Is capitalism good?

That is debatable as IBM and other monopolists could've litigated to death any prospective competitor. Take a look here though its only a modest example its still evident that some can litigate things to death: http://www.411mania.com/music/news/article.php?news_id=3586

I certainly dont think the MS monopoly can be easily broken. Even in our relatively still healthy market economy (Im comparing with some of the more third world corrupt markets here) its obvious some monopolies wont be broken anytime soon by the market. Even big players have yet to seriously try and break the MS hold. Lindows is a weak attempt andy any compatibility with ms based software Im sure wil be challenged as MS examines any compatibility features of any os to run ms or ms compatible software.

I dont think its easy or affordable for most devs to make software to run on ms and competing os's.
 
Death by litigation is all the more reason to restrain the government's hand.

Microsoft's hold isn't going to be broken by the market because there isn't any compelling challenger, except for maybe Apple, to it.

There were two challenges to Microsoft's hold in the 90s: Java, and the Web. The idea with Java was to commodify Windows by making it merely a low level bootloader for a Java based environment for running applications. Once it was commodified, it could be swapped out for any other operating system. However,Sun took too long to improve Java to the point where full fledged applications could run and look like native apps, and in the meantime, Microsoft responded by shipping their own Java VM which was faster than Suns, and later, by shipping .NET CLR which yields Java's safety of coding, but ties it to Windows OS. Microsoft simply outmaneuvered its competitors, and the failure of Java on the desktop has nothing to do with Microsoft's monopoly.

Also, there was the idea, that most applications would migrate to be Web based client/server, and hence, the operating system wouldn't need to be much more than a browser. This was the "Network PC" idea. Again, it failed, because #1 the implementation sucked and #2 it ended up more expensive than a full fledged PC! (Sun and IBM's Network PCs were way more expensive than value-PCs with Windows, and the NetPCs had inferior HW)

You can't challenge Microsoft's dominance by shipping less powerful hardware, with slower applications, and less choice.

The only way Microsoft is going to be beaten in the long term is to go the Apple route, by building a very nice OS ontop of a strong foundation, and then adding emulation laters so you can still run your own MS software. They will have to start with a niche market (like Apple) or linux (cheap servers) and use that as a launching point.

I don't neccessarily want Microsoft's monopoly broken. I like Microsoft software, I like what they've done to advance the state of 3D apis (progression much faster than OpenGL), and I see no reason for government intervention. Microsoft isn't stopping the pace of Linux, and if people keep working on it, maybe one day it will have enough software and be easy enough to use that it will be a viable choice for people.
 
Willmeister said:
If there were no government, they're wouldn't be very much. Rule by force and fear would be the order of the day. If we were subject to a 'jungle', which governance was basically created to prevent, having Pheonix's product, or many other products that require a level of civilization, would have been impossible to even create.
I'm always surprised by this argument. Because there's no state, then there's no rules. That's utterly BS.

First, there's plenty of exemple where no state exist and there are rules: exemple can be find in indigenous (the term?) society where customs are the rules, or today in internationnal law where no state exist (in particular the maritime one), even in prison, there're rules between prisoners, enforced by prisoners.

Secondly, we always stay with the hobesian theroy, and forget Lockes one, where for him there's no such thing as 'jungle without rules'. There's always 2 possibility, and of course, people forget the possibility of harmony, cooperation and spontaneous rules (even if i don't realy like the term spontaneous).

Finally, i think it's Franz Oppenheimer who said that there are only two means for man to obtain wealth. One, the method of production and voluntary exchange, the method of the free market,known as "economic means", and the other, the method of robbery by the use of violence, known as the "political means." He then defines the State as the "organization of the political means"—the systematization of the predatory process over a given territorial area. To protect the citizens from the jungle did you say? ;)

If you want to know more on "anarchy and rules", you could have a look at this critic of Tullock's "Edge of the Jungle", as he thinks a bit like you ;)
http://www.mises.org/asc/2002/asc8-coyne.pdf
 
Its states that uphold international law... To think of another organisational structure to uphold laws to be better would be pretty much replace the state with another state. Democracy takes care of that very well I think still. I dont think its fair to call politics thievery. Theivery is common in our modest free markets and I dont see how politics does anything but rectify some of the worse wrongs. To shut the voice of democratic politics down is simply to return to authoritarianism.

Its obvious some kind of management of the economy is called for. Weaker govs mean Mexico to me... 10% ultra rich and 90% poor. I think we clearly have the right or nearly right balance of democratic gov and free markets.

The role of gov in fact will have to be seriously enhanced as we gradually move towards a workless world. If we do the reverse we return to feudalism where no matter how wealthy the world is people will starve.
 
Point is, a monopoly can't always bar a competing product.

That's right. IBM tried, and failed. They had to resort to litigation and had their litigation won, the PCs industry would still be stuck with overpriced, underpowered computers. But that doesn't stop them from trying now does it? They barred

IBM had no way of baring new technologies from disrupting the market place and dethroning it. Period.

They can, and they did. Aren't you paying attention? UNIVAC was superior technologically to any of IBMs product line. It used a keyboard and a monitor, yet IBM used FUD, predatory pricing to drive RCA and it's superior technology from the market. They unsuccessfully tried this again to protect their XT and PC market with various proprietary technologies.

They can also use patent laws to keep superior products from the market. They claims may even be bogus, but if you have the financial resources to keep competitors tied up in the courts for an eternity, they have effectively barred a competing product.

Their monopoly power could not stop new technology. Hence, government power is not the only way for monopolies to disperse. Ergo, monopolies are not inevitable and invariant barring government interference.

Now you're just being silly. You're assuming at each step here that power is evenly distributed among those invovled, which is never the case.

Virtually all economists will actually tell you that since markets began, the ultimate goal of any provider is to drive competitors out of the market, which is what actually maximizes profit. Profit is king. Monopolies are, at their core, simply a reflection of man's hoarding instinct. It removes uncertainty and apprehension about the future.

You would like to argue, I understand, because of your liberal leanings, that big old government needs to step into the market and pick winners.

Don't make assumptions because you would be absolutely wrong. No where have I said the government has to come in and pick winners or losers. Are you one of those American neo-cons who tells their children that the 'Liberals' will get them if they misbehave? The government has to ensure that certain unfair, inefficient business practices are forbidden.
 
Because there's no state, then there's no rules.

I wish that wasn't true, but unfortunately it is. What is a state if not a collection of individuals coming together for the purpose of mutual self-interest? It's the weaker elements of society coming together for mutual protection against the dominant alpha male/female, or simply an external threat. Isn't civilization, cities, nationstates, tribes, etc are at their most basic? And aren't societal rules there to protect the masses from the whims of sociopaths who constantly find ways to get around or bend the rules?

First, there's plenty of exemple where no state exist and there are rules: exemple can be find in indigenous (the term?) society where customs are the rules, or today in internationnal law where no state exist (in particular the maritime one), even in prison, there're rules between prisoners, enforced by prisoners.

But they all perfom the functions of a state though. They provide a mutually-agreed upon set of rules and enforce them. You remove these codes and suddenly the sociopaths have free reign to destroy that community. I'm coming from a somewhat Girardian point of view here.

People arose from rather weak creatures who naturally came together from protection and other benefits. Rules also naturally arose to protect the cohesion of the group. Those who broke the rules, or jeopardized the group in some way, were suddenly removed from the group. A state is just a natural evolution of this phenomena. Why do prisoners have their rights removed and sent to prison? To protect the group from those who have shown an unwillingness to abide by the agreed-upon rules.

Police states are also a reflection of this. Often they cloak their activities as 'protection'. Iran is a good example of this mentality and how, to an extent, they manage to keep people in line. Not only fear of incarceration, but stoking the fears the population have about returning to quasi-colonial rule.

There's always 2 possibility, and of course, people forget the possibility of harmony, cooperation and spontaneous rules (even if i don't realy like the term spontaneous).

That's what I said above. People coming together for mutual self-interest.
 
David Friedman described in The Machinery of Freedom how many functions of even a libertarian government (courts, police, etc) can be privatized. He based his research on ancient Icelandic legal systems and somewhat on the mafia.

In theory, it would work much the same as car insurnance companies. When someone hits your car, you are protected by your insurnance company, and the offender is protected by his. The insurance companies work out a payment transfer for damages, and then privately deal with their customers (increasing fees, etc)

Now let's say there are no government courts or police. You need to be under police and legal protection, so you go out into the marketplace and subscribe to a police and court service for a fee, just like car insurance. Call these Privately Produced Law (PPL). Each PPL could even have a different set of binding laws (e.g. in one, drug use in legal, in another, everyone must wear Burkas, hell, in another even murder could be legal), but you aren't likely to subscribe to a PPL where murder is legal, so it is thought.


Now, a crime is committed and there are three cases:

#1 someone within your own PPL commits a crime. Since both of you agreed by contract to be bound by the PPL, everything proceeds just as it does today

#2 someone within another PPL commits a crime. This is similar to a foreigner committing a crime on an American citizen. In the real world, two states negotiate for extradition or home trial. In the PPL case, they could either extradite, or, the criminal's PPL would try him, and pay a set of damages to the victim's PPL.

#3 Outlaw status, a person not under a PPL

Now, the question arises, why wouldn't I want to just be an outlaw? Because outlaws have no rights whatsoever, and in a PPL based legal system, stealing from them or killing them yields no penalty. Why would PPL's permit this? It's in the best interests to ensure that no one wants to go without legal coverage, thus their behavior is bound by atleast one PPL.


In retrospect, we have PPL today in a way. You can "choose" your legal system by moving to a different nation and "buy" legal protection there by paying taxes. And as a described, international law is analogous to a set of inter-company agreements for resolution of disputes between different legal systems. The PPL idea was just to bring international law within your own nation.

Now, I don't think this will work in practice, but it's an interesting theory. The fundamental flaw is what happens when two PPLs disagree and won't make transfer payments or extradition? War or a breaking off of relations, which isn't good. It is hoped, just as in international law, that everyone sees the benefits of common agreements, but we know people break international law as soon as it isn't convenient, defecting like in a prisoner's dilemma for maximum immediate gain.

Regretably, it seems the one monopoly that must exist is a monopoly on the use of force. Our only hope is to put so many rules on its use, and so many watchdogs, that it gets used as rarely as possible, and only under circumstances from which there is an appeal.
 
Willmeister said:
They can, and they did. Aren't you paying attention? UNIVAC was superior technologically to any of IBMs product line. It used a keyboard and a monitor, yet IBM used FUD, predatory pricing to drive RCA and it's superior technology from the market. They unsuccessfully tried this again to protect their XT and PC market with various proprietary technologies.

So what? Unix is "superior" to MSDOS and Windows before NT, did you use it or expect other people? Just because one particular feature is "superior" doesn't mean it's compelling enough for people to want it.

A keyboard sounds like a big win, but guess what, the UNIVAC's "keyboard" merely recorded keystrokes on a metal tape. The problem is, by that time, businesses had a large investment in punchcard tabulating machines. When they bought a UNIVAC, they would likely be adding it to their existing "IT" infrastructure. The UNIVAC's keyboard had no way of punching cards instead of punching tape. As a result, the UNIVAC data entry could not interoperate with existing business systems.

This would be like saying Company X develops a server based on "TCP/IP" and company Y was using Novell Netware. You then claim that TCP/IP is "superior" to Novell Netware, and when everyone refuses to buy Company X's software, you claim it is because of Novell's anticompetitive practices. Instead, your software should have interoperated with the existing systems as well as providing TCP/IP. If you do not have a migration path, no one is going to flush their existing investments down the toilet.

Microsoft executed this strategy brilliantly by building into NT every network protocol imaginable: AppleTalk, NFS, Netware IPX/SPX/CSNW, etc.

It simply isn't enough to have some new cool technology. You must interface cost effectively with legacy systems, and this is the lesson that UNIVAC failed to learn.

They can also use patent laws to keep superior products from the market. They claims may even be bogus, but if you have the financial resources to keep competitors tied up in the courts for an eternity, they have effectively barred a competing product.

All the more reason to get the government out of the monopoly granting business. No software patents, no business model patents. Allow patents for a limited range of things that require vast sums of money and years before payoff (biotech). The founders never intended patents to protect some guy who thought of online auctions for 20 years.

The government has to ensure that certain unfair, inefficient business practices are forbidden.

Assuming that there is some objective standard of what is fair or inefficient. As we saw with the Netscape or Sun cases against Microsoft, the plantiffs aren't always the most efficient or have the best technology.
 
This is slightly off-topic, but has anyone read Jennifer Government? My copy just came today (been trying to get a hold on it for a while) and it's a freaking hilarious, and brilliant satire on capitalism. You can read some sample pages through that link.
 
Sounds like a bad cliche to me. Umm, how many books and movies do we have now where the future is ruled by ruthless corporations?

I think I'd rather watch RoboCop.
 
Hmm, no it's not like that at all. It's much closer to Fight Club than RoboCop. If you're a fan of Palahniuk's writing style you'll probably like it. The scenarios that happen in the book are often so ironic and funny, but none of it ever seems like it's too far off or impossible (Australia is part of the US in the book, for instance).

Hard to go into details without giving something away, but if you read all (not just the nike chapter) the sample pages and don't think it's your bag, then it probably isn't.
 
I prefer animal farm. A humorous satire of european socialism.

After reading a summary and visiting Max Barry's website i feel as though this book may be rather low brow - much akin to something the perpertually misinformed michael moore would write.

I think Max says it best:

At last! Jennifer Government hits bookstores across the UK today, in "ridiculously large paperback" format. It's been a while coming, mainly for legal reasons associated with using real company names in a work of not-so-flattering fiction.

Its not flattering and it doesn't seem to be factually stimulating either. I wouldn't say the book is flattering or insulting IMO; it reads as a story concerning a fictious world (Max's commical capitalist strawman) which serves him as his rant against his version of consumerism.

Sometime in the near future, the entire world except France is a part of the USA, and the government hides in the shadows of two massive corporate conglomerates: the US Alliance and Team Advantage.

I snickered when i read this comment. Anyone who would suggest France is some how the ideal antithesis of the capitalistism must be writting a work of fiction. :LOL:

Honestly i think he should change the name of France to "Grand State of Unwell" and divide its populace amongst three teams: EconPreserve, EconServe and SocialLeach.

He could also discuss the Grand State of Unwell's government! In my mind the Grand State of UnWell would be rulled by a group of narrow minded and economically ignorant philosophers of the political parties "Unthink Tank", "Al-R=in-our-Is","BUT-W/R-nOT-FASCIST", and "BCUZ-WE-Say-SO". As the ruling body, they would enact legislation to exploit the successful people of Unwel (EconPreserve and EconServe) finacially in order to to buy the support of the lazy and unproductive SocialLeachs who do nothing to deserve the money they get which does nothing but further their unwillingness to work as they have no incentives. A sad state indeed.

to better understand the plight of this society a bit of history and backgroud is necessary to explain the positions of EconPreserve and EconServe:

The EconPreserve are business owners and investors who helped create the basis of UnWell's economy. They are forced to higher the SocialLeachs and pay them undo salaries for minimal work. They have a problem keeping their businesses afloat and competitive against the USA do to lack of productivity, inferior products, etc. They sell their products mainly to their own people do to their inability to legitimize their business elsewhere.

The EconServ are the honest working class whom are higher wage earners who are finacially exploited by the government of the State of Unwell.

Neither the EconPs nor EconSs are allowed to make all the money do them. This "surplus" money is taken from them and provided to the SocialLeachs whom did nothing to earn it. The reasoning behind this is that the government felt it wasn't right for EconPs and Ss to make money they worked for as it would only serve to upset SocialLeachs whom don't have the willingness to work for it. Why, after all should these other people make more money when it would only make the SocialLeachs jealous? That would hurt their feelings!

The SocialLeachs need no introductions or explinations. They simply are and always will exist.

Now that we haved finished with a summary of a bit of Unwell's societal background we can move on to some of its history:

a portion of the Grand State of Unwell's history will be related to us in the form of a story concerning important characters involved in the countries development from the first person perspective of each of these characters;

Dr. Ifwe R. Equal
-In the Grand State of Unwell, in the county of Unfair lives a man by the name of Dr. Equal who resides at 5427 EconDiscrimination Ave. Dr. Equal is a man who has suffered all of his life for being different, for developing talents/abilities/skills/etc the members of Team SocialLeach just don't have or wish to expose. Such talents/abilities/skills/etc are so frowned apon infact its considered politically incorrect to speak or even write their names! These politically shunned terms as are follows: Work Ethic, Creativity, Education, and Dedication.
Much of Dr. Equals life has been spent progressing his carrier which has, for the most part, been his emmotional crutch to shield him from his problems with team SL, the government and the lose of his deceased father's most prized possesion; his ship Minitel. Being that he comes from the "Materialistic" upper class he has had a number of problems managing his father's shrinking estate. The government takes from his father's estate every year to pay for their finacial instability under the auspices he doesn't need all what his father gave him. One such acquisition was of the ship Minitel. The poor ship Minitel, in the hands of the government, was sunk do to their indolence and ignorance. The lose of Minitel wounded Dr Equal terribly although in the end it helped him in his process of self realization.

More to come later.
 
Legion said:
animal farm. A humorous satire of european socialism.

Ill bite ... if by that you mean communism, sure :) Orwell is a poor ally to pick in a fight for capitalism.
 
Willmeister said:
I think I'd rather watch RoboCop.

What, no Ayn Rand?

RoboCop is a humorous critique of a city ruled by a megacorp. But atleast it is entertaining. Atlas Shrugged would have to be a miniseries, and John Galt's speech alone would take up an entire episode. Doesn't sound compelling.

But it's interesting you brought Rand up since she uses the same technique of creating strawman characters as the leftwing critics do.

I'm getting a little tired of the cliche's: orwellian government rules worlds, megacorp rules world, Church rules world.

Atleast the Matrix had a twist: machines run universe (but don't appear to interfere in day to day freedom of humans)
 
DemoCoder said:
Willmeister said:
I think I'd rather watch RoboCop.

What, no Ayn Rand?

RoboCop is a humorous critique of a city ruled by a megacorp. But atleast it is entertaining. Atlas Shrugged would have to be a miniseries, and John Galt's speech alone would take up an entire episode. Doesn't sound compelling.

But it's interesting you brought Rand up since she uses the same technique of creating strawman characters as the leftwing critics do.

I'm getting a little tired of the cliche's: orwellian government rules worlds, megacorp rules world, Church rules world.

[quote[Atleast the Matrix had a twist: machines run universe (but don't appear to interfere in day to day freedom of humans)


Not to mention Zion is a welfare state the Machines are tired of supporting :LOL:

I don't think anyone could get me to watch Anthem as a movie. I read the book. That was enough.

Lets not forget Alien. The future world of Alien was also run by huge corporations out to control mankind.
 
Lets not forget Alien. The future world of Alien was also run by huge corporations out to control mankind.

..or Terminators 8) (they do however interfer with the day to day freedom of humans).
 
Silent_One said:
Lets not forget Alien. The future world of Alien was also run by huge corporations out to control mankind.

..or Terminators 8) (they do however interfer with the day to day freedom of humans).

errr wasn't the Cyberdyn AI's bout of PMS rather an unforseen circumstance?
 
Back
Top