NeilPaul told me to turn in my liberal card at the door. Actually, I can't. My dirty little secret is that I'm not really a "liberal" in the true sense of the word.
While I believe passionately in civil rights, civil liberties, women's right to choose, I also believe nearly as passionately in personal responsibility, property rights and a minimalist government.
A person should be allowed to engage in virtually any act as long it does not infringe on another person's liberties, health life. You want to ride your motorcycle without a helmet -- go for it. However, if have an accident and crack your head open and don't have insurance, don't expect the government to pay to glue you back together. You choose to drop out of school? Okey dokey -- just don't expect a welfare check when you can't get a job that pays a living wage because you lack the education needed for a decent paying job. However, if you *DO* stay in school and do well and want to get a college education, then you should have the right to get that education regardless of your economic situation. In other words, take the money that is spent on welfare and put it in the educational system.
I think, for the most part, these are issues that most people can get behind (though the whole "welfare-elimination" thing might be somewhat controversial).
Let's talk about flood relief. I lived in St. Louis in the mid 90s. Every year, the Missouri river flooded and thousands of people lost their homes. The thing that got to me was they interview person after person who would say "I've lived here all my life... it is my right to live here and I'm going to rebuild". Year after year after year, the floods would come, the homes would be destroyed and the federal government would give them money to rebuild. Talk about throwing money down a rat hole. I understand that shit can happen to everyone and when you are truly a victim, you deserve some help. However, if you build your house in a flood plain -- an area that you can say with a fairly high probability is going to be flooded out with some regularity -- then don't expect the government to bail you out over and over... one bail out per customer.
What about death penalty? Totally appropriate, in my opinion. You willingly go out and whack someone -- you have violated that person's rights and you deserve to have your rights taken away in a way that is comparable. None of this "let's take killer and pay their room and board and medical expenses for the next 40 -60 years. Kill AND be killed.
The government should be limited to the following:
1. Law Enforcement -- including enforcement of civil liberties
2. Education
3. National Defense
4. National Infrastructure -- roads, utilities, etc.
5. Regulating matters associated with the public safety -- public health, product safety etc.
6. Reasonable taxation to pay for the above -- particularly for irresponsible and unhealthy (risky) behaviors:
- Wanna Smoke? Fine -- tax it to pay for the health-related expenses that come from smoking.
- Alcohol -- ditto
- "Illegal" drugs -- ditto
- Pornography
- Prostitution
--
What the government shouldn't be doing:
1. Regulating trade -- free market means that -- free of regulation
2. Welfare -- One "free pass" but no rewards for multiple children or refusing to get sufficient vocational training needed to support yourself.
3. Retirement -- you get what you paid in -- nothing more. If you don't put anything in and don't plan for retirement, hope you have some family to take care of you.
4. Corporate bailouts
5. Enforcing morality and religeous values
6. International policing of other governments
So gun rights -- sure (but if you use YOUR gone to hurt someone else, be prepared to lose your rights). Death penalty -- absolutely. Income tax policies that don't discriminate against those who make more because they invested in their education? Definitely. Why should I be punished because I chose a profession that pays well? Limited entitlements -- yes! You are responsible for your own destiny and your neighbor is responsible for theirs.
In essence, I believe in a system of social liberalism and fiscal conservatism. From a social perspective, I'm mostly in the democratic camp. However, on matters of the economy and the role of government, I'm republican -- at least the "old-style" republican (not Bush's brand of republicanism). Of course, there is a name for this: Libertarian. Unfortunately, the Libertarian party is relegated to the lunatic fringe.
So where does this leave me? When I go into the voting booth, I vote very differently when it comes to national vs state/local offices. I've got the voting record of a paranoid schizophrenic. For judicial offices, I vote democratic since they tend to control more of the social and civil liberty issues. However, for legislative offices, I tend to vote republican since they control more of the fiscal policy. Not great but the best I've got.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
tr ig
Gabby Abby
OEsheepdog
Freaky Troll
Laurel, not Lauren
Critical Mess
Salon.com
Comments
Unless, of course, you consider fiscal responsibility bequeathing the debt to our children and grandchildren.
Where to start . . . . first, I would note that a lot of the money spent on social service programs doesn't go to welfare. It pays for the nursing home care of indigent elderly patients, foster care for abused children, vocational rehabilitation for injured workers, treatment for mentally ill persons, and so on. It pays for medical care for medically indigent patients. (I worked in a university teaching hospital for 21 years, and there are all sorts of disabling diseases and conditions that have nothing to do with poor lifestyle choices.)
But more to the point -- rather than starting with an abstract definition of what government should and should not pay for, I prefer to start at the end and work backwards.
In other words, I prefer to think about what kind of country I want to live in, and then reason backward to see what kind of governmental or other programs would help to bring that about.
As a matter of fact, we could have a country in which people starve in the streets, in which sick or elderly people die because they can't pay for care. We really can have that kind of country; it's not hard to do, and there are plenty of examples of how to do that. But the question is whether you would really like to live in that country. I wouldn't. Would you?
Obviously that doesn't automatically validate all governmental programs, nor does it mean that all such programs are well-run. But if we want to live in a country in which the basic needs of people are met -- even people who aren't necessarily smart or lucky -- then some of those programs will be necessary.
I'm passionate about the environment and think we should have a mandatory cap and trade system, but I also believe we should provide incentives to companies for going green. So I want to provide incentives to companies for doing what I want and penalize those who don't. That means I've got some "republican" traits and some "democratic" traits on that issue.
I'm also conflicted on the death penalty. Yes, we should have it, but only in a situation like Timothy McVeigh, where the person confesses to the crime, and shows no remorse whatsoever and doesn't want to appeal. Otherwise, lock them up for the rest of their lives and don't let them out. It's cheaper.
I'm not talking about letting the truly disabled and indigent left homeless on the streets. There needs to be a safety net. But as Amy's post on poverty describes, there is something wrong when social programs such as Free Lunch and rent subsidies are used so that any income can be spent on what many consider to be luxuries.
Pop Quiz:
1. Farm Subsidies -- a program where the government gave farmers money to let fields lay fallow and guaranteed price floors, imposed tarriffs and ruined free trade were a product of:
-- the Democrats
-- the Republicans
2. Which 2008 presidential candidates opposed Farm Subsidies because they were essentially a handout to America's wealthiest farmers:
-- John McCain
-- Hillary Clinton
-- Barack Obama
3. The Equal Rights Amendment was passed in 1972 with the support of which Republican President?
4. The Equal Rights Amendment was passed with a 7-year limit for ratification which ultimately doomed the ratification of the amendment. The 7-year time limit was proposed by Senator Ervin. Senator Ervin was a member of what political party?
5. Which political party was vehemently opposed to desegregation until the late 1970s?
6. Which political party president presided over the only period in the 20th century to have a budget surplus, decreasing the deficit WHILE decreasing taxes?
7. Which president created the largest enduring deficit EVER EVEN WHILE increasing taxes by over 20 percent?
And for even more fun -- check out the link at
http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/index.asp
The countries with the highest standards of living, longest life expectancies, and best other quality of life factors are not those which try to, through laissez-faire economics, motivate or starve people out of poverty. It's those that have the widest social safety nets. Starving people out of poverty unfortunately doesn't work. Every single laboratory of experimentation in the world (countries) shows that result. Knowing this, then, it's pretty heartless and greedy to still advocate for it.
And just a bit of a factcheck here:
3. The Equal Rights Amendment was passed in 1972 with the support of which Republican President?
At the time, the Democrats had veto-proof majorities in both Houses. It is well-documented that, upon seeing this reality, Nixon decided to work with them on civil rights, so as to raise his own reputation, and not fight against the inevitable.
5. Which political party was vehemently opposed to desegregation until the late 1970s?
The South. No, seriously, if you look at the vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the northern Democrats and Republicans voted for. It was the southern Democrats and the southern Republicans, for the most part, who voted against:
The original House version:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
Moreover, that act was championed and signed by the Democratic president LBJ.
No, my friend, supply-side economics and is variants have never worked anywhere.
A few quick points because I can't research all your points at the moment. I will return to the ones that I can't speak to without more fact-checking on my own.
Heartless and greedy? If you mean that I expect that people work to educate themselves and/or EARN any government subsidies rather than giving them a check while they do nothing, guilty as charged. I'm ok with that.
Dismissing the segregationist democrats as "southern" is like dismissing the republicans as "fundamentalist Christians". While it may be true, it ignores the reality that sets the tone and drives the direction of the party.
With regards to the Red states taking the most out of the federal treasury -- I'm not sure by which standard you mean but I would propose North Carolina as a shining example to the contrary. North Carolina has a terrible education system. We aren't the worst -- that distinction, at least the last time I checked was coveted by our neighbor to the south. However, we are something like 47 or 48.
However, our economy is one of the best in the country. And our economy has made a successful transition from low-paying textile jobs to high-paying technical jobs. We have done that by providing incentives to the tech industry to move here. The Research Triangle Park has the highest number of per capita PhDs in the nation. The public schools within the Research Triangle Park far out-perform the rest of the state (and the rest of the country) NOT because they get any additional money from the federal government BUT because the high-paying jobs that have been attracted results in more taxes that can be spent on education. While the rest of the country is in recession, for the most part, the economy of NC is growing and a significant number of jobs are being added in the state. Google has invested a bazillion dollars to open a comp center here within the state. They were attracted to the state because of the relatively low cost of living combined with aggressive state tax incentives. The state invested heavily in cultivating a climate that is friendly to high-tech and R&D businesses. As a result, two of the top 10 places to live are in NC.
Yet, despite this fact, we are BRIGHT BLOOD RED in the political spectrum. We are the state that gave you Jesse Helms (I'm sorry), and our two current senators (Dole and Burr) are among some of the most loyal Bushies in the senate.
NC isn't perfect. But it is an excellent example of supply side economics at its best. Most of those "supply side" incentives have come from the state -- very few from the federal government.
Likewise -- Virginia has one of the best economies according to Business Week. Yet it has been traditionally a red state.
Colorado -- Red state -- Great economy
By contrast -- lets look at Michigan. Blue state. Huge democratic (UNION) base. One of the worst economies at the moment. California -- Big Daddy of the Blues -- pretty shaky economy at the moment.
More detail to come later with respect to safety nets, happiness etc
You're talking about welfare like it's still the 1980s. It's not. Welfare has been significantly cut. The unemployment rate in this country. Welfare isn't even close to being a top expenditure. But people do need it, and yet you seem to be willing to cut people off and let them go... where, exactly? You don't care, because you want to keep $12 of your tax dollars. Oh, no, wait, I know, you'll let them go seek help at private charities. End of story. To me, that is heartless and greedy.
Dismissing the segregationist democrats as "southern" is like dismissing the republicans as "fundamentalist Christians". While it may be true, it ignores the reality that sets the tone and drives the direction of the party.
So how is it that Texan LJB signed the Civil Rights Act into law, and it was the Democratic majorities in Congress during Nixon's administration were the ones that passed things like affirmative action and the equal rights amendment? don't you remember the big party switch, when Reagan, Thurmond and Helms switched the to the Republicans over civil rights? Yes, we still have Robert Byrd, but he's a singular exception.
With regards to the Red states taking the most out of the federal treasury -- I'm not sure by which standard you mean but I would propose North Carolina as a shining example to the contrary.
I don't know about NC, but here's what i'm talking about. The biggest takers on the dollar are poor red states, with low tax rates and little revenue:
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
North Carolina has a terrible education system. We aren't the worst -- that distinction, at least the last time I checked was coveted by our neighbor to the south. However, we are something like 47 or 48.
Yeah, and you also have terrible poverty rates and child poverty rates. Your supply side should be working to help these people, but it's really not. What's up?
thanks for putting it out there - this can be a tough crowd for that.
neilpaul - you and Alan Greenspan.
So, what about anti-trust laws that help prevent and break up monopolies? Monopolies are natural results of laissez-faire economics, but they are "market failures," meaning pure market economics leads not to the most efficient result. Another classic market failure is "the tragedy of the commons," where everyone abuses a common resource, in their self-interest, and it ends up destroying the common resource so no one can use it anymore. The ONLY way to fix these things is through direct government intervention.
Sweatshops are another market result. So is massive unemployment. So is people's who retirement savings accounts being wiped out by others' misfeasance and/or negligence. So is the Great Depression. What about a safety net in that case?
Why does a kid who "requires" free lunch etc "need" a $40.00 iPod (your cost which assumes they are smart shoppers)?
My kids don't have iPods. 40 bucks pays for 1.5 months worth of school lunches for them. (well 1 month for my one son who is in the throws of a growth spurt).
LeC
Sweatshops, monopolies and all the other extreme scenarios are not a component of a libertarian society. Remember the basic tenet of you can do something as long as it doesn't interfere with others basic rights. If it does, it needs to be "punished". Sweatshops are a basic violation of libertarian principles, therefore -- it should not be allowed. The government has appropriate laws to regulate that and should enforce them.
Losing your retirement because of corporate malfeasance -- just another word for breaking the law -- prosecute those that violate the laws and hold them accountable for their financial misdeeds -- take away their ill-gotten gains.
Now, the cycle doesn't end there. Someone, Z,who figures out an even better way to make and sell toothpaste enters the market. The entry costs to toothpaste selling are not that high. But A, with its accumulated profits, from the monopoly or not, can buy up Z at a huge premium. If Z is a rational capitalistic thinker, it will readily sell its company for 1 cent more than it thinks its going concern is worth. Thus, A can maintain its monopoly. A could also have purchased B and C to gain a monopoly.
For a real world example contrary to your theory of "monopolies only exist in nascent industries," see the cycle of telecom companies merging, merging merging, getting broken up by the government (baby bells), and then merging merging merging again. And this is an industry, like the airline industry, with very high start-up costs, so new entrants are barred if they don't have sufficient capital.
You're basically denying that the market can ever fail, and I hate to say it, but you're dead-wrong, market failure a long-standing fixture of economics.
Stella -- if you think the subprime mess is a result of capitalism unfettered, you are very mistaken. The sub-prime mess has government intervention all over it. Who sets the interest rates? The government. Who bails out the mortgage lenders? The government. Who is going to bail out the homeowners who were greedy and bought more house than they could afford. The government.
re: free lunches
So do you suggest taking free lunches and the WIC programs away from children living in poverty because they are a farm subsidy? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. And kids in poverty (and my own kids too) may WANT lots of things but that doesn't mean they should have them if they can't afford the other essentials in life. I want to buy a beach house. But I can't buy one and still meet my basic financial obligations.
Unless you're willing to cull your population to reduce labor supply, as long as you have a larger labor supply than a labor demand, to afford protections, you will need laws.
What's your opinion on the minimum wage? It does bring economic inefficiency, as does rent control and unions, but I do support it.
Because he's a human being, and a child. I think welfare should provide, in one way or another, a little bit of money for poor people to buy some joy into their already gray, bleak lives. It makes a big difference. When you have some things that bring you some happiness, you're more motivated to go and improve your life further. If no matter how you struggle, you never get anywhere, and all you have around you is depressing housing, people, apartments, food, etc., that is not good.
Microsoft is as close to a monopoly as they get and even they haven't managed to achieve a true monopoly. Why? Because enterprising individuals are coming up with competitive alternatives (Apple, Redhat, OpenSource consortiums) are growing in popularity and are starting to gain market share on Microsoft.
DK writes: "Losing your retirement because of corporate malfeasance -- just another word for breaking the law -- prosecute those that violate the laws and hold them accountable for their financial misdeeds -- take away their ill-gotten gains."
Well, you're never going to recover even 1% of the value of the retirement plans that have evaporated. Perhaps it would have been better for everyone to have prevented this from happing at all? Same with the subprimes, the damage this crisis has done to homeowners, banks, lenders, stockholders is far greater than will ever be recovered.
But how do monopolies and sweatshops violate basic libertarian principles? I don't mean slavery, I mean sweatshops. No one is actually forced to work there, really. No one is forced to buy the goods that the monopoly sells, like a cell phone or a computer. I don't see the violation.
Exactly. I mean, I've actually lived in ghetto-like conditions, and the people living there? They're not all sitting on their lazy asses having a grand old time of it, watching their big screen TVs. It's not like that at all. That's a 1980s fantasy of scapegoating.
You obviously don't have children and you don't have a clue about what motivates people. You don't motivate people by giving them something with no strings attached. When you do, the thing you have given them automatically loses its value.
Children who have to work for their allowance demonstrate a higher level of competency and productivity than children who are given an allowance with no strings attached. If a child saves his money to buy something (say, an iPod), they will take much better care of it than the child that is given an iPod with no strings attached.
I have to run to a doctors appointment so can't post a link or more details right now but will do so later.
Now wait a second, I thought unfettered capitalism solves all problems, and an unfettered capitalist doesn't care about the "fairness" of the price, nor should we be at the mercy of a capitalist's definition of fair. Capitalism has nothing to do with "fair price" and the reason monopolies are not market-efficient is exactly because the monopolies can and DO charge much higher prices than their costs, and they have no competition to stop them.
And as you know, a company like microsoft, and like any rational economic actor would, constantly buys up tiny companies that could compete with it for vastly overvalued prices to keep them out of the market. And that is pure unfettered capitalism.
High start up costs do not close entry, only the government does.
Yes, high start up costs do close entry. That's known as "barriers to entry." If you have a company in an industry that has high start-up costs that has a monopoly or near-monopoly, and you see that to get a 5% market share, you will have to expend not only huge start up costs, but also huge other costs to gain that market share, your business model may not be a viable one, because the costs are too high. That's how monopolies in high-start-up cost industries keep competitors out.
LeC -- your toothpaste scenario presumes that there is only one company that is capable of creating and marketing a competitive product.
The point is that sometimes, it is just one company. Most of the time, no, but sometimes, yes.
Microsoft is as close to a monopoly as they get and even they haven't managed to achieve a true monopoly. Why? Because enterprising individuals are coming up with competitive alternatives (Apple, Redhat, OpenSource consortiums) are growing in popularity and are starting to gain market share on Microsoft.
At the same time, Microsoft does have a near monopoly on a lot of the market, and don't think you're not paying for it. Now, I personally don't enjoy extra money to someone just because they have a monopoly on something, but that's just me.
And you obviously have never lived in the ghetto and don't know the effect on the psyche that that kind of life has. It's not so easy to be motivated or pull yourself up by your bootstraps in that kind of environment.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13858
If market success really were the outcome of a superior product, I'd still be happily using WordPerfect, which really was a full-bodied word processor, rather than that crappy bunch of macros strung together by Gates's programmers.
The key to his success was strong-arm marketing tactics, many of which were the basis for law-suits.
Both as a child, and even now as an adult, I can be quite motivated by no-strings gifts of all sorts. But maybe I'm just weird like that.
I really can't believe that Stella and LeC are suggesting that every child deserves an iPod and that iPod will have magical powers to motivate every child to overcome poverty. Forget a chicken in every pot... and iPod in every backpack.
Stella -- I have not been able to have a civil conversation with you on any subject and your views are so foreign to me that engaging in a discussion with you is really not worth the effort or energy expended. Peace.
LeC -- Frankly, you lost me when you attacked me for being greedy and heartless. This coming from a lawyer, no less! Cheers...
But don't worry -- the government will bail everyone out and we will all live to be stupid another day.
How convenient, this way you don't have to respond to any of the severe problems with your philosophy. Perhaps you should listen to me on economics, DK, i have a master's degree in the subject.
I'll retract my greedy & heartless comment when you explain what happens to poor people who can't or won't find work, in your perfect world. As far as I can tell, you couldn't care less, and they can go and die for all you care, even their kids too, all because you're sick of paying for their welfare. Perhaps you could go visit some place like Calcutta and see the results of that kind of policy.
You really don't know what I think or feel -- you just want to think you do so that you can bask in the glow of moral superiority.
I'm having a hard time understanding this logic. Suppose that an average ROI for a company of a certain size/certain characteristics is 20%. If you are a monopoly, why stop there? You can charge almost anything you want, you could charge to generate an ROI of 30%, 40%, etc. The consumer gets screwed. Some consumers surely reap back some benefits because they are invested in the company, but those are only some.
Now, it's true that the higher you go, the more attractive you make it for a competitor to end the market, and so the monopoly may limit its excesses with those considerations, but it's still not the most efficient result, yet it is brought upon by market forces. Free-market economics in most circumstances leads to the most efficient result, thus a monopoly is a failure of the market.
I don't understand why you deny the very possibility of this well-established concept in economics, the market failure. Economics is not nearly as "hard" a science as physics, but you might very well next deny the existence of a supply-demand relationship, if you want to deny market failure, it's that established of a concept.
Capitalism often does police returns on stock because the market prices in profit as part of the stock price calculation. Thus profits and investment are proportional in and ultimate/average sense. There are wide variations all the time for one reason or another, but it all comes out in the wash at the end of the day.
I don't see how that makes sense. Yes, profits are priced into the price, but I don't understand how that serves as any check on profits. The more profitable a company, the more investors it will attract, not the fewer. Investors want the most possible profit for a certain level of risk, not less.
Now, you may be saying that this makes the price of the stock go up, and thus reduces the return on the investment, thus reducing the demand for stock, thus reducing the stock's price (and then the cycle starts up again). That's all fine and good, but it has little bearing on the price the company is charging of the consumer, on the other end of the transaction. The monopolistically-elevated price stays the same, shafting the consumer ever time. These stock fluctuations do nothing, except motivate the company to increase its profit margin, since it can with impunity, to provide more ROI and court more investment. This provides no check, it seems to me, on the pricing of the monopoly.
- You choose to drop out of school? Okey dokey -- just don't expect a welfare check when you can't get a job that pays a living wage because you lack the education needed for a decent paying job.
- Limited entitlements -- yes! You are responsible for your own destiny and your neighbor is responsible for theirs.
And you propose eliminating welfare.
I am simply asking what exactly you propose to do with the people who are currently on welfare and similar programs, or who will inevitably need something like welfare in the future.
I further suggest to you that complete welfare-elimination doesn't seem to provide your desired effect (motivating people to get a job, provide for themselves, get out of poverty) anywhere in the world. Countries that don't have social safety nets just have a lot of starving and homeless people, not a bunch of enterprising self-starting go-getters.
You provide no response to any of this except defensive non-responses. Oh well.
So, what's the point of anti-trust laws?
I don't know a lot about the law, but I do know enough about the economic aspects of anti-trust, and I think you're grossly oversimplifying the situation. Look around any office screen, tell me what you see, and then tell me there is no perfect monopoly in an emerging industry. :-) There is a necessity for this kind of governmental intervention. Perhaps you are right economics 101 is not up-to-date economics, but much higher graduate-level classes are, and monopolies and monopolistic tactics (collusion, which happens ALL THE TIME) abound, and are not any better from a market efficiency point of view than cartels. OPEC is another example of a near-perfect monopoly not created by any superceding government, and in a mature industry.
Moreover, you cavalierly discount short-term consequences of monopolies in the same way you dismissed the pain of adjustment to de-regulated mortgages. Those are real harms to economies, that's the whole point. That the 4 years it takes for a competitor to get itself together and be a real competitor, when people are paying higher than efficient prices for something, that's a damage to the whole economy. And we all live in the short-term.
Actually it is. Microsoft routinely uses its muscle to stifle other competitors' development, Microsoft uses collusive and monopolistic tactics. Yours is not an argument at all, I'm sorry to say. "They don't beat you that hard in prison" is not an argument.
If you can get by with a disastrous version of something, you can probably do without it altogether. Our anti-trust law is piss poor. It is about as good as none at all. Thus the state of our anti-trust law does provide an indication as to its necessity.
That's also not an argument. Let's reform it then. But that's not your argument, you're saying anti-trust laws are unnecessary ab initio, not just as currently existing.
OPEC as an example of private action in a free market fails for many reasons, chief among them that OPEC consists in GOVERNMENTS acting in concert. Those governments have recourse to coercive lawmaking power that allows them to control the oil in their territories.
Yes, in their territories, the same way that corporations have "lawmaking power" to control the resources in the territories they own. There is no New World Order antitrust law, and this is what you get: OPEC. To me, that's what you'll get if you do away with antitrust laws.
It saddens me and makes the baby Jesus cry when so many people who benefited so much from Capitalism take such an ungrateful attitude about it.
Ungrateful? No, I don't worship at the church of Adam Smith, capitalism is not a person or a religion or even an ideology. I am very much into capitalism, I think I understand it quite well, I am very pro it, but I'm not an absolutist laissez-faire unchecked capitalism person. There are some things that capitalism just can't solve, it's not god, for chissakes.
I mean, I hate to open antoher can of worms, but if you are so against my monopoly example, what about the tragedy of the commons? That's another instance of market failure. How do you suppose the market would solve that one?
Second -- with regards to Microsoft -- if you look around your computer screens, you'll see lots of pretty windows. However, if you look PAST the computer screens and take a stroll through any comp center in any major corporation you will find that Microsoft is actually a very small part of the IT expenditures.
The internet for the most part runs on Unix servers all tied together by Cisco routers and NetApp/EMC Storage systems. Go log into your bank's website -- you see a nice pretty little web browser but behind that is a multi-million dollar hunk of iron left over from the 60s and 70s called an MVS Mainframe. Have you ever logged into a Unix server or an MVS Mainframe? They look an awful lot like they did 30 years ago.
Microsoft has not squelched innovation. I'm quite sure Steve Jobs would take issue with that. Not to mention Kernigan and Ritchie who invented Unix.
There are legions of computer geeks who have taken what Microsoft has done and improved it. And you know what? They give it away for FREE!!! can you imagine that? I just redid my resume because I am probably going to be losing my job in the coming month (and I'm not even going to need a safety net or take unemployment -- imagine that!) and I did it using OpenOffice -- it looks exactly like an MS Word document. It can be edited and viewed with any MS product. And I can share it with anyone who has MS Office or OpenOffice or even Mac and Linux software. It was totally freaking FREE!
And now that I have a little bit more patience -- not much, mind you... but a bit. Read my original post carefully. I did not say I would eliminate welfare for all. I just would scale it back and the money that is used for current welfare would be used to provide everyone with a decent education/vocational training. I believe in the long run it is much more effective to TEACH a person how to fish rather than to just go ahead and give him the damned thing.
One last word about the evil warlords at Microsoft. Have you looked at what the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has done for the world? Do you think they did that out of the goodness of their monopolistic capitalistic hearts? Maybe a bit -- but a LOT of it is because they were incentivized by the government. And I would venture to guess that the money that is spent by the private BM foundation (what unfortunate initials!) is much more effectively spent than if it had come from some bureaucratic government agency.
I do actually care about people who lose their jobs -- I'm going to be one of them. As I said -- shit happens to everyone eventually. However, if the shit keeps happening to you over and over and over and over again and you don't do anything about it, well... at some point you got to start to think "ya' know? Maybe I'm the problem. Maybe I need to do something different because this really sucks!"
If you live in a flood plain, don't be surprised when you wake up surrounded by water every year. We'll give you one boat. Use it wisely.
Well, fine, let's hear how the tragedy of the commons can be fixed by the market. Beucase if it can't, then that means sometimes, capitalism needs government intervention to make it work right. Another example of where the government needs to step in to make capitalism work right is externalities: external costs that the company creates, but that are not paid for it, and are absorbed by the whole society. Air or water pollution are examples.
Before we leave this, would you kindly explain how the replacement good of "nothing" is not a check on monopoly pricing power for a nascent industry?
The core question is what is nascent. Personal computers were surely nascent in the 1980s, but how about the 1990s? Late 1990s? Still nascent? Are mp3 players still nascent? How about internet search technology (and google's de facto monopoly)? "nothing" is always a substitute good, isn't it? you could be a luddite... I don't see how this is an argument, really...
(1) Microsoft still has a de facto monopoly on the software used by businesses for the personal computer stations of their employees. The back end is a separate market, with its own dominant and baby companies. Just because they both involve computers doesn't make them the same market.
(2) "I did not say I would eliminate welfare for all." Except where you said: "I think, for the most part, these are issues that most people can get behind (though the whole "welfare-elimination" thing might be somewhat controversial)."
I must have misunderstood.
(3) The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is wonderful, but it is no excuse for the monopoly.
(4) I do actually care about people who lose their jobs -- I'm going to be one of them. As I said -- shit happens to everyone eventually. However, if the shit keeps happening to you over and over and over and over again and you don't do anything about it, well... at some point you got to start to think "ya' know? Maybe I'm the problem. Maybe I need to do something different because this really sucks!"
And the way i see it, I really don't care why someone needs welfare. There will be scumbags and louses and lazy people always, and I'd rather give them welfare than let them be homeless and/or starving. I'd rather not have that on my conscience. I don't despise them enough to not care about them that much.
I'm happy to live in a city that is very corrupt, to be sure, but provides cooling and warming centers for people without AC/heating, free lunches for poor children in the summer, picks up homeless people when it's really cold (or gives them blankets), and lots and lots of other things. I'd rather live in a place like that and pay a city tax than not.
Microsoft has not squelched innovation. I'm quite sure Steve Jobs would take issue with that. Not to mention Kernigan and Ritchie who invented Unix.
Yah, Unix was invented before Microsoft even came into existence. lol
And as for Apple, just look at Apple's market share. 5% maybe? you're telling me microsoft hasn't squelched anything? Microsoft buys up competitors and incorporates their innovations into its own systems. That's a form of innovation, but it's not the best. Look at the reviews for Windows 2000 and Windows Vista. People are rage-filled to lukewarm. It's not a good product, yet we keep buying it because of the monopoly.
There are legions of computer geeks who have taken what Microsoft has done and improved it.
Really, you know nothing about how any of this works. The Microsoft operating system is not open-source, it's not like Unix/Linux/etc., people can't go in the code, see now it works, and improve upon it and sell their own versions. People can look at it running, see how much it sucks, pick up a couple of good ideas, and incorporate it into their own competing system, yes, but not actually directly improving upon the operating system.
And you know what? They give it away for FREE!!! can you imagine that?
Yes, and even though they give it away for free, which imposes a huge cost on themselves (they have to run a business with basically no revenues!), they still can't really cut into Microsoft's market share that much. Not even well-established Apple can. With personal computing, yes a little, but with businesses? Very few businesses run the front-end of their workstations on Macs or RedHat, and few would ever consider switching, because that is the industry standard in most big business, that's where the money is for microsoft, and microsoft does everything in its power to enforce this continuity.
I worked for Bell Labs and have used UNIX longer than you have been alive. You conveniently miss the point that Microsoft did not kill UNIX or MAC or MVS... They have only grown in strength over the last 5 years as Microsoft's market share has been falling -- particularly with the debacle that is Vista.
You obviously don't understand the point of OpenSource software -- it actually isn't about business or making a profit. You also obviously miss the point with regards to the BM foundation -- but you knew that.
I've been reading up on what I have missed while I was gone last month. It is obvious that you are Open Salon's very own troll. You like to take positions only to bait people and puff yourself up as an expert on all things and put others down. Your treatment and disdain of individuals (pretend farmer and elizabeth, for example) shows the type of person you truly are.
Cheers.
I posed a lot of questions to you about your philosophy, and you haven't been able to answer many of them. I'm not sorry for that etiher.
You wanna take sides? Take sides, make a clique. I'm not going to do that.
Interesting that as soon as I call you on your trolling, you accuse me of "taking sides" and forming a clique... Seems like I hit a nerve. As NeilPaul so accurately observed, when you change the subject, you might as well say "I've got nothin' ".
To quote NP (at the risk of seeming to be part of some NP clicque) "you've mostly been drawing me out and bluffing". I countered your arguments about how MS has a monopoly. You chose to discount them. i.e. -- your claims that MS has a monopoly, my counter example that I am able to accomplish everything I need to accomplish using OpenSource software. By definition -- the fact that I have an alternative to Microsoft and choose to use it means that Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly. Not that I really wish to drag this on any further (but my "lower self" can't resist) -- what does MS have a monopoly over? Certainly not operating systems. Then you responded by limiting it to desktops used for business workstations. Again, that isn't even true. Many graphic design companies don't use microsoft -- they use macintosh. A "near monopoly" or "de facto monopoly" is != to an actual monopoly.
Another example -- you claimed that I would eliminate welfare. I have never said that... I would limit it as it exists significantly and focus on providing education and training to all. Once again -- limiting welfare eliminating welfare.
You claim that private sources can not be trusted to provide social safety nets and that only the government is capable of providing a safety net. I countered with BM Foundation -- you dismissed it by asserting (wrongly) once again that that doesn't count because Bill shouldn't have had a monopoly in the first place (which they don't).
You say things that are simply designed to get a rise out of others and push their buttons -- that is the definition of a troll. When you troll, don't be surprised when people start calling you on it. And when multiple call you on it, that doesn't mean that all those people are part of a clique... the notion that I'm in some sort of clique with ePriddy is laughable -- have you seen our earlier exchanges? Have you seen ANY exchanges between myself, PF and ePriddy that would indicate that we are somehow conspiring to form a clique against you? Check out my posting history since I returned several days ago -- the only people I have "talked with" of any note has been you, NeilPaul, and Stella -- and frankly, NONE of those conversations has been particularly "friendly".
However, you would think I would learn not to feed the trolls... the fact I continue to waste time responding to you is a tribute to my own stupidity -- particularly when I'm am 10 steps from one of the most gorgeous beaches in the world with two of the most handsome and loveable boys in the world ... MINE!
Now if you'll excuse me, my dates and the waves are waiting for me.
Cheers...
So, on the facts:
I countered your arguments about how MS has a monopoly. You chose to discount them. i.e. -- your claims that MS has a monopoly, my counter example that I am able to accomplish everything I need to accomplish using OpenSource software. By definition -- the fact that I have an alternative to Microsoft and choose to use it means that Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly. Not that I really wish to drag this on any further (but my "lower self" can't resist) -- what does MS have a monopoly over? Certainly not operating systems. Then you responded by limiting it to desktops used for business workstations. Again, that isn't even true. Many graphic design companies don't use microsoft -- they use macintosh. A "near monopoly" or "de facto monopoly" is != to an actual monopoly.
Yes, it actually is, because it allows for the same negative effects that a 100% monopoly would have: strong-arming, increasing entry costs, charging higher prices. A study says that Windows market share could soon fall below 90%. That means Windows has a 90% market share now. That's known in economics as a "dominant" position and the dominant company uses the same tactics as a monopolistic company. Yes, I was using "monopoly" as shorthand for both true monopolies, and extremely dominant positions, such as Microsoft's. You got me there. But the discussion of the negative effects of both is exactly the same.
Your first counterexample to Microsoft's monopoly was back-end software, and i think you know that that is not the same thing. Front-end and back-end are different markets with different players. Sun and Cisco don't make personal OSes, for example. Your second example, with the open source, yes, there are substitute goods, and like I already said, even though they are "sold" for free, they've made very little inroads in Microsoft's market share. Same goes for Mac, I myself have a Mac.
At this point, you decided to say that I don't understand the point of opensource. Well, if the point of opensource is not to get market share from Microsoft, if it is being done just for fun, or out of selfless goodness, then it's really not in any relation to the free market considerations of Microsoft's monopoly/dominance. It can't be both a market player against Microsoft, and a non-profit, in-and-of-itself endeavor, at least not in this analysis.
Another example -- you claimed that I would eliminate welfare. I have never said that... I would limit it as it exists significantly and focus on providing education and training to all. Once again -- limiting welfare eliminating welfare.
Then you shouldn't have written "welfare-elimination."
You claim that private sources can not be trusted to provide social safety nets and that only the government is capable of providing a safety net.
I'm not sure where I wrote that, but in some ways, yes, that is true. Only the guaranteed revenues from mandatory taxation that only a government can enforce can guarantee the existence of a safety net. Non-profits and charities can go out of business if they run out of donations. And then there is no safety net.
I countered with BM Foundation -- you dismissed it by asserting (wrongly) once again that that doesn't count because Bill shouldn't have had a monopoly in the first place (which they don't).
I thought you had brought up the BM Foundation as a justification for Microsoft's market dominance, saying that monopolies sometimes produce good charitable results, not as an example of a substitute for government safety nets. Was I wrong?
It is the fat-cat attitude of Sheiks who don't have to compete as private firms and can rent seek based on political power that drive OPEC.
Exactly. There is no supranational anti-trust law to control such cartels. what i'm trying to say is that if you analogize corporations to countries, than OPEC is official collusion of a bunch of corporations operating in an anti-trust-law-free world. There is no way to force them to break up unless other, non-cartel companies compete with them. It's exactly my point - that is the world without antitrust laws.
To pick on one, the subprime meltdown is a problem, but in an economy with a GDP of nearly $14 trillion it is not going to bring the economy to its knees.
Bear Stearns had a market cap of something like $40 billion at its top. It went poof. While that's horrible for the folks who worked there and the investors in Bear, what's $40 billion in a $14 trillion economy?
A rounding error.
I'm tired of hearing about how stupid people who made stupid decisions are innocents. For example, a lot of people who did no doc loans knew if they had to document their income, they'd never have gotten the loan. So they fudged it and then when they didn't have enough money to pay the loan, they talk about how they were hosed.
No, you hosed yourself. You couldn't afford the house you wanted so you lied on your application and can't pay for it. You assumed that the market would keep on going up and now you're paying for it.
Yes, you should get some relief and help in keeping a house over your head but you shouldn't act like you're some innocent here.
It's like the hooker saying to the john, but, but, but, you MADE me do this. Uh, no, sweetie. You decided to sell your body so it's on you.