing his OS screw up, but a company cannot.
    Linux has hobbyists but I doubt they own that market given the number of homemade gaming machines designed to play games that support Windows (it is not vice versa, Microsoft is a competitor of gaming companies that decide to support Microsoft). But the more critical the application, the less likely it will run Windows. That is what Unix and Unix-like OSs are for including Linux and BSD. Finance (NASDAQ and Londen Exchange) uses Linux. If you had some whiz-bang program to make millisecond trades, it is highly unlikely you would put that at the mercy of Windows doing what it wants, when it wants.

    Also, the desktop market is not where growth is likely to be found. I expect PCs to make a mass exodus from home markets and small businesses or never penetrate in some cases. People will be able to use their smart phones, tablets, or even TVs with embedded web access. I doubt many people can continue to justify spending money on Microsoft Office. Even at work, people don't use it much and LibreOffice more than suffices. It is not worth the time to carefully type in MSFT's 25 digit security codes. Nor is it worth the time to do software audits to avoid the wrath of the BSA. I can have most free software installed faster than you can buy the non-free $#@! online. And I'm someone who has built over two dozen Windows 7 PCs from scratch to run in Microsoft Server (2008) network. In most cases, MSFT could give me their wares for free, and I wouldn't want them.

    Windows has a lot of symbiotic relationships in the business world which will continue to make them money. That said, it is hardly necessary, rather it is convenient for those involved not to disturb relationships too much (like Dell and Microsoft).

    When you think Linux, if a hobbyist comes to mind first, you are mistaken. Think IBM and Google (not just Android but their nexus of servers and search software). I'm just as likely now to check email on my Android (Linux) phone at home than on my PC (also Linux) at home.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by The Free Hornet View Post
    What does Microsoft deliver that has people lining up to buy? Nothing since 1995.
    Your opinion, again.

    The fact that people are lining up and buying means Microsoft delivers.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Your opinion, again.

    The fact that people are lining up and buying means Microsoft delivers.
    What MS delivers is consumers. Consumers "buy" MS because it's pre-installed on their hardware. Because it's ubiquitous, more software is compatible with this OS. Because of compatibility, consumers stick with MS. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

    It's false to assume that the superior product always dominates the market; it seldom/never does. What dominates the market is superior marketing. Build a better mousetrap, and........you will be bullied, bought-out, or buried.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Your opinion, again.

    The fact that people are lining up and buying means Microsoft delivers.
    Nobody is lining up and they haven't lined up since 1995 (when Windows 95 was a big hit).



    You may not care about the above pic, but it is a guarantee the execs at Apple and Microsoft and Google do care.

    I am curious as to whether you own Microsoft stock and do you think they are a good buy? Will this guy (Steve Ballmer) lead Microsoft to future success?

    I don't doubt that Microsoft was successful, but where do they fit into the future? What market will they take by storm?

    To log into windows 8, you need to click and drag your mouse from the bottom of the screen upwards, emulating a finger action. JUST TO LOG IN! It doesn’t end there. Metro apps have no traditional close buttons, instead the apps are designed for mobile computing, and using it on a desktop feels awkward.

    http://readmystuff.wordpress.com/201...ndows-8-sucks/
    Most likely, I'll be Windows 8 user (installer, fixer, tweaker) due to work. I just don't see in them an admirable company or one with a potential. Most of the business they have from us is not due to bundling of their OS with a Dell/HP PC but rather because our accounting system only runs on it (even though it is relatively trivial for them to be cross-platform and in their best interest as MSFT competes in their arena).


    Attachment 1337

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Voluntary Man View Post

    It's false to assume that the superior product always dominates the market
    It is a superior product if it dominates the market.

    You merely have not measured all the qualities of such a product, and focused perhaps on only one or two specific qualities to make your judgement.

    It's like saying the best car in the world is Veyron because it is the fastest.

    Yet, the most sold car in the world is the Toyota Corolla - obviously, it provides the highest value for more people - thus, as a measure of units sold, total earnings and profits it is #1.

    ; it seldom/never does. What dominates the market is superior marketing. Build a better mousetrap, and........you will be bullied, bought-out, or buried.
    Marketing does not make a product.
    It helps, but if the goods are not satisfactory, no amount of marketing can save it.

    Ask "New Coke" about that....

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by The Free Hornet View Post
    Nobody is lining up and they haven't lined up since 1995 (when Windows 95 was a big hit).
    This is not a debate on the merits and opinions you have about MSoft.

    The claim was MSoft was a monopoly.

    You demonstrate very well that it is not.
    where do they fit into the future? What market will they take by storm?
    People for decades have underestimated Gates.

    Time after time he has eaten their lunch.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 03-12-2012 at 02:56 PM.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    It is a superior product if it dominates the market.

    ...
    Not necessarily. I will be showing my age a bit but I look at the competition between VHS and Betamax or more recently HDDVD vs BluRay. Betamax and HDDVD were technically superior but lost out to better marketing and policy decisions. In the case of Beta, Sony was so confident that they were the best and they wanted all the revenues they refused to allow others to produce their product (like Apple today Sony had been on a long string of succesful products and had a very strong market impact). VHS on the otherhand allowed others to make their product as long as they paid a marketing fee.

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    technically superior but lost out
    You fall into the same trap as Voluntary Man - you merely take one quality of a product as a measure of "being the best", and ignore everything else.

    The fact that VHS dominates means that it was -for most people - the best product.

    It combined enough features at a price that satisfied most people. Beta did not. VHS "won".



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    It is a superior product if it dominates the market.

    You merely have not measured all the qualities of such a product, and focused perhaps on only one or two specific qualities to make your judgement.

    It's like saying the best car in the world is Veyron because it is the fastest.

    Yet, the most sold car in the world is the Toyota Corolla - obviously, it provides the highest value for more people - thus, as a measure of units sold, total earnings and profits it is #1.



    Marketing does not make a product.
    It helps, but if the goods are not satisfactory, no amount of marketing can save it.

    Ask "New Coke" about that....
    I think Paypal proves that the OP is certainly true in some cases too though. ANd you can't discount marketing while touting sales and earnings. The whole point of marketing is improving those numbers.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Simple View Post
    This is the best answer I have seen, allow fraud laws to be enforced against the people who commit crimes, not against the legal entities.

    I've seen lots of executives being led away in handcuffs, yet the liberals keep telling me it doesn't happen.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    I think Paypal proves that the OP is certainly true in some cases too though.
    Huh?

    How so?

    There are hundreds of payment processors.

    Just because you may be the largest does not make you a monopoly.

    ANd you can't discount marketing while touting sales and earnings. The whole point of marketing is improving those numbers.
    The whole point of marketing is letting consumers know about your product, its qualities and its ability to solve a human problem.

    Marketing is education.
    It uses many different forms - from fear to humor - to provide that education.

    If your product does not solve the problem particularly well, it will not sell, no matter how much marketing.

    But if it can solve the problem, the more people who know about it, the more who will buy.

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    I've seen lots of executives being led away in handcuffs, yet the liberals keep telling me it doesn't happen.
    Doesn't happen enough.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Is this a serious flaw? why or why not?
    By Romulus in forum Bitcoin / Cryptocurrencies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-22-2013, 01:46 PM
  2. Possible flaw in the NAP?
    By osan in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 06-08-2012, 06:49 PM
  3. Deregulating the banks?
    By AndyW in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 03-10-2012, 07:47 PM
  4. A Free Market Flaw?
    By ShadoD in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 12-04-2010, 11:20 AM
  5. Ron's Biggest Flaw of the Campaign
    By jon31rm in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-30-2008, 09:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •