> Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>
> >> > than force them) is to provide some combination of a
> >> > better product and a better price, how is this a bad thing?
> >>
> >> If this is the case, why is dumping outlawed?
> >
> >Oh, that one's easy to answer...because our legislators
> >are idiots, and will listen to the whining of someone
> >being undercut (and who makes a nice contribution).
> >There is no legitimate reason to outlaw many business
> >practices that are now illegal: dumping, tying, insider
> >trading...it's just business. But in a democracy--as
> >opposed to a free society--the losers can use state
> >guns to make up for their incompetence in the market.
>
> So if one company has more money than the others, it should be
> allowed to charge less than cost for it's product? Doesn't this
> leads to a situation where, in order to compete in the short run,
> other companies are forced to do the same or lose customers?
> Wouldn't that just mean that the company with the most money to burn
> at the start of this cycle will probably last longest? And after the
> other competitors starve, the consumers are left with fewer choices
> in the long run. And that sucks - monocultures are prone to atrophy
> and catastrophic failure.
>
> Most "Americans" get all bent out of shape when businesses of
> another state (like Japan) try this trick on "us". Why should we
> allow it within our own market system?
Because our government does not subsidize dumping. Japan and China do.
End of story.
> I'm not for excessive gubbamint regulation, but likewise, I wouldn't
> be in favor of any completely unregulated market scheme which didn't
> serve the ultimate interests of *individual humans* (ie consumers
> and business people, not just the few richest businesses). I believe
> that the goal of any market system should be to get the maximum
> sustainable level of individual economic freedom and power for
> *humans*, not corporations.
Contrary to popular beleif, markets in which there are more than a few
suppliers of products which can be marketed at commodity levels are
easily non-regulated such that they produce the lowest possible cost to
the consumer.
Breaking up AT&T was not deregulation, it was anti trust. The cable
industry likewise is not deregulated, rather it is highly regulated.
> I'd love to have you describe a method for avoiding this type of
> positive feedback trap without any type of regulatory intervention,
> and change my mind.
>
I perfer the concepts of Vinge's _Conquest by Default_ in which Umpires
rule on antitrust actions to prevent 'bigness', typically seen in
organizations of more than 10,000 people. Pass this rule and no
government larger than a small town would survive antitrust action.
-- TANSTAAFL!!! Michael Lorrey ------------------------------------------------------------ mailto:retroman@together.net Inventor of the Lorrey Drive MikeySoft: Graphic Design/Animation/Publishing/Engineering ------------------------------------------------------------ How many fnords did you see before breakfast today?