Linux-Advocacy Digest #789, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 03:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$
Voluntary Split ...)) (Bob Germer)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Bob Germer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 02:07:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said david raoul derbes in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>wrote:
>
>Apologies. This is off topic and very long.
Not at all, forgive my edits.
>>Then please explain why results from private schools are so good when
>>the average private school salary is lower than public school
>>salaries....
[...]
>Despite my frequent disagreements with Joe R. on many topics, and his
>implied (and not so implied) insults hurled my way, I agree with him
>on this one.
>
>Salary is *not* the most important determining factor in obtaining
>and keeping talented faculty. It is absolutely true that the salaries
>at private schools, usually, are not as good as those in public schools
>(there are of course exceptions, e.g. the best boarding schools in
>the country pay astonishingly well.)
That was my response, as well. His contention was ass-backwards; he was
trying to argue that it can't be higher salaries that make private
schools more effective. In classic Joe R. fashion, he fabricated the
argument from whole cloth, as nobody else had ever suggested such a
thing.
>It is usually a much easier job to teach in a private school, which is why
>the salaries can be lower. T. Max was wrong to suggest that there is no
>market for teachers. There is a very competitive one, but it frequently
>requires relocation.
There is competition among teachers. My remark that it wasn't a
'market' was meant to indicate just the 'dedication factor' that you
described.
[...]
>I don't wish to offend my colleagues, but it is usually easier to
>make a scholar a passable teacher than to make a teacher a passable
>scholar. Some are both. Some are neither.
There are more primary/secondary school teachers than there are
college/university 'scholars'. The 'change on a whim' nature of the
educational specialty is simply a facet of the rapid advancement in the
science of education over the past forty years. It is obviously social,
not educational, issues which impede the schools.
[...]
>So I have a very radical way to improve the public schools. No joke:
>Bill the parents a small amount of money, say a hundred bucks, for
>each kid. I guarantee you this would produce dramatic changes in the
>behavior of the parents, and thus in the kids. People hate to waste
>money. When the education is "free", some people take it for granted.
>As Ben Franklin, no fool, put it: What we obtain too cheaply, we
>esteem too lightly. Freud said that the payment was part of the
>therapy, IIRC.
A very good point, I think. A 'pseudo-commercial' method of providing a
premise for social interaction. It might work. The question is, how
much of a 'market style' system can we support.
>Finally, vouchers. As many of you may have seen, there are now studies
>from three states indicating that minority students, particularly
>Hispanic and African-American, do better in private schools. I think
>vouchers are a great idea, *provided* that *extra* taxes are implemented
>to pay for them. [...]
Well, I could certainly agree with such vouchers, but as far as I know,
none of the current systems support it (nor are the voucher programs
themselves the undisputed success you suggest, from what I've heard,
though with an open mind I'll suggest this may be selection bias or just
shake-down issues), and nobody else that I've heard has ever even
suggested it.
Which is, of course, the trouble with voucher systems, as you described.
Since they *won't* be provided extra revenues to ensure the public
system is fully funded, they are a bad idea, entirely. And charter
schools are another generally bad idea, all by themselves.
--
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.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 02:09:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>david raoul derbes wrote:
[...]
>> them, at present, comes out of public school budgets (so far as I
>> know.)
>
>So what?
>
>If 25% of the kids leave the public schools through vouchers,
>then exactly what is wrong with the public schools having their
>budger reduced by 25%
Dammit, I though I killfiled you. Ker-PLONK.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 06:46:14 GMT
On 08/31/2000 at 10:41 AM,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm afraid you're mistaken. That statement is unrefutable. It is a
> felony for any person to monopolize or attempt to monopolize.
Max, you are an absolute moron.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re:
Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...))
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 06:57:58 GMT
On 09/01/2000 at 01:38 AM,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >People would rather put the money towards domestic programs, Social
> >Security, and tax cuts, in that order, before they paying off existing
> >debts.
> I feel your pain. But it isn't domestic programs that put us into debt;
> Americans would have probably ranked things the same way before there
> was any debt. And the debt, it seems, came from defense spending,
> bureaucracy, and corporate welfare, more than social spending or
> undertaxation.
What a load of Pure Bullshit! You are a flat out liar and typical Algore
apologist. Go to Hell and stay there.
It was the damn social welfare programs started by Roosevelt and expanded
by the Johnson Administration which caused the huge debt we are all
saddled with.
Social Security abuse alone represents 80% of the debt. It was passed as a
retirement supplement. It has become a huge transfer of wealth vehicle
from the working class to the lazy, incompetent, drug infested misfits of
America. Social Security was never meant to be the support of those too
lazy, drug addicted, etc. SSI payments alone are greater than the interest
on the debt.
The Democratic administrations and congresses of the past 50 years have
expanded the second biggest waste - government agencies beyond all reason.
For God's sake, there are three times as many federal employees per capita
today than there were in 1945 when more than 70% of those on the federal
payroll were in the armed forces in wartime.
Look at welfare. Only 29 cents of every dollar extracted from the working
people gets to the recipients. The rest is wasted by lazy, incompetent,
dishonest "civil servants".
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 07:00:30 GMT
On 08/31/2000 at 06:06 PM,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm sorry, you'll have to substantiate what you're saying. It all
> sounds like hogwash to me.
The only hogwash in this discusssion is the crap you post. You are
obviously neither a lawyer or smart enough to be a high school graduate.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:05:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >The difference between us is that you seem to think superior products
>> >and business acumen are "accidental". I do not.
>>
>> Very observant, but I don't want to turn this into an issue of morality
>> (and it would, I promise). Whether or not any particular company has a
>> superior product is for the market to determine. One cannot be
>> prescient, and therefore one cannot provide a large market share as
>> prima facia evidence of a superior product. IOW, the real difference is
>> that you want *your opinion* of whether a product is superior to be
>> taken as absolute (or someone's opinion, at least, like the judge's).
>> That is an untenable situation, because it simply replaces "superior
>> product" and "business acumen" (and even "accident of history") with
>> begging the question.
>
>I don't think you're really looking at this in the right way. You never
>need to evaluate whether the *legal* avenues were used. The burden on
>the plaintiffs to show that an *illegal* avenue was used. The relevance
>of the court's statement is that if the plaintiffs demonstrate that a
>company gained monopoly power through relentless improvement of its
>product, that does not establish a violation.
Yes, I'm pretty sure I know which way you're looking at it, and you are
mistaken. The burden of proving that the company has monopoly power is
on the plaintiff. Having proven that, the burden of proof is on the
defendant to repute the allegation that they *do not have* monopoly
power. Since normal growth and development through normal business
strategies is *distinguished from* willful acquisition and maintenance
of monopoly power, reasonable evidence that the defendant has the power
to control prices or exclude competition (regardless of whether they've
used it) is enough to convict them. Unless they can *prove* (provide
reasonable evidence to support their claim and overwhelm the evidence
presented against them of monopoly power) that they exclusively engaged
in normal competitive behavior and business strategies.
You've forced me to repost the entire [edited] last three paragraphs of
the conviction of Microsoft on the first count of monopolization (PC
OS). The four before that described the prosecution's case, that
Microsoft had the power of monopoly.
"At trial, Microsoft attempted to rebut the presumption of monopoly
power with evidence of both putative constraints on its ability to
exercise such power and behavior of its own that is supposedly
inconsistent with the possession of monopoly power. None of the
purported constraints, however, actually deprive Microsoft of "the
ability (1) to price substantially above the competitive level and (2)
to persist in doing so for a significant period without erosion by new
entry or expansion." [...] Furthermore, neither Microsoft's efforts at
technical innovation nor its pricing behavior is inconsistent with the
possession of monopoly power.
"Even if Microsoft's rebuttal had attenuated the presumption created by
the prima facie showing of monopoly power, corroborative evidence of
monopoly power abounds in this record: Neither Microsoft nor its OEM
customers believe that the latter have - or will have anytime soon -
even a single, commercially viable alternative to licensing Windows for
pre-installation on their PCs. ("we assume that economic actors usually
have accurate perceptions of economic realities"). Moreover, over the
past several years, Microsoft has comported itself in a way that could
only be consistent with rational behavior for a profit-maximizing firm
if the firm knew that it possessed monopoly power, and if it was
motivated by a desire to preserve the barrier to entry protecting that
power.
"In short, the proof of Microsoft's dominant, persistent market share
protected by a substantial barrier to entry, together with Microsoft's
failure to rebut that prima facie showing effectively and the additional
indicia of monopoly power, have compelled the Court to find as fact that
Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."
Boom. As in, "that's it, they're guilty". They enjoyed monopoly power;
does that mean they had to "use" it? Its a shame they don't make it
clearer in the law and all, but that's why 'popular wisdom' shouldn't be
allowed to support fallacies. Because it is clear in the law.
>It's irrelevant how subjective it is, because even if you could prove
>that this is what happened, it won't get you a conviction.
You recall, there is a 'presumption' that if one has substantial market
share. This goes so far as to become all but a per se rule in cases
involving very high market share (greater than 50%, essentially).
"a persuasive showing . . . that defendants have monopoly power . . .
through various barriers to entry, . . . in combination with the
evidence of market shares, suffice[s] at least to meet the government's
initial burden, and the burden is then appropriately placed upon
defendants to rebut the existence and significance of barriers to entry"
>> >I think people
>> >intentionally try to achieve those things, and they are both things that
>> >can preserve monopoly power.
>>
>> The courts seem to disagree, as they have unequivocally and repeatedly
>> stated that those things are *distinguished from* preservation of
>> monopoly power. You are right, that those things can preserve monopoly
>> power. But then they aren't any more legal than any other willful
>> maintenance of monopoly power. It doesn't matter how you became a
>> monopoly or how you stay a monopoly, if you are a monopoly you are
>> breaking the law.
>
>No. Look at the court's wording more carefully.
Holy christ, I've been studying it for weeks, now. What more do you
want from me?
>Let us assume under
>the language of Grinnell that you have market power (element 1). Now
>let us assume that even though you have market power, you do not yet
>have 100% of the market, and further suppose that you want to increase
>your market share.
I guess I'm supposed to *not* point out that this means you're guilty of
monopolization, huh? Can we suppose we just want to increase our market
size? I promise I'll pretend that new customers are easier to get then
new products, OK?
>You plan to increase your market share by improving
>the product.
How does improving your product increase your market *share*, exactly?
And I do mean 'exactly', as in 'precisely', because it isn't up to you
to determine what an 'improvement' is to begin with. All you can do is
*change* your product; its up to the market to decide what is an
improvement. Get it?
>The court says that if you "grow"--which means you are
>almost certainly increasing your market power--by making a superior
>product, you are not in violation.
Correct. Growing by making a superior product has nothing whatsoever to
do with increasing market *share*. It isn't illegal to grow market
*size* (the number of people buying your products.) But none of this
has to do with market *share*, nor market *power*. It is illegal to
"use" market power in anti-competitive ways, because that's
monopolizing. You can always use it in *competitive* ways, but while
that might grow your market *size* or your profitability, its going to
hurt your market *share*. Ultimately it is because profitability in a
free market should not increase market power (if anything, it should
decrease it), regardless of what happens to your market share.
Particularly in this day and age, when it is so apparent that pandering,
deception, and plain repetition can turn market share into market power,
by allowing "mind share" to be turned into higher profit margins. A
gross caricature of Smith's "invisible hand", replacing information with
tempting perception.
>Were it not so, once you become a monopoly, it would be illegal to
>intentionally attact more customers (which seems to be the position you
>are arguing).
Yes, I know it seems to be the position I am arguing. You do not,
still, understand my position. Its mind-boggling, really.
It is illegal to intentionally attract more customers in order to lure
them away from some other vendor, actually. That's, essentially, a kind
of monopolization. Depending on how vehement your attempts were, it
might be considered restraint of trade.
A few months ago, I posted several messages describing what I see as the
"split concept" of market. The term "market" is most often used, these
days, we must admit, with "market share". The image that immediately
occurs to everyone hearing it is a pie chart. Much has been said of the
inadequacy of this representation of "the market", and a good deal of it
conveniently resolves to the delusion that you cannot make the pie any
bigger. The true concept of "market" is not the view of the vendor,
attempting to figure out what the market wants (the actual purpose of
those pie charts), but the metaphorical place that vendors and buyers go
in order to transact business. An open air market, a bizarre, if you
will. In this imagery, the term "market share" from the pie-chart world
is merely how big one's booth is. The number of people not buying
anyone's product, or buying more than one's, is entirely unaccounted for
in this, more realistic view. I say it is more realistic, though it is
more metaphorical, because it is the one on which the concept of a free
market is inherently based, and it is an accurate, consistent, and
practical model for any examination of a market or market behavior. The
pie-chart, alas, is merely a measure of one's ignorance.
And so, yes, "maintenance of monopoly power", may indeed be interpreted
as "if you are a monopoly, its illegal to attract more customers". I
should think the inherent fallacy of the idea should be obvious from the
words alone. How could a monopoly positively attract *more* customers
by *competitive* means?
[...]
>I am not talking about the popular interpretation of antitrust law,
>which may very well be wrong. I am talking about the dictionary
>definition of a word, and I am using that common definition precisely
>because I am trying to make a point that the legal definition of the
>word won't allow me to make. If I use only the legal terminology, my
>view is not expressable, so I have to use something else.
Perhaps its a sign that the common definition is, as I've stated,
inconsistent with the legal one. Since, in the statement "having a
monopoly is not illegal", you are inherently referencing legal concepts,
I'm afraid your consternation can only be resolved one way. Think
harder; the dictionary definition isn't a description, and it isn't
all-inclusive.
The term "monopoly" is merely simpler than the phrase "large market
share", so its not all that surprising that its come to be defined that
way, essentially. I trust that I'm not the only one that has noticed
the advantage that gives to the monopolists, who are not trying to
produce superior products to begin with. They just want to increase
their power and wealth, and they'll do anything they have to take yours.
[...]
>> No, I don't agree that any exceptions exist. Superior product, business
>> acumen, and accident of history are not *exceptions*. The Grinnell
>> decisions didn't say (and thirteen Supreme Court cases citing it since
>> 1966) maintenance of monopoly power "except for" these things. They
>> said that maintenance of monopoly power "as distinguished from" these
>> things.
>
>No, they say "as distinguished from growth or development" due to these
>things. That is the key. I hope you would agree that a monopoly which
>grows is not likely to lose its market power any time soon, and may in
>fact be increasing it.
A monopoly in a free market is soon not a monopoly. You've misplaced a
quote market in your first sentence, and I'm afraid its caused you to
think that you actually said something. All you did was repeat the
words without illuminating them at all. Its "as distinguished from...
due to" these things.
Are you trying to say that "as long as its 'growth and development', it
cannot be 'willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power'"? I
think you need to re-read the text, with an open mind. You've
developed, obviously, quite an intricate understanding, but it is quite
flawed. According to your assumptions, nobody would ever be convicted
of monopolization accept for tying cases.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 07:07:44 GMT
On 08/31/2000 at 12:58 PM,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Here, you agree that the exceptions exist, yet you say they are "rarely
> worth mentioning" and in fact in your other posts you seem to refuse to
> admit that they exist at all, which is why I keep bringing this up.
Devlin is not worth the bandwidth. I just killfiled him in every
newsgroup.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 14
MR/2 Ice 2.20 Registration Number 67
Finishing in 2nd place makes you first loser
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
