So Paul, what is your point? That markets aren't perfect? That players try to tilt the playing field in their favor against their competitors through government interference? Or was it just an opportunity to grind a worn axe? None of this is news to me and I know it wasn't to Friedman either.
He wrote " Of course, this is abstract and idealized. The world is not ideal. There are all sorts of deviations from the perfect market--many, if not most, I suspect, due to government interventions. But with all its defects, the current largely free-market, private-property world seems to me vastly preferable to a world in which a large fraction of resources is used and distributed by 501c(3)s and their corporate counterparts." That makes eminent sense to me, but I also believe the world market is big enough to house both Mackeyian and Friedmanian businesses. Vote with your dollars which one holds more value to you. 1970 economics? 2007 economics? I don't even know what that is. Regardless, that wasn't the point of the link. The point of that was to show that what Tom is decrying is already being done and has been done for some time now. It also presented 3 differing views on the matter. Just like Jobs got credit for pushing the music companies to go DRM free, when others had been at it for years before him, Gates is being credited for pushing an old idea as new. Gates pushed an idea, one that Bono is already doing, for example, and all Tom heard was "booga booga!!" My eyes get tired from all the rolling and I hoped that he might actually learn something. ----------------------------------- > Jeff, > There are two arguments that mitigate against the Friedmann pov. One > using > 1970 economics and one using 2007 economics. > > The "morality" of maximizing profits is based on the idea that markets > do certain things efficiently and so promoting the freedom of business > people, > entrepreneurs and corporations creates a productive win-win situation > where > everyone benefits and freedom for business (and maybe for everyone > else, > thought that is a much harder argument to sustain). > > If the market transactions don't make an optimal use of economic/social > resources then the whole argument becomes questionable (except for > libertarians who believe that any exercise of governmental power is > inherently > problematic - not exactly a widely shared belief though one shared by > the editors of Reason). > > So is "the market" efficient? > 1970 answer. Yes, but not when there is market failure. I.e. Not in the > case where monopoly or externalities. Something that has been > recognized > for a long time (since the 80's anyway) is that even markets that are > not > technically monopolies still act like monopolies, i.e. they keep there > prices > higher than if there was a truly competitive situation. This is called > oligopoly, > and many, many market in the economy appear to have price behavior > that appears oligopolistic. I could explain why, but the point is that > it happens. > > 2007 answer. Some nobel prize winning economists have argued and their > view are pretty mainstream, even if debated, that the availability (or > rather the > lack of availability) of information robs consumers of the ability to > push the market > through price competition to its ideal efficiency. The so-called > information assymmetry economist argue that this problem of not enough > information is > the rule rather than the exception. > > Beyond the point of whether the markets are efficient, maximizing > profits in > the real world means corporations lobby and constantly try to change > the > rules of the game in their favor. They try to change laws about > finance, taxes, > regulation etc. They actually like to make markets less competitive > when > they hold a dominant position in them. The also compete not through > prices > or even through quality but through marketing and advertising (which to > some > extent is the information asymmetry raising its ugly head). > > And beyond > that there is problem that managers have never, ever acted solely in > the interests > of owners but usually in their own interests as well, even when that > involves > an inordinate of risk in the long-term (whereas managers interests are > notoriously > short term). > > I think you could find intellectual honest, economically literate > conservatives > who would argue that Gates is a threat to free market and capitalism in > general. ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive from 1/1/2000 is on the MARC http://marc.info/?l=computerguys-l * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/computerguys-l@listserv.aol.com/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************
