On 5/11/05, DJA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Todd Walton wrote: > > What would be a relevant example? > > There really aren't any. Apple might arguably be on the list. > > And if you ask at what point I would consider Linux a significant > competitor to Windows, I'd probably say at the point it has a market > share no more than twenty percentage points different from Windows.
And on May 6, 2005, DJA wrote: > But being BIG in the marketplace is part of the definition of a > monopoly. Pretty tough to be unsuccessful and be a monopoly, and vice > versa without being either the government or government subsidized. Oh, I see! I see now. We're arguing two different things. I'm saying that government regulates monopolies because they are ethically bad. You're saying that they regulate them because they're bad for the economy, and further, that the monopoly needn't actually be a "monopoly", but just overwhelmingly successful. My take on the matter is that anti-trust legislation was created as a way to punish perceived wrong-doing. I believe that Microsoft is not maintaining its position in the market due to wrong-doing. The latter statement is what I've been arguing here. The former statement is supported by the looking at the law itself. The original Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 outlawed, "every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations". It was later modified to make monopolies unlawful, and as the FTC says[1], the law is violated "only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly position through unreasonable methods." The Act that created the FTC outlawed "unfair methods of competition". [1] http://www.ftc.gov/bc/compguide/antitrst.htm Later, in 1914, the Clayton Act prohibited mergers where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly". Best I can make out, though, it doesn't define what a monopoly is, which allows room for your success-based definition. I have to ask, though, if government has a legitimate role in making the economy function better, not just punishing wrong-doing, then why limit it to monopolies? Why not just say, "The government shall have the power to create or destroy any business, and take whatever other actions it deems necessary to insure the strongest possible economic functioning of the nation."? Perhaps the Soviet Union's socialist system was simply administered badly, and there's nothing wrong with it in principle? To repeat: Why is government limited to busting up monopolies in the interests of the economy's health? Why don't they have the power to bust up *any* business? -todd -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
