Linux-Advocacy Digest #676, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 04:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Richard)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:53:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Träger) wrote:
>> [...]
>> >So there should be a free market until someone says that a company is
>> >charging too much, then you throw out the free market?
>>
>> No, then you investigate whether or not there is a free market, or
>> whether monopolization has prevented competition from providing a free
>> market.
>
>Then why do you keep saying that merely "profiteering" should bring a
>civil punishment on a company?
You misunderstand, still, the phrase "civil injunction" as I have used
it.
>> [...]
>> >> So when there IS profiteering, it's an indication that there is no free
>> >> market, but a monopoly.
>> >
>> >Wrong. It means that consumers value a product highly.
>>
>> Adam Smith disagrees with you.
>
>You're misquoting him.
I don't think I'm misrepresenting him, at all, though I obviously am not
quoting him, as he never met you or responded to you on Usenet, AFAIK.
>But even if you weren't, who cares? You're losing all the arguments so
>you throw out a few names?
What arguments do you feel I have 'lost'?
[...]
>> >Profit margin is not an indication of whether a monopoly exists.
>>
>> Absolute profit margin isn't. Relative profit margin certainly would be
>> "an indication". According to the courts, its even evidence, though
>> obviously not conclusive in its own right.
>
>Then why do you keep saying that if my profit margins are higher than
>you think they should be ("profiteering"), then I should be hit with a
>civil injunction?
It isn't "hit with" a civil injunction, its "subject to" civil
injunction, which means courts, judges, police, press reports, and the
full array of mechanisms for uncovering and preventing unethical
behavior in society. You're still setting up the straw man to begin
with. Since this exchange started, you've been resolutely demanding
that I am insisting that I can pass judgement on whether you are
charging too much money. Absent of detailed specifics, I can make no
such claim, of course, and so I haven't bothered to suggest I can. I
presume that the reason you insist I have done so is because you don't
have any other argument to begin with. That's what a 'straw man' is,
after all. I'm sure it makes you feel all righteous and victorious when
you knock that straw man down, but since you're the one that set him up
to begin with, its apparent that its empty posturing to everyone else,
I'd hope.
>If you had said it should be investigated, you _might_ have had a point.
>But you were advocating punishing people purely on the basis of a high
>profit margin.
Civil injunction includes the right to intrusively investigate a
situation. I'm not going to consider any whim of public sentiment to be
sufficient to invoke civil injunction. As I've clearly stated, there
has to be some reason to believe that unethical behavior is occurring.
Like, for instance, if someone were to observe that some company is
charging exorbitant profits on something they could easily make more of
to match demand, but for the adverse effects it would have on the price
they could charge.
[...]
>Then why were you arguing that high prices should be sufficient to
>punish someone with an injunction?
Well, quite obviously, I didn't.
>> "Civil injunction" means the right and responsibility of the courts to
>> provide judgement, Joe. Sorry if you misinterpreted it. If that's the
>> only reason you've been scorching the walls with your rhetoric, then you
>> can flame off.
>
>No, dolt. An injunction means a court order to stop action.
The word is used in that meaning, as well, though that would be a "court
injunction", or possibly a "legal injunction", not a "civil injunction".
Sorry if I confused you by introducing an abstract concept without
warning you it might be too much for you to figure out on your own.
>So what you've been advocating (apparently without understanding what
>you were talking about) is that the courts should be able to stop me
>from charging a price that you consider to be excessive merely because
>it seemed too high to you.
>
>No trial, just an injunction.
You've been smoking crack, again, I presume.
[...]
>> >THAT is not a free market system. By any rational stretch of the
>> >imagination.
>>
>> According to the 1890 Congress, at least, it was, and they haven't been
>> contradicted by any Congress since.
>
>Nope. Where did the 1890 Congress say that the courts could set prices
>without any other evidence of wrong-doing?
Well, that particular bit wasn't necessarily 1890. I'm not sure when,
precisely, the Clayton Act was established in law, but the powers of the
FTC to regulate prices under certain circumstances (notably, market
saturation, loosely interpreted) without any evidence of wrong-doing are
specifically created.
>> [...]
>> >> So you don't oppose monopolies (Microsoft's included)?
>> >
>> >I'm not opposed to monopolies. I'm opposed to lawbreaking monopolies.
>>
>> According to the Sherman Act, monopolizing is illegal, so the phrase
>> "lawbreaking monopolies" is, quite frankly, redundant.
>
>No, it isn't. This has been explained to you several times.
>
>There's nothing illegal about having a monopoly. Period.
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine
or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of
the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations,
shall be deemed guilty of a felony[....]"
[...]
>You're arguing that if the price for my product is too high, I should
>get an injunction to stop it (at any time--not just in times of
>emergencies). That's a government sponsored price control and is
>completely unacceptable.
Another straw man. At least this one's a bit fresher than the last.
>> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
>> Main Entry: prof·i·teer
>> Pronunciation: "prä-f&-'tir
>> Function: noun
>> Date: 1912
>> : one who makes what is considered an unreasonable
>> profit especially on the sale of essential goods
>> during times of emergency
>> - profiteer intransitive verb
>>
>>
>> You are getting whacked out by my contention that having a very high
>> profit margin and a very large market share is indicative of
>> monopolization. This is not worth getting whacked out about, even
>> though it is true.
>
>It is worth getting concerned about when my company depends on getting a
>very high profit margin and I don't want uninformed idiots telling their
>Congressmen to start getting into the price control game.
As long as it isn't a matter of your being concerned that your very high
profit margins might be impossible if you are prevented from
monopolizing, restraining trade, or in some other manner promoting your
ability to profiteer, then. Perhaps you should be more concerned that
your company is monopolizing, which is illegal, rather then what your
profit margins are. I certainly don't care what your profit margins
are, as long as you're not breaking the law.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:55:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
>The stockholders are the collective owners of a company's assets,
>INCLUDING the corporation's bank account.
They are investors, they are not collective owners. If they were
owners, they would be liable, and corporations exist specifically to
insulate investors from liability for corporate debts.
>If the corporation is taking losses, the the sum of the company's
>assets is decreasing. Usually, the FIRST aspect is the corporation's
>bank accounts proper.
But all the investors can lose is there investment, and therefore they
are not owners who are fiscally responsible for the company's actions.
>Thus, the owners (stockholders) literally are being bled dry.
That's their problem.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:58:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>There are time's that *I* have been paid by the company owner taking
>money out of his own bank account.
There have been times that *I* have been paid by my *own* money coming
out of the company's bank account, because I was an owner.
>Non-owner employees incur MUCH less risk, and thus, are not deserving
>of the super-high profits of boom years.
But then why confabulate owners with corporate stockholders, who take
much less risk than employees, since they can't lose their livelihood if
the company folds, but can only lose as much as they willfully invest?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:59:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> >The only way the government can "improve education" is to get out of
>> >the education business.
>>
>> The government isn't a business, and institutional education isn't a
>> profitable business, by definition.
>
>There are lots of private universities parents can send their children
>to. They are organized as nonprofit organizations. Government-run
>institutions are not *necessary* there. So, why should they be
>necessary in other areas?
There is a great difference between primary education and university
level studies, Eric.
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>
>> >The government cannot improve the current government provided education,
>> >only competition in a free market can "improve a product or service".
>
>But the government can be part of the free market. My undergraduate
>degree is from Penn State, which (1) is a public institution, (2) is
>better than a lot of private schools, and (3) has served a *huge* number
>of Americans, having the largest alumni association in the country. You
>want to tell all these people that they're not allowed to go to this
>excellent school any more? You want them to go to some inferior private
>school instead?
Penn State, in fact, has such a large alumni association that it is not
considered a public institution. At least, its not a state college.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 08:05:40 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:53:01 GMT,
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >1) if a person views other human beings merely as tools to be exploited
> > then they are a psychopath (this is the point at which bright people will
> > say to themselves "yup, businesses are psychopaths")
>
> This is not the definition of a psychopath, even in a liberal sense.
Clinical Description of the Psychopath
"Egocentric, arrogant, deceitful, shallow, impulsive individuals who
callously use and manipulate others with little sense of shame, guilt,
remorse"
Unguided by dictates of "conscience"
Lack of empathy; only an abstract, intellectual awareness of others
feelings ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^
No loyalty to any person, group, code, organization, or philosophy;
self-interest
Not psychotic or intellectually dull
1% of general population; 10-25% of correctional populations (Hart &
Hare, 1997)
[Make that 90% of corporations!]
The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991)
20 items scored from interview and file data
Each item scored on a 3-point scale
Total score 0-40; Reflects extent to which an individual matches the
prototypical psychopath
PCL-R developed for forensic use, but now used in variety of contexts
[Let's score the Typical Corporation owned by Mr. Ty Coon]
PCL-R Items
Glibness/ superficial charm
[3 out of 3]
Grandiose sense of self-worth
[3]
Proneness to boredom
[3 - note the recent wave of mergers, acquisitions and layoffs!
movement for movements' sake]
Pathological lying
[anyone who denies this is a 5 out of 3 needs a slap to wake them up]
Conning/ manipulative
[3 - does anyone not understand the meaning of "marketing"?]
Lack of remorse
[3 - this is so not fucking funny]
Shallow affect
[3 - I guess *NO* emotions qualifies as weak emotions!]
Lack of empathy
[3 - much worse than most human psychopaths, corporations
*define* lack of empathy]
Parasitic lifestyle
[3 out of 3]
Poor behavioral controls
[has anyone not gotten the pattern yet? - 3!]
Promiscuous behavior
[3 - the way MS goes from one "ally" to another ...]
Early behavior problems
[1 - depends]
Lack of realistic long-term plans
[3 - I think everyone knows what "next quarter" thinking refers to]
Impulsivity
[3 - can you say "management fad"?]
Irresponsibility
[10 out of 3]
Failure to accept responsibility for actions
[20 out of 3]
Many marital relations
[3 - there's so many relations it's like incest! Think holding corporations.]
Juvenile delinquency
[I can't think of an analogue]
Poor risk for conditional release
[HAHAHAHA]
Criminal versatility
[2 - The way large corps easily acquire new technology]
What's important to note about the checklist is that I can *easily* provide
you examples of (non-typical) corporations that *aren't* psychopaths. They're
called "co-operatives". Cooperatives don't go around fucking everybody and
their dog. They don't go on wild merger or spending sprees. They don't act
irresponsibly. They don't act impulsively. They don't get bored. They keep
very realistic expectations about the future. And they aren't parasites!
A cooperative can be stupid and lazy and even neurotic but you'll have a
hard time finding one that's a psychopath.
Typical Corporation scored > 50 out of 30 on the Psychopathy Checklist!
Typical large corporations are not only psychopaths, they're MODELS for
human psychopaths! (which explains why people like William Gates III are
so common in corporations -- you guessed it, there's an even chance that
Gates is a psychopath or partial psychopath...)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 04:04:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Actually, JS/PL's position would be that if Penn State didn't exist, the
>private universities that would spring up would be less expensive and
>better.
>
>I see libertarianism as a positive thing as long as it's a direction to
>move from the current system. As soon as we got very close to the
>Libertarian Manifesto, I'd be very concerned. But most of the time,
>that's the direction we should be going.
>
>The trick is to know when to stop. ;-)
In general, I agree with your comments whole-heartedly. As did Mark
Twain, basically, when he wrote (paraphrased) "as soon as you find your
opinion is that of the majority, its time to change your opinion".
The problem with the example is that Penn State has too much income from
private contributions (the largest alumni association in the country) to
qualify as a public institution. For example, Pennsylvania has a state
employee credit union, which is open to all students of all state
colleges. Penn State students and faculty are not included, however,
and have their own, private, credit union. The funding of Penn State
University is a special case, in the end, though they still do receive
some state money derived from taxes (but so do other even more "private"
institutions).
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
