Why do you support the right?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


Government intervention is a good thing when the market economy is failing. Disparities in supply and demand conditions.

I am sorry but that is your opinion. Government intervention is only disasterous. Keynesism, I think, is absolutely false.

Government interventtion is also important in maintaining controls over inflation, exchange rates, balance of payments etc..

Yes, and can you name anything out of the ordinary except these things? (BTW, the Federal Reserve is not directed by the US Government when it comes to exchange rats and balance of payments, so don't say that).

Personally I see a government like a doctor - it should do nothing but make sure everything is in good working order. When things go wrong it should be there to correct the problem.

Personally I see a government like a fungus that once it takes over even a fraction of the economy corruption will grow. The United States thank goodness is small and transparent but once any government gets involved with the economy the transparency disappears and economic freedom gets destroyed.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
How do you follow that logic?

SD, the alleged reason for farm subsidies is that there is far more farm capacity than demand, i.e., the ability of people to eat all that the farmers produce, so that without government intervention (paying farmers not to plant) prices would drop precipitously, only marginally increasing demand, but resulting in millions of farmers going bankrupt. Land prices would drop, mortgages would be foreclosed, etc., leading to a banking crisis. The resulting deflation would add to the current deflation thereby extending the recession.

(But note, as the bankruptcies accumulate, less would be planted, prices would rise, and at some point, supply and demand would be in balance.)

The government also stockpiles food just in case there is a drought or other catastrophe. This stockpiled food is the source of a lot of America's food aid to the starving of the world

[Ned]

Fez, Just let me say that I totally agree with you. I find it surprising that so many in this forum either have no basic grasp of economics, or they have a political agenda that does not include permitting winners and losers.

However, what do you think about anti-trust laws applied to monopolist abusers like Gates?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ned
Fez, Just let me say that I totally agree with you. I find it surprising that so many in this forum either have no basic grasp of economics, or they have a political agenda that does not include permitting winners and losers.

I find that apparent in many of their posts.

However, what do you think about anti-trust laws applied to monopolist abusers like Gates?

Microsoft isn't a monopoly therefore all of the charges were without merit.

[Asher]

If Microsoft was a true monopoly, there wouldn't be MacOS X, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, HP-UX, etc.

There are other operating systems, the problem is, by the nature of how computers work, developers prefer targetting 1 platform rather than multiple because it's far cheaper and far easier to support. When the computer industry was picking up steam, MS' products were the most popular, and that's why they're where they are today.

Some of the things MS has done (like the OEM licensing bull) should be stopped by the government. OEMs should be allowed to bundle whatever OS they want, when they want. People complaining about stuff like IE are completely clueless in my books.

For the most part it's not a true monopoly. A lot of people wish to argue that it is because they believe that having a whole bunch of operating systems available to run everything is simply better for everyone. The people who believe that crap have obviously never developed a real program before.

[Dauphin]

Ned,

I meant how does it follow that I am for subsidies. If people aren't buying all the farmers' produce then we don't need the farmers. Subsidies only serve to perpetuate the problem.

If a solution does not restore market efficiency, then there is no point in using it as a solution to market inefficiencies.

Buffer stock is a good idea in principle, provided it does not make the market less efficient by causing further overproduction.

The situations I was thinking of are regulations of things such as pollution emissions, or somtehing like fishing, where costs of an activity are not always suffered directly by the one carrying out the activity.

I am sorry but that is your opinion. Government intervention is only disasterous. Keynesism, I think, is absolutely false.

When did I mention Keynes?

If left to market forces what would control overpollution, overfishing etc?

Should we have laws to restrict such things or no?

Yes, and can you name anything out of the ordinary except these things? (BTW, the Federal Reserve is not directed by the US Government when it comes to exchange rats and balance of payments, so don't say that).

I'm pretty laissez-faire, and as I said in ordinary circumstances no government action should be taken.

BTW, as I don't live in the US what has the Federal Reserve got to do with my economic views?

Personally I see a government like a fungus that once it takes over even a fraction of the economy corruption will grow. The United States thank goodness is small and transparent but once any government gets involved with the economy the transparency disappears and economic freedom gets destroyed

How melodramatic.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
When did I mention Keynes?

Basically it is tied to government interference.

If left to market forces what would control overpollution, overfishing etc?

The company would have to advance itself in the way of technologies as it would become more profitable. The government controlling the economy will set the stage for mismanagement.

Should we have laws to restrict such things or no?

Laws yes, but these laws must be enforced by a third party free from government or corporation influence so they can be properly enforced.

BTW, as I don't live in the US what has the Federal Reserve got to do with my economic views?

You mentioned interest rates the Federal Reserve is incharge of that. Not the US government itself. The US government does not direct what Alan Greenspan does, Alan Greenspan does that himself.

[Dauphin]

1) I never mentioned Keynes, and the link to government intervention that I am mentioning is obscure at best.

2) How does less pollution equal higher profitabilty. If that were true why do so many Americans resist the Kyoto protocols?

3) Laws are set by governments. That means government intervention. So you must be for government involvement in setting economic environments.

4) Alan Greenspan does not set UK interest rates, so what the hell has it got to do with me and my economic views?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
1) I never mentioned Keynes, and the link to government intervention that I am mentioning is obscure at best.

It is not obscure and Keynes is often described as the one who proposed moderate government interference with the economy.

2) How does less pollution equal higher profitabilty. If that were true why do so many Americans resist the Kyoto protocols?

I never said less pollution was. I said higher technology was.

And the Kyoto is one of the most crappy arbitrary treaties I ever seen. It would of cost the US economy up to $100 billion and not to mention millions of jobs.

3) Laws are set by governments. That means government intervention. So you must be for government involvement in setting economic environments.

You cannot say that about my opinion. I think a neutral third party free from the government agenda or the corporation dollar must enforce the laws. The government screwing with the economy will only ruin things in the long term and those idiots who propose such a thing should look at the laws of economics.

4) Alan Greenspan does not set UK interest rates, so what the hell has it got to do with me and my economic views?

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE US AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. I don't honestly care what the UK does.

[Dauphin]

I never said less pollution was. I said higher technology was.

How does better technology reduce pollution? If better technology raises efficiency but raises pollution even more, how does that help the environment?

You cannot say that about my opinion. I think a neutral third party free from the government agenda or the corporation dollar must enforce the laws. The government screwing with the economy will only ruin things in the long term and those idiots who propose such a thing should look at the laws of economics.

So if governments aren't setting laws, who is? You make no sense.

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE US AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. I don't honestly care what the UK does.

I raised the issue in relation to my economic views, so you were talking about something other than the issue I raised, as your discussion is not impacting on my views.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
How does better technology reduce pollution? If better technology raises efficiency but raises pollution even more, how does that help the environment?

Better technology does reduce pollution. Arbitrary laws don't reduce pollution

So if governments aren't setting laws, who is? You make no sense.

I was talking about the US... usually they have independent committees looking into practices where the DoJ pushes their case.

I raised the issue in relation to my economic views, so you were talking about something other than the issue I raised, as your discussion is not impacting on my views.

Well then I guess there is a slight difference between our views as we are talking about two different countries.

[Ned]

Ah, SG, I now think I understand what you met by dislocations of supply and demand justifying government intervention.

I agree the government can intervene (legitimately) to promote behavior which might be socially beneficial but which would not happen without it. For example, providing tax breaks to locate one's new factory in a ghetto.

However, in general, intervention for the sole purpose of "fixing" supply and demand only results in tremendous economic damage. The farm subsidy is one such example. One can quickly see that the problems are the subsidies themselves. Getting us off subsidies is like going cold turkey from a heroin addiction. It is going to be really painful. But it should be done.

Fez,

The courts have ruled that Microsoft is a legal monopoly under US law. Since you disagree with the court's holding, apparently, what is your definition of a monopoly?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ned
Fez,

The courts have ruled that Microsoft is a legal monopoly under US law. Since you disagree with the court's holding, apparently, what is your definition of a monopoly?

A monopoly is a company with no competetors... if that was the case with Microsoft then what is Linux, Unix and all of those others... therefore it is not a monopoly.

Read more:

http://glomar.net/photos/businesses.jpg

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ned
The courts have ruled that Microsoft is a legal monopoly under US law. Since you disagree with the court's holding, apparently, what is your definition of a monopoly?

Personally I would disagree because I don't think the courts have a very thorough understanding about how the industry works, and the entire reason the case was brought before court was because Netscape/AOL and Sun just wanted the government to tie MS' hands behind their back so Netscape and Sun can hold monopolies themselves.

As long as there's a choice, there's not a problem. There are many choices for computer OSes people can install, it's not like an oil monopoly where you control all of the physical reserves of oil.

MS is guilty of some anticompetitive behavior with OEM licensing, and I think they definitely should be punished for that, but I don't think it's a monopoly in a true sense.

The very fact that many people on this forum claim to use Linux and Macs and love it instead of Windows should be enough to shoot down the monopoly theory.

The fact is, even if you don't literally force Windows down everyone's throats, consumers will end up buying it anyway. It's simply how the industry works, it's better for more people when there is one mainstream OS that developers develop for. It's up to the government to ensure MS doesn't abuse that position.

[Ned]

Fez and Asher, Well the US definition is, in fact, different. Without looking at the ruling, I think the court ruled that Microsoft had enough of the relevant market to control prices and dictate licenses to such a extent that it could drive Netscape and others like out of business simply by excluding them from the PC market. It became an unlawful monopoly because it in fact abused its power to capture and retain market share, not only in OS's, but also in collateral software markets.

Patents would normally be a way to prevent Microsoft from stealing the key technology of its competition, but even here Microsoft forced those who wish to deal with it to license its patents to Microsoft and its customers.

While all of this brought us one basic set of software that worked interchangeably with few bugs, the price was very high for its completion, and therefore, for the public. Killing competition, as we seem to agree, eventually retards innovation, and leads to inefficiency and higher prices in the long run.

Arguments that Apple and Linux are effective alternatives is simply rearguing the case. Under the facts as know to the lower court, Microsoft is an illegal monopoly. This holding was affirmed on appeal. Microsoft did not take it to the Supreme Court. So, at least on this issue, the case is over.