What do you want your economy to do

[Skull Pilot]

One thing the OP assumes is that a person must work for someone else.

There are always opportunities for a person to work for himself.

 

[Rshermr]

too stupid!!! Capitalism and the law of supply and demand of course !! Ever notice how supply equals demand when the government does not interfere??

Yup. If monopoly does not exist. But it does. And it gets greater, through mergers and acquisitions. Which create more M and A's. Fewer jobs, etc. Why do you expect it will change, Ed. We are not in your little perfect agrarian capitalist economy. We have corporations with insatiable appetites for more and more mergers. take a look around.

Monopolies exist because of Crony Capitalism....a free market would fix that.

The only way a business grows in a free markets is by pleasing the customer.

So, you are saying that monopoly power is not issue. then that takes care of it. We have no issues.

The market system is based on competition. Lots of buyers, and lots of sellers. When you restrict the number of sellers, you get monopoly. Economic theory says we can expect that monopoly power allows sellers, say corporations, to raise prices above what would be the normal price for a product in a competative market. And to pay lower wages to workers. If we are going to throw out that theory, and pay no attention to the economic world of today, than this discussion is completely moot.

So, what is the thought. Are the economic experts wrong. No problem at all. All we have to do is get out of the way??

 

[asterism]

So, did someone say that new companies do not make it?? So, lets look at your list:

OK. What should be the gov role"



Google competes with Bing, which has been introduced to compete with Google. And slowly, as a result of the Google search engine success, Google is trying to make inroads with Chrome against internet explorer. So, google went around the impediments to competition. In an area where MS was not.


Oracle did not come into the market competing with Ms, but as a db management system, and a barage of purchased companies that they fit together. Peoplesoft, now Sun. And so forth. But heavily invested in Unix products. they are the second largest sw company, after ms, and have been at it for many years. They got in not competing with MS, but in related areas where MS is not. They now are, without doubt, a MS competitor.


As old as MS. Came after the same market. MS won, except for graphics applications, for which OS X is a great product. The other products were in non MS controlled markets.
Millions of web developers that use Linux (still the largest market share of web servers on the planet)UH, ok. Linux is not a major player, even today. But it is a product that went at MS as a lower cost and less complex alternative.
Don't think I ever thought of Salesforce as a competitor to MS. Maybe I missed something, and MS got into the CRM market. But not a real competitor, at all.

so, you named some competitors, and some other companies that are in near by markets. Notice that mergers are happening there?
Also, you are in a good market to compete, because there are so many possible areas. Thousands of sw makers. So, likely a good place to be if you are the SW developer type of person.

But the point remains. for Many, many people, who are capable of manufacturing jobs, the barriers to entry help protect the big guys. Seen any one doing well at competing with General Electric??
See any expansion in the number of cell phone companies???

Your flawed analysis aside, you are correct that software is a growth industry.

So what you are really worried about is the manufacturing sector. That's just not a growth industry because it doesn't require much skill on a massive scale and automation is making those skills less and less valuable. That's why the US can't compete with China there. The solution isn't to artificially prop up a declining sector, it's to innovate something new.

Although with a growing global demand for manufactured goods the US could be a hotbed of prototyping and engineering. That's not something that can be forced by some protectionist policies though. It takes an entrepreneurial environment.

Uh, relative to manufacturing, you may want to take a look at Germany, where the manufacturing industries are doing very well.

What the issue is, in my mind, is what do we end up with. We see heavy pressure to decrease spending including on EDUCATION. And again, not every worker can or will become a software developer. And by the way, that is quickly being outsourced, primarily to INDIA. So, net net, corporations are doing well. The few at the top are getting richer and richer. Over recent years, the top 1% of income earners are receiving 93% of revenue growth. You should really check out this link, to understand.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

So, this is a symptom of what happens when jobs are fewer, and businesses are fewer and more monopolistic.

I'm sure the US would do just as well if our manufacturing sector was as small as Germany's.

This is what happens when a workforce is conditioned to be complacent and fails to adapt. I mostly blame the unions for this but I also blame increased access to lifetime government assistance.

The days of steady pay increases for doing the same low skill job for 20 years are over. It's a global economy and we'd better try to compete rather than isolate. It's the only way things will improve.

 

[Rshermr]

Your flawed analysis aside, you are correct that software is a growth industry.

So what you are really worried about is the manufacturing sector. That's just not a growth industry because it doesn't require much skill on a massive scale and automation is making those skills less and less valuable. That's why the US can't compete with China there. The solution isn't to artificially prop up a declining sector, it's to innovate something new.

Although with a growing global demand for manufactured goods the US could be a hotbed of prototyping and engineering. That's not something that can be forced by some protectionist policies though. It takes an entrepreneurial environment.

Uh, relative to manufacturing, you may want to take a look at Germany, where the manufacturing industries are doing very well.

What the issue is, in my mind, is what do we end up with. We see heavy pressure to decrease spending including on EDUCATION. And again, not every worker can or will become a software developer. And by the way, that is quickly being outsourced, primarily to INDIA. So, net net, corporations are doing well. The few at the top are getting richer and richer. Over recent years, the top 1% of income earners are receiving 93% of revenue growth. You should really check out this link, to understand.
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

So, this is a symptom of what happens when jobs are fewer, and businesses are fewer and more monopolistic.

I'm sure the US would do just as well if our manufacturing sector was as small as Germany's.

This is what happens when a workforce is conditioned to be complacent and fails to adapt. I mostly blame the unions for this but I also blame increased access to lifetime government assistance.

The days of steady pay increases for doing the same low skill job for 20 years are over. It's a global economy and we'd better try to compete rather than isolate. It's the only way things will improve.

So, no concern about the economy then. Looks like you are fine with no jobs, most of the money going to the wealthy, and monopoly power. No concern at all about the middle class. Great.
Sorry, me boy, but you are wrong about Germany. It is a smaller manufacturing segment, but it is still very large. And that of the US has shrunk considerably. They handle things quite differently. Basically, they protect their manufacturing, and their workers. And the result has been way better than what we have experienced here.

What I see coming out of everyone is the the belief that we should just let things continue on continuing on. More and more wealth accumulation at the top. Continued shrinking of the middle class. Laisses-Faire economics forever. Maybe continued movement toward a Libertarian paradise???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No concern at all about the middle class?

of course the middle class is doing fine but would be doing even better had liberal unions, liberal illegal immigration, and liberal taxes not driven 40 million jobs off shore.

You don't need to be an economist to see how well the middle class has gotten lately. Look at all the new inventions they could suddenly afford in the last 10 years: suddenly we had plasma TV's, LCD TV's, DLP-TV's, iPods, iphones, CD's and CD players, DVDs and DVD players, Blue Ray and Blue Ray players, PCs, desk top PCs, DVRs, color printers, satellite radio, Advantium ovens, HD-TV, Playstations, X-Boxes, X-box live, X-box Konnect, broadband, satellite TV, cell/camera/video phones, digital cameras, OnStar, palm corders, Blackberries, smart phones, home theaters, SUVs, big houses, more houses per capita, TiVo, 3D movies and TV's, built in wine coolers, granite counter tops, $200 sneakers, color matched front loader washing machines, matching washer dryer combinations, McMansions, 6 burner commercial ranges, Sub Zero refridgerators, more cars than drivers, a $1 billion ring tone industry, a pet industry that just doubled to $34 billion, 10's of millions lining up to buy Apple's I-tablet, Wii, Netflix boxes, jet skis, low profile tires, aluminum/titanium rims, Harley Davidson and Japanese motorcycles. $700 Billion spent Christmas 2010, $10.5 billion movies 2010, 10 million ocean crusies, 44 million taking plane flights over 2012 holiday, $500 billion spent on Christmas 2012.

The list goes on and on. I hope that helps you realize you can't just parrot the communist press and expect to make sense? They have other objectives and are merely using you to promote their point of view.

 

[Rshermr]

No concern at all about the middle class?

of course the middle class is doing fine but would be doing even better had liberal unions, liberal illegal immigration, and liberal taxes not driven 40 million jobs off shore.

You don't need to be an economist to see how well the middle class has gotten lately. Look at all the new inventions they could suddenly afford in the last 10 years: suddenly we had plasma TV's, LCD TV's, DLP-TV's, iPods, iphones, CD's and CD players, DVDs and DVD players, Blue Ray and Blue Ray players, PCs, desk top PCs, DVRs, color printers, satellite radio, Advantium ovens, HD-TV, Playstations, X-Boxes, X-box live, X-box Konnect, broadband, satellite TV, cell/camera/video phones, digital cameras, OnStar, palm corders, Blackberries, smart phones, home theaters, SUVs, big houses, more houses per capita, TiVo, 3D movies and TV's, built in wine coolers, granite counter tops, $200 sneakers, color matched front loader washing machines, matching washer dryer combinations, McMansions, 6 burner commercial ranges, Sub Zero refridgerators, more cars than drivers, a $1 billion ring tone industry, a pet industry that just doubled to $34 billion, 10's of millions lining up to buy Apple's I-tablet, Wii, Netflix boxes, jet skis, low profile tires, aluminum/titanium rims, Harley Davidson and Japanese motorcycles. $700 Billion spent Christmas 2010, $10.5 billion movies 2010, 10 million ocean crusies, 44 million taking plane flights over 2012 holiday, $500 billion spent on Christmas 2012.

The list goes on and on. I hope that helps you realize you can't just parrot the communist press and expect to make sense? They have other objectives and are merely using you to promote their point of view.

Well, no, ed, it just helps to show that ed is a con tool. But there is nothing new there. So, basically, just another minute I can not get back.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No concern at all about the middle class?

of course the middle class is doing fine but would be doing even better had liberal unions, liberal illegal immigration, and liberal taxes not driven 40 million jobs off shore.

 

[akelch]

Yup. If monopoly does not exist. But it does. And it gets greater, through mergers and acquisitions. Which create more M and A's. Fewer jobs, etc. Why do you expect it will change, Ed. We are not in your little perfect agrarian capitalist economy. We have corporations with insatiable appetites for more and more mergers. take a look around.

Monopolies exist because of Crony Capitalism....a free market would fix that.

The only way a business grows in a free markets is by pleasing the customer.

So, you are saying that monopoly power is not issue. then that takes care of it. We have no issues.

The market system is based on competition. Lots of buyers, and lots of sellers. When you restrict the number of sellers, you get monopoly. Economic theory says we can expect that monopoly power allows sellers, say corporations, to raise prices above what would be the normal price for a product in a competative market. And to pay lower wages to workers. If we are going to throw out that theory, and pay no attention to the economic world of today, than this discussion is completely moot.

So, what is the thought. Are the economic experts wrong. No problem at all. All we have to do is get out of the way??

Correct...name one monopoly company that got that way without government helping in one way or another. Whether it be tax cuts or tax increases in the industry...regulations that make it harder for others to compete. Why do you think that the unions lobby for a rise in minimum wage when their teamsters make well over minimum wage? Or the oil companies lobbying for restricting drilling.

True competition in the market place with a even playing field (no special government favors or restrictions) is the best system to stop monopolies.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

True competition in the market place with a even playing field (no special government favors or restrictions) is the best system to stop monopolies.

so true, in business school they teach you that if you have a high market share or anything even approaching a monopoly the competition will gather like flies on shit because it presents a rare rare opportunity. The strategy for the near monopolist then has got to be to compete with his would be competitors to forstall them as long as possible. It never works though as some degree of complaceny always sets in.

I once worked at IBM when they all had placards on their desk saying "Think". Deep in their souls they really believed they were the best thinkers in the world, and they all but said so too. Literally one month later that entire division was shut down because the products were deemed obsolete.
No one there had a clue what had happened.

 

[Zander]

Here's an idea!!! Leave me and the economy alone. We already know what to do. It's only when well intentioned bureaucrats get involved that we have bad results.....

 

[Rshermr]

Monopolies exist because of Crony Capitalism....a free market would fix that.

The only way a business grows in a free markets is by pleasing the customer.

So, you are saying that monopoly power is not issue. then that takes care of it. We have no issues.

The market system is based on competition. Lots of buyers, and lots of sellers. When you restrict the number of sellers, you get monopoly. Economic theory says we can expect that monopoly power allows sellers, say corporations, to raise prices above what would be the normal price for a product in a competative market. And to pay lower wages to workers. If we are going to throw out that theory, and pay no attention to the economic world of today, than this discussion is completely moot.

So, what is the thought. Are the economic experts wrong. No problem at all. All we have to do is get out of the way??

Correct...name one monopoly company that got that way without government helping in one way or another. Whether it be tax cuts or tax increases in the industry...regulations that make it harder for others to compete. Why do you think that the unions lobby for a rise in minimum wage when their teamsters make well over minimum wage? Or the oil companies lobbying for restricting drilling.

True competition in the market place with a even playing field (no special government favors or restrictions) is the best system to stop monopolies.

There were regulated monopolies. But beyond that, there are no true monopolies. They are illegal, obviously. So, it would be a bit hard to name a true monopoly that got that way without gov assistance. Regulated monopolies are those that you would not want to be multiple companies, ie, for the good of the country. So, you really did not want multiple water companies, each digging up the roads competing for business in a single town. And so forth.

But, there are many companies with monopoly power. Verizon, now in the cell phone, and land line, industry. The result of buying up smaller phone companies. Exxon has lots of monopoly power, along with the other oil companies. Etc, etc. They did not need gov help to get where they wanted to go, except for political favors to allow them to bypass antitrust legislation, get drilling rights, that sort of thing. Assuming a completely free marketplace, with no government regulation, Exxon or BP or Conoco would be by now a single monopoly. All they need to do is buy out the other companies.

So, what I am saying is that the only reason that there are not more monopolies is because of the gov. Or said another way, because of us. We did not want monopolies. We set up the laws, through our representatives in government, to prevent that. Sherman Anti Trust act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others. If you believe in no gov intervention, then you probably are a follower of the Chicago economic theory, founded and led by Milton Freedman, and supported by the Libertarian economics views, and by some very wealthy businessmen.

 

[Rshermr]

True competition in the market place with a even playing field (no special government favors or restrictions) is the best system to stop monopolies.

so true, in business school they teach you that if you have a high market share or anything even approaching a monopoly the competition will gather like flies on shit because it presents a rare rare opportunity. The strategy for the near monopolist then has got to be to compete with his would be competitors to forstall them as long as possible. It never works though as some degree of complaceny always sets in.

I once worked at IBM when they all had placards on their desk saying "Think". Deep in their souls they really believed they were the best thinkers in the world, and they all but said so too. Literally one month later that entire division was shut down because the products were deemed obsolete.
No one there had a clue what had happened.

Really. I have lots of business school experience, and lots of business experience. And that is the single stupidest business idea I have EVER heard. Funny, though.

 

[whitehall]

With automation, and mergers and acquisitions, and outsourcing, workers are getting squeezed. Managers are getting squeezed. But the Top Management are getting richer and richer. Fewer companies mean fewer jobs. Outsourcing means fewer jobs here. And Automation continues to replace workers with machines.

So, under laisses-faire competition, what is the result?? Fewer jobs, more competition for the jobs that exist and lower earnings for workers.

Lower costs and higher profits for corporations.

Mergers and acquisitions mean higher prices and higher profits again, for corporations.

So, the result is a two tier economy, and population. The very few very wealthy. And the very many and very poor workers. That ends up being the end result, without intervention, of Laisses Faire competition. Along with a few middle wealth people, accountants and lawyers, and other professionals. But, all are scrambling for a very few jobs.

On the road to libertarianism. Not quite there, but pretty well committed. So what happens next?? It will not be pleasant, but people will not put up with it. There may be violent revolt. Or it may be a slow healing, over decades, under nonviolent revolution. But revolution it will be. Because people will not live that way.

Any great IDEAS?? Cause you, and I, will NOT like the result. Nor will the cons on this site, though they will not believe they are not part of the chosen ones. Ever here of Somalia???

Who is "top management"? Maybe the people who risked their capital and created a business that employs people and operates with the confines of the existing federal, state and local regulations and still manages to make a profit? Do you think Stalin or Mussolini and fascism could do it better?

 

[Rshermr]

Here's an idea!!! Leave me and the economy alone. We already know what to do. It's only when well intentioned bureaucrats get involved that we have bad results.....

Perfect. More power to you.

 

[Rshermr]

With automation, and mergers and acquisitions, and outsourcing, workers are getting squeezed. Managers are getting squeezed. But the Top Management are getting richer and richer. Fewer companies mean fewer jobs. Outsourcing means fewer jobs here. And Automation continues to replace workers with machines.

So, under laisses-faire competition, what is the result?? Fewer jobs, more competition for the jobs that exist and lower earnings for workers.

Lower costs and higher profits for corporations.

Mergers and acquisitions mean higher prices and higher profits again, for corporations.

So, the result is a two tier economy, and population. The very few very wealthy. And the very many and very poor workers. That ends up being the end result, without intervention, of Laisses Faire competition. Along with a few middle wealth people, accountants and lawyers, and other professionals. But, all are scrambling for a very few jobs.

On the road to libertarianism. Not quite there, but pretty well committed. So what happens next?? It will not be pleasant, but people will not put up with it. There may be violent revolt. Or it may be a slow healing, over decades, under nonviolent revolution. But revolution it will be. Because people will not live that way.

Any great IDEAS?? Cause you, and I, will NOT like the result. Nor will the cons on this site, though they will not believe they are not part of the chosen ones. Ever here of Somalia???

Who is "top management"? Maybe the people who risked their capital and created a business that employs people and operates with the confines of the existing federal, state and local regulations and still manages to make a profit? Do you think Stalin or Mussolini and fascism could do it better?

You seem to be a bit angry. Sorry about that. I think perhaps you have your head up your ass. Stalin and Mussolini are a bit dead, or maybe you missed it. So, another vote for Laisse-Faire Economics. Got it.

 

[S.J.]

Really. I have lots of business school experience, and lots of business experience.

Pimpin' and selling drugs doesn't count.

 

[akelch]

True competition in the market place with a even playing field (no special government favors or restrictions) is the best system to stop monopolies.

so true, in business school they teach you that if you have a high market share or anything even approaching a monopoly the competition will gather like flies on shit because it presents a rare rare opportunity. The strategy for the near monopolist then has got to be to compete with his would be competitors to forstall them as long as possible. It never works though as some degree of complaceny always sets in.

I once worked at IBM when they all had placards on their desk saying "Think". Deep in their souls they really believed they were the best thinkers in the world, and they all but said so too. Literally one month later that entire division was shut down because the products were deemed obsolete.
No one there had a clue what had happened.

Good story,
Those big companies that have had a lot of success can forget that it is the talents and skills of the people that work there that produced that success. These people in a free market, can easily get jobs with higher pay with that company's competitor.
Thus, the market shares are constantly changing hands....and as long as there is still a profit in that market the competition will continue to multiple.

 

[akelch]

So, you are saying that monopoly power is not issue. then that takes care of it. We have no issues.

The market system is based on competition. Lots of buyers, and lots of sellers. When you restrict the number of sellers, you get monopoly. Economic theory says we can expect that monopoly power allows sellers, say corporations, to raise prices above what would be the normal price for a product in a competative market. And to pay lower wages to workers. If we are going to throw out that theory, and pay no attention to the economic world of today, than this discussion is completely moot.

So, what is the thought. Are the economic experts wrong. No problem at all. All we have to do is get out of the way??

Correct...name one monopoly company that got that way without government helping in one way or another. Whether it be tax cuts or tax increases in the industry...regulations that make it harder for others to compete. Why do you think that the unions lobby for a rise in minimum wage when their teamsters make well over minimum wage? Or the oil companies lobbying for restricting drilling.

True competition in the market place with a even playing field (no special government favors or restrictions) is the best system to stop monopolies.

There were regulated monopolies. But beyond that, there are no true monopolies. They are illegal, obviously. So, it would be a bit hard to name a true monopoly that got that way without gov assistance. Regulated monopolies are those that you would not want to be multiple companies, ie, for the good of the country. So, you really did not want multiple water companies, each digging up the roads competing for business in a single town. And so forth.

But, there are many companies with monopoly power. Verizon, now in the cell phone, and land line, industry. The result of buying up smaller phone companies. Exxon has lots of monopoly power, along with the other oil companies. Etc, etc. They did not need gov help to get where they wanted to go, except for political favors to allow them to bypass antitrust legislation, get drilling rights, that sort of thing. Assuming a completely free marketplace, with no government regulation, Exxon or BP or Conoco would be by now a single monopoly. All they need to do is buy out the other companies.

So, what I am saying is that the only reason that there are not more monopolies is because of the gov. Or said another way, because of us. We did not want monopolies. We set up the laws, through our representatives in government, to prevent that. Sherman Anti Trust act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others. If you believe in no gov intervention, then you probably are a follower of the Chicago economic theory, founded and led by Milton Freedman, and supported by the Libertarian economics views, and by some very wealthy businessmen.

Because of government we have monopolies like the Federal Reserve which effects everyone including our government.

You are misguided if you think government intervention creates competition and helps to "spread the wealth" of the market place.
It does just the opposite.

 

[Rshermr]

Correct...name one monopoly company that got that way without government helping in one way or another. Whether it be tax cuts or tax increases in the industry...regulations that make it harder for others to compete. Why do you think that the unions lobby for a rise in minimum wage when their teamsters make well over minimum wage? Or the oil companies lobbying for restricting drilling.

True competition in the market place with a even playing field (no special government favors or restrictions) is the best system to stop monopolies.

There were regulated monopolies. But beyond that, there are no true monopolies. They are illegal, obviously. So, it would be a bit hard to name a true monopoly that got that way without gov assistance. Regulated monopolies are those that you would not want to be multiple companies, ie, for the good of the country. So, you really did not want multiple water companies, each digging up the roads competing for business in a single town. And so forth.

But, there are many companies with monopoly power. Verizon, now in the cell phone, and land line, industry. The result of buying up smaller phone companies. Exxon has lots of monopoly power, along with the other oil companies. Etc, etc. They did not need gov help to get where they wanted to go, except for political favors to allow them to bypass antitrust legislation, get drilling rights, that sort of thing. Assuming a completely free marketplace, with no government regulation, Exxon or BP or Conoco would be by now a single monopoly. All they need to do is buy out the other companies.

So, what I am saying is that the only reason that there are not more monopolies is because of the gov. Or said another way, because of us. We did not want monopolies. We set up the laws, through our representatives in government, to prevent that. Sherman Anti Trust act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and others. If you believe in no gov intervention, then you probably are a follower of the Chicago economic theory, founded and led by Milton Freedman, and supported by the Libertarian economics views, and by some very wealthy businessmen.

Because of government we have monopolies like the Federal Reserve which effects everyone including our government.

You are misguided if you think government intervention creates competition and helps to "spread the wealth" of the market place.
It does just the opposite.

The federal reserve???? You may want to go to Wikipedia to get a better idea of what the fed is. It is not a monopoly, but a body set up to regulate finance in this country. Sounds like you do not much like it. You may want to look and see what happened before it was created. Not that I think it is perfect, by any stretch. But if you like unregulated financial systems, then you may want to wonder why Jefferson was so dead set against unregulated banking.

But, if you are looking at monopoly, then you would be looking at B of A, Chase, and the others. The share of deposites held by the largest 5 banks in this country has grown from 9% in 1984 to 40% in 2009. Completely as a result of banks gobbling up banks. And remember, banks have to get regulatory approval to buy other banks. What do you expect will happen if those regulations were either loosened or removed, as many in congress want??

So, the great depression ocured as banks failed. The great recession of 2008 occured as financial organizations failed. We saved banks useing taxpayer money, because banks failed. If it were not for the fact that banks have become so large, those things would not have happened. So, do you still suggest that unregulated finance is the way to move forward. Or should finance be regulated???

Before you get a big head, and call someone misguided, open your mind a little. Do you think that you pay $4 per gallon because of unregulated competition??? Do you think that gas costs four times as much to produce today as it did in the 1980's??? Have you noticed who controls the supply of oil, and influences the demand for oil? Have you noticed that the demand for oil is inelastic??? And that somehow, gas prices increase just until the public starts to demand government help, then drops part way back down until the public breaths a sigh of relief, then increase again, and decrease again, in a ratchet process. Do you think this is market driven?? Do you believe that trading in gas, by entities that never take delivery of a drop, is a market driven concept??

The concept that monopolies are created by the gov is very naive. Basically, it is a political concept that has no real validity in the real world. Remember, with the exception of Natural Monopolies, those controlled by the gov, monopolies are basically illegal. With few exceptions. If you remove those legal restrictions, you would have greater monopoly power, and more monopolies. Plain and simple. Because it is the natural result of competition. Companies buy companies to gain market share. Complete market share is the ultimate prize, and would be attainable without gov intervention. And, read what I say carefully. I am not saying that all industries tend to complete monopoly. Many do not. But nearly all tend toward monopoly power and oligopoly, if not true monopoly.

Ed's statement about IBM is an example where monopoly power did not work in a particular area. For instance, the desktop component of IBM failed, for technical and legal reasons. They just were not too smart. But their core business, mainframe computers, was and still is largely a monopoly.

Microsoft has not won all areas in the tech world. But you may want to look back at companies like WordPerfect and Lotus123, and try to understand why they ended up failing. It was, clearly, the monopoly power of Microsoft that killed them and many more companies along the way.

 

[boedicca]

What I want:

For the government to enforce a Constitutionally valid Rule of Law, regulatory and tax systems, evenly and fairly applied to everyone equally.

Then, I want everyone to be left alone to freely participate (or not) in the economy in whatever opportunities his or her talents, skills, knowledge, ambition, life situation, and luck (yes luck) provide.

Period.