 |
From: Sam Carana <sam.car...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:02:10 +1000
Local: Fri, Oct 21 2005 12:02 am
Subject: Re: [epistemology] Re: Sam Carana is right - education needs to be reformed and here's only answer that will ever ever work.
On 10/21/05, Jason Lang <jasonlang2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > support it, so even in the unlikely case that one company went astray
> I can't believe you suggest this, there are monopolies all over the place
investors who seek short-term financial gain. Rumors of a merger will push up the price of shares, which initially may make it look as if the merger itself was a success. But long-term, a number of competing companies will result in more growth, compared to an industry monopolized by a single company. Informed shareholders are aware of this and will favor a split-up of a company, long before it evolved into a monopoly. The two-party system exists in so many nations becuase it is one of the
> stable configurations. You can see this 'two-party' system in economics as
Sure, a duopoly is better than a monopoly, but it's even better to have
> well as government, where two players dominate a large percentage of some > market. more competition. A duopoly typically hinges on government control. To establish even more competition and to bring decision closer to people is in line with our rights and supported by economic argument. Now, take Microsoft as the canonical modern example, they are
> anti-competitive, monopolistic and monolithic, and they laugh at government
Microsoft gained its position because people were fed up with the dominant
> regulation and public condemnation. position of IBM. Similarly, people are now fed up with MS and they favor Google, Linux, etc. It's against the interest of MS shareholders to use unfair trade tactics. Had MS learned anything from the past and from the legal cases against it, it would have split up long ago. Furthermore, the position exercized by MS hinges on copyright protection. In other words, MS gets the support of courts and back up by the police and military without specifically paying for such services. ALL companies desire a monopolistic or near-monopolistic situation, with
> themselves at the top. To suggest otherwise is to deny human nature and good
Companies seek growth. A monopoly stagnates an entire industry. If a
> business sense. To say they fear having a monopoly is ridicuolous. companies gains so much market share that it reaches a dominant position in that market, it makes economic sense to split up that company into competing pieces, which will result in more growth of the industry in total. Overall, shareholders will support such a split-up, on economic arguments alone. The argument that it's more in line with our rights will lead to public condemnation of a monopoly, which is another argument for such a company to split up. Show me real-world examples of this 'public condemnation' send
> monpoly-seeking companies 'broke' within the capitalist system.
I just gave you one! People preferred MS because they disliked IBM's
monopoly. Generally, a monopoly means less growth, making that people sell their shares in a company that seeks a monopoly, and people will instead invest in companies that promise more growth. Yeah I just know you'll be thinking of quoting the Trabant company or some
> such but that's a cop-out.
strong arguments, economics and our rights. In response, you haven't been
> - Jason
> Cop-out? No, it comes down to this. Time and again, I put forward two
able to put up one single argument that sticks. Sam You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||