How Will We Know Who Won?
Once upon a time, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Justice Department was an impressive fighting force for the American public. (FDR's trustbuster, Thurman Arnold, comes to mind.) It went to court routinely--and it won. Afterwards, prices fell and monopoly market shares dropped. Since about '75, it's been in the business of drafting 'consent decrees'--corporate averments that they've never sinned since the charter was first bestowed but that, by golly, they'll nonetheless go and sin no more. Today, the Justice Department lacks only 2 things to beat Bill Gates--will and competence. It can be safely predicted, then, that--as I've said before--Bill will win again. How does a toothless government bureaucracy like the Antitrust Division beat someone who has $40 billion in his pocket--in a court (D.C. Circuit) appointed by Ronald Reagan? (Remember the judges who picked Kenneth Starr to pursue Clinton?) How will we know who won? Bill currently has a monopoly, right, an 80% to 90% share of the OS market, the only one that really counts? And he engages in some "unfair" methods of competition--tying and so on--right? And both his monopoly and his unfair practices have some antisocial "effects," like inflated prices to the public, suppressed technologies, and so on? Ah, but can it all be PROVED by the wimpish DOJ lawyers--while being muscled around by Gates' top legal guns--to the satisfaction of Reagan judges, who've never seen a monopoly they didn't love? (I reviewed the antitrust cases decided by the D.C. Circuit for the 5-year period 1986- 91 in my journal--a total of 28 cases--and found no decision for an injured plaintiff. Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 15-26. The guiding antitrust principle of this pro-monopoly court is, the defendant always wins.) Bill holds all the cards because he knows that the D.C. Circuit Court is in his pocket. He knows its Reagan judges hate antitrust, that they'll set aside anything he asks them to. So he'll agree to a little tinkering with the 'consent decree' he's now accused of violating--to clear up any 'ambiguity' in the language his lawyers put in last time--and the Justice Department will announce a great victory for the 'consumer.' Bill's PRICES will of course be unaffected. His practices--the exclusion of his competitors from all the markets that count--will go on, albeit under perhaps other names. His market SHARE--the 80% to 90% of the OS market that gave him his modest current $40 billion--will remain undisturbed. His Microsoft STOCK price will go UP another notch. His monopoly marches on. Bill won. DOJ lost. The way way one tells who won an antitrust case is straightforward: Did the monopolist's price FALL--and by how much? Did his stock price plummet? Did the monopolist's market share shrink--and by how much? They're connected: Until his market SHARE is punctured, his price won't drop. If there are no real changes in these 2 numbers, Bill won. The U.S. public lost. Ralph Nader's 'Appraising Microsoft' conference of November 13 and 14, 1997, will come and go. It will generate a lot of words but, in my view, neither it nor the Justice Department's current challenge to Bill will produce serious economic results. Nader won't ask for a break-up of Gates' 90% share of the OS market. And without that, nothing will change. Charles Mueller, Editor ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller ***
Re: FW Unemployment and the economy
Robert wrote (see below): One of the major problems is the way we think. The problem is not in any way overproduction - but underproduction. Overproduction implies that all consumers have everything they want - an obvious error. It just looks like overproduction. Harry >In response to Alan Scharf and Thomas Lunde > >Two reasons (among others) for overproduction can be: > >1. Rising costs for repairing the damages caused by industrial >production >(ecology, health, security systems) lead to sinking money for private >consumption. > >2. Economic theory is not aware of the limits of time which exist for >all consumers. Consumption needs a lot of time: time for earning the >money to buy a product, time to use it and time to repair it. >The limits of consumption due to the limits of time were predicted by >the Swedish economist Staffan B. Linder in his book "The Harried Leisure >Class", 1970, Columbia University Press. > >Maybe a reduction of (industrial organized ) work and a better >distribution of paid work could lead to a higher quality of life. > >Robert Neunteufel ---
Re: FW [is] Governance [of Cyberspace]
At 07:17 AM 11/8/97 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote: >At 09:27 AM 11/7/97 -0500, "Thomas Lunde" wrote: > snip >I believe that honesty and objectively of the kind needed >to govern for the common good is beyond individual human >capability. > >If civil society has any chance at all to survive the >coming century (damned unlikely), it involves setting >aside fairy tales left over from the 18th century >Enlightenment -- it involves understanding the true >nature of humans and learning to govern for the common >good. Thus, the key to our collective survival lies in >the new discipline of Evolutionary Psychology. > >See "Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer" at: >http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.htm snip We at Canadians for Direct Democracy (CDD) have a different, and, we think, more practical viewpoint. A vast amount of the abuse of our governments/governance systems stems from lack of accountability to ANYONE The Swiss have had government accountable to the people for 130 years; Rossland B.C. for 7 years; Pitt Meadows B.C. for a few months; and on Nov 3/97 N. Vancouver, B.C. set up a Task Force to study Direct Democracy (DD). DD is basically a SYSTEM of popular initiative and veto, binding referendums, double majority and spending limits (see Appendices and website - some U.S. states, mainly the westcoast ones, have a hodgepodge of referendums that are up for the highest bidder) Rossland and Swiss experience indicates that in less than 5 years of an adjustment period, government changes drastically for the better Only after a basic adjustment such as this has been made, do I think that more advanced governance systems are practical - the work of Wilber and Raven (see website) would tend to suggest that "holarchic" or "cha-ordic" (chaos/order)(the Internet is one of the few examples of this in practice) systems may be a promising direction. "Canadians for Direct Democracy" is a non-profit group formed recently, inspired by Brian Beedham's 12-page article "Full Democracy" in the Dec 21/96 London Economist (see website). I append a few extracts from the website, which give a brief outline of the principles of CDD Colin Stark Vice-President Canadians for Direct Democracy http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ * Appendices Mission Statement of CDD Our aim is to improve the democratic process in Canada through citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws. Principles of Direct Democracy 1.The Popular Veto - when 1% of the voters challenges a law or policy by petitioning government, a binding referendum vote (local, regional, provincial or national) must be held. If it passes, the law is struck down. This process happens about four times a year in Switzerland. 2.The Popular Initiative - when 2% of the voters demands a new law or policy by petitioning government, a binding referendum vote must be held. If it passes, it becomes the law. 3.The Double Majority - this means that a referendum must get more than 50% of the total votes; it must also get more than 50% of the votes in more than half of the designated regions. 4.Strict spending controls - prevent one side from "buying" the vote. Quebec already has such controls in place. 5.Proportional Representation - in its pure form gives each party the number of seats in parliament proportional to the percentage of votes the party receives. Advantages of Direct Democracy Allows the voice of the people to become the Law. Helps people feel that their vote counts, so that they take a keener interest. Makes government pass laws under the threat of a popular veto. Curbs the dictatorial tendencies of party leaders, the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and top bureaucrats. Forces lobbyists to try to influence all the people rather than just the elite who hold power. Makes difficult issues more likely to be faced, since citizens can bring them to referendum. In Canada only government can call referendums. Gives a fair allocation of seats to all parties through proportional representation. Questions about Direct Democracy Will the majority tyrannize weak minorities? No. This has not happened in Switzerland. Will the cost be too high? No. Referendums can be held on voting day at minimal expense, and referendums would cost much less than the non-elected Senate. Will direct democracy weaken the power of governments? Yes. Many Canadians would consider this desirable because our political system lacks accountability. Don't ordinary citizens lack the time, intelligence, and wisdom to make good decisions? If this is true, then democracy of any kind is a poor system. Would referendums solve complex issues? Experts agree that complex issues like sovereignty must be broken down into several simple questions before being put to the people. Putting the Charlottetown Accord to a vote
In the Briefcases of Gates' Lawyers
OOPS! I omitted a 'slash' from the URL I gave you for directly accessing the 'Dirty Dozen U.S. Antitrust Decisions.' The correct address is: http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller/dirty.html Or they can also be accessed from the main menu of my Home Page, below. Charles Mueller, Editor ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW http://webpages.metrolink.net/~cmueller
Buy Nothing Day: Network Nuggets (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 22:12:00 -0800 From: Larry Kuehn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Forum on Labor in the Global Economy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Buy Nothing Day: Network Nuggets * Buy Nothing Day * "Buy Nothing Day" for 1997 is on Friday, November 28. Last year's event was considered (by some) to be the biggest spontaneous outburst of anti-consumer sentiment the world had ever seen. Find out what this is all about by visiting a corner of the web space created by the Adbusters. Note that it all started right here in B.C. (Vancouver, to be exact). Buy Nothing Day: http://www.adbusters.org/Pop/buynothingday.html Or take a look at what some kids in Ottawa did last year as part of the event that allows you to "participate by not participating!" St. Elizabeth's School unsung consumer heroes and heroines: http://www3.sympatico.ca/st.elizabeth2/buy0/buy0toc.htm "Buying Nothing" is the kind of topic that can generate some very interesting debate. Other viewpoints related to this event are at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/agenda21/97/mono5.htm http://world.std.com/~colinst/vsjerr.htm http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/issues/112996/2Forum/wpirg.html http://www.peg.apc.org/~stan/256/256p14.htm I have to add my own comment that if we limit our concern about how we spend money to a single day each year, it's probably not showing enough commitment! ### . <@> . We send out these announcements to subscribers on CLN's .@@@$@@@. Network_Nuggets-l to let them know about educationally ;@/^/^/@' valuable resources on the internet. We want to point @@ * * @@ out potentially useful resources -- but we are not @@@ " @@@ guaranteeing that the resources described will be .@ 0 @. valuable and without frustrations. Network Nuggets is a \___/service of the Community Learning Network & Open School. Elizabeth Wellburn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) CLN, Open School, B.C., Canada, telephone:250 953 7431 fax:250 953 7444 Open School http://www.openschool.bc.ca/index.html Community Learning Networkhttp://www.etc.bc.ca/tdebhome/cln.html Network_Nuggets-L Archives: http://www.etc.bc.ca/lists/nuggets/home.html subscribe/unsub info: http://www.etc.bc.ca/lists/nuggets/join.html Larry Kuehn, Director [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research and Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] B.C. Teachers' Federation Fax: (604) 871-2294 http://www.bctf.bc.ca
