Universal Healthcare?

[jillian]

I disagree. I've heard that argument before, but not seen numbers to back it up.

In fact, for many years Holland had exactly that program (people above a certain income level couldn't participate in the national health care program) and they never had funding issues. They changed their system a few years back, though, to quasi-privatize the national system because of poor care received.

In Holland, you were talking about government provided health care, not health COVERAGE. I think that's different than what's being proposed. (I'm not certain of that, though).

But the posters on this board from Australia and NZ might want to weigh in on the way their governments handle these things, because it's my understanding that it's fairly successful, if a bit beaurocracy-laden (in Australia, at least).

And you didn't address my other issues.

 

[Bern80]

And yet there were JOBS around before free market capitolism, in communist nations AND those that fall in between. Clearly, it is an error to assume that capitolism is the reason we have jobs. So too it is an error to assume that gree and profit margins are the only thing that causes people to work. HEALTHY competition? yes, the history of monopolies and mega conglomerates teaches a solid lesson on the importance of competition. Weren't we JUST talking about Microsoft? Quality goods and services? Like Vista? Like current gas prices?

Yea, i know the talking points sound good in their pre-packeaged form but they don't really reflect reality these days, do they?

I never said it was the reason why we have jobs. I said it provides jobs. As far as your history lesson on monopolies goes you could use a healthy dose of perspective. Citing exceptions or rare occurances that contradict the general rule hardly proves your point.

 

[Shogun]

I think Vista will become the standard (unless Microsoft comes up with a new OS) but not because of fair competition. The reason I think it will become the standard is that gamers typically drive the upgrade market. Drive massive portions of it, in fact. Not only is MS getting ready to quit releasing XP (in June) but they're releasing DirectX 10 only for Vista. There are already a few of games out that use DirectX 10 and before long anyone who wants a really cutting edge game is going to have to use it. And then people who want to play it are going to have to have Vista. So people will upgrade even if they don't really want to.

which flies in the face of the idea that capitolist businesses benefit the consumer. Sure, vista might become M$ standard but i'd argue that their reptilian strategies, and the lackluster products they produce, are exactly the type of thing that illustrates my points in this thread.

who owns DX10, by the way?

microsoft.

 

[Bern80]

Denny, I think you're looking at this wrong. It's not so much that healthcare is a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's about what is in our best interests as a society. It isn't in our best interest to have an underclass that uses hospitals as primary care physicians. It isn't in our best interests as a society for people not to take their children for well visits, vaccinations and all the other things they need.

I agree. Where we differ is the solution to the problem. Think about it from the perspective of someone oppossed to it for a second. Wouldn't I have to have a pretty good reason to be oppossed to UHC considering it would cost me less money?

It's simply wrong, in a country with such wealth for people not to be able to get medical care.

Who ever invented that particular rationale needs to be beaten. That the wealth of a country is somehow suppossed to correlate to what it's health should be just doesn't jive. It doesn't address why people are wealthy (which we've discussed at length). The only premise I can surmize is that given the actual dollar amount of wealth in this country it should somehow comver medical expenses? Well wealth is owned by people and if that's the rationale your operating under that wealth correlates to health then it should be the governments right to tax people until it deems everyone is healthy enough. That okay with you?

It's obscene that 50% of all bankruptcies in this country result from catastrophic illness and that millions of people are uninsured now who WERE insured in 2000.

Yes it is. All I'm suggesting is let's not take the typical easy road and just go 'eh, let the government handle it'.

]

 

[Bern80]

still waiting for a single example of deregulation lowering consumer prices in any tangible, long term fashion)

I gave a link to one. Did you miss it?

 

[Shogun]

I gave a link to one. Did you miss it?

this link?

Many government regulations are designed to protect people from the negative consequences (i.e., externalities) of buyers and sellers who have little incentive to look out for the welfare of third parties. For example, slaughterhouses may have the freedom to kill animals for sale to their customers in grocery stores without taking into account obnoxious odors or sounds emanating from the slaughterhouse. Neighborhood residents, however, incur externality costs. Through agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the government controls what slaughterhouses can and cannot do in order to lessen the negative effects on the population.

Some concerns have arisen about deregulation, however. The airline industry has become more concentrated since deregulation. In 1978 eleven carriers handled 87 percent of the traffic, while in 1995 seven carriers handled 93 percent of the traffic. Although some feared reduced safety, that has not materialized. Some of the bank failures in the 1980s were attributed to deregulation; yet depositors receive higher interest.


Like I said, Bern.. I can talk about deregulation but it's going to have to be specific instances rather than demonizing the entire pie. As you can see, even talking points like deregulation have a negative impact on the consumer that are not as peachy as is promised.

 

[Shogun]

I never said it was the reason why we have jobs. I said it provides jobs. As far as your history lesson on monopolies goes you could use a healthy dose of perspective. Citing exceptions or rare occurances that contradict the general rule hardly proves your point.

And, capitolism is not the end all source for job creation. Lots of things provide jobs.


RARE occurances? STRIVING FOR A MARKET MONOPOLY is a RARE occurance is it? Funny, I can't recall a single business whose ever expressed a concern for their competition for the sake of talking points and consumer prices... What the hell is so rare about conglomerates? Parent-companies?

from your own source, homey...

Most societies rely on competitive markets to handle the allocation of scarce resources to their highest and best uses. Yet markets are not without their shortcomings. For this reason, governments sometime institute regulatory control. In 1887, the first regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, was created to regulate monopolistic pricing policies of railroads.

 

[Bern80]

And, capitolism is not the end all source for job creation. Lots of things provide jobs.


RARE occurances? STRIVING FOR A MARKET MONOPOLY is a RARE occurance is it? Funny, I can't recall a single business whose ever expressed a concern for their competition for the sake of talking points and consumer prices... What the hell is so rare about conglomerates? Parent-companies?

from your own source, homey...

Most societies rely on competitive markets to handle the allocation of scarce resources to their highest and best uses. Yet markets are not without their shortcomings. For this reason, governments sometime institute regulatory control. In 1887, the first regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, was created to regulate monopolistic pricing policies of railroads.

Again you're using exceptions to make your point. Indicated by the use of the word 'sometimes' in your citation. No system is going to be perfect. You could make the argument that capitalism is bad if we are all subjected to the whims of one or two super corps. but that isn't reality. You spend all this time poo pooing monopolies, so what unique term would you use to describe government running the healthcare industry?

 

[Shogun]

Savings and Loan Crisis

The US Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s was the failure of several savings and loan associations in the United States. More than 1,000 savings and loan institutions (S&Ls) failed in "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[1] The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government (that is, the U.S. Taxpayer either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts) [2], which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. The resulting taxpayer bailout ended up being even larger than it would have been because moral hazard and adverse-selection incentives compounded the system’s losses. [3]

A taxpayer-funded government bailout related to mortgages during the S&L crisis may have created a moral hazard and acted as encouragement to lenders to make similar higher-risk loans during the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. [4]

The concomitant slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 1990-1991 economic recession. Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed dropped from 1.8 million to 1 million, the lowest rate since World War II. [5]

Deregulation

Although the deregulation of S&Ls gave them many of the capabilities of banks, it did not bring them under the same regulations as banks. First, thrifts could choose to be under either a state or a federal charter. Immediately after deregulation of the federally chartered thrifts, the state-chartered thrifts rushed to become federally chartered, because of the advantages associated with a federal charter. In response, states (notably, California and Texas) changed their regulations so they would be similar to the federal regulations. States changed their regulations because state regulators were paid by the thrifts they regulated, and they didn't want to lose that money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_crisis

 

[Shogun]

Again you're using exceptions to make your point. Indicated by the use of the word 'sometimes' in your citation. No system is going to be perfect. You could make the argument that capitalism is bad if we are all subjected to the whims of one or two super corps. but that isn't reality. You spend all this time poo pooing monopolies, so what unique term would you use to describe government running the healthcare industry?

Sure, no system is perfect.. do you accept that answer regarding socialism too or is it just applicable to capitolist fuckups? YOu know, commie cuba didn't happen in a vacuum, dude. There is a very real reason why the peasant class sided with fidel and che and it has nothing to do with drinking commie juice.

In fact, if IM using the expection and not the rule then why did YOUR wource agree with my point regarding deregulated airlines? the first railroads?

How is it reality that grabbing for as much market share as possible is not a drive towards a monopoly? Ever hear of Microsoft? Are THEY just an exception too?

 

[mattskramer]

Again you're using exceptions to make your point. Indicated by the use of the word 'sometimes' in your citation. No system is going to be perfect. You could make the argument that capitalism is bad if we are all subjected to the whims of one or two super corps. but that isn't reality. You spend all this time poo pooing monopolies, so what unique term would you use to describe government running the healthcare industry?

I don’t consider the exceptions to be very rare. I understand that there should be a balance - a certain degree of regulation and a certain degree of freedom. The question is not whether or not to draw the line but where to draw the line. Some people think that there should be more regulation and some people think that there should be less regulation. Some people think that it is enough to punish blatant fraud – lies. Some people think that government should go further and punish those who engage in severely deceptive practices.

 

[manifold]

Savings and Loan Crisis

The US Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s was the failure of several savings and loan associations in the United States. More than 1,000 savings and loan institutions (S&Ls) failed in "the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time."[1] The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government (that is, the U.S. Taxpayer either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts) [2], which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s. The resulting taxpayer bailout ended up being even larger than it would have been because moral hazard and adverse-selection incentives compounded the system’s losses. [3]

A taxpayer-funded government bailout related to mortgages during the S&L crisis may have created a moral hazard and acted as encouragement to lenders to make similar higher-risk loans during the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis. [4]

The concomitant slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 1990-1991 economic recession. Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed dropped from 1.8 million to 1 million, the lowest rate since World War II. [5]

Deregulation

Although the deregulation of S&Ls gave them many of the capabilities of banks, it did not bring them under the same regulations as banks. First, thrifts could choose to be under either a state or a federal charter. Immediately after deregulation of the federally chartered thrifts, the state-chartered thrifts rushed to become federally chartered, because of the advantages associated with a federal charter. In response, states (notably, California and Texas) changed their regulations so they would be similar to the federal regulations. States changed their regulations because state regulators were paid by the thrifts they regulated, and they didn't want to lose that money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_crisis

I'm going to have to disagree with your s&l example. There is a lot of misinformation about the true cause of the crisis. It's actually pretty simple. The s&l's had a lot of "junk" bonds in their portfolios. Government regulators, in their infinite wisdom, decided these investments were too risky and mandated they sell them. The market was flooded and the prices went throught the floor, the s&l's lost billions. Time has vindicated Milken & company as very few of these risky bonds went into default, and they included the bonds that launched crappy fly-by-night companies such as microsoft and intel for example.

 

[Shogun]

I'm going to have to disagree with your s&l example. There is a lot of misinformation about the true cause of the crisis. It's actually pretty simple. The s&l's had a lot of "junk" bonds in their portfolios. Government regulators, in their infinite wisdom, decided these investments were too risky and mandated they sell them. The market was flooded and the prices went throught the floor, the s&l's lost billions. Time has vindicated Milken & company as very few of these risky bonds went into default, and they included the bonds that launched crappy fly-by-night companies such as microsoft and intel for example.

in light of our current fiasco with sub-prime mortgages I think im gonna have to disagree.


1980-1982 Statutory and regulatory changes give the S&L industry new powers in the hopes of their entering new areas of business and subsequently returning to profitability. For the first time, the government approves measures intended to increase S&L profits as opposed to promoting housing and homeownership.

March, 1980--Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) enacted. The law is a Carter Administration initiative aimed at eliminating many of the distinctions among different types of depository institutions and ultimately removing interest rate ceiling on deposit accounts. Authority for federal S&Ls to make ADC (acquisition, development, construction) loans is expanded. Deposit insurance limit raised to $100,000 from $40,000. This last provision is added without debate.

November, 1980--Federal Home Loan Bank Board reduces net worth requirement for insured S&Ls from 5 to 4 percent of total deposits. Bank Board also removes limits on the amounts of brokered deposits an S&L can hold.

August, 1981--Tax Reform Act of 1981 enacted. Provides powerful tax incentives for real-estate investment by individuals. This legislation helps create a "boom" in real estate and contributes to over-building.

September, 1981--Federal Home Loan Bank Board permits troubled S&Ls to issue "income capital certificates" that are purchased by FSLIC and included as capital. Rather than showing that an institution is insolvent, the certificates make it appear solvent.

1982-1985 Reductions in the Bank Board's regulatory and supervisory staff. In 1983, a starting S&L examiner is paid $14,000 a year. The average examiner has only two years on the job. Examiner salaries are paid through OMB, not the Bank Board. During this period of supervisory and examination retraction, industry growth increases. Industry assets increase by 56% between 1982 and 1985. 40 Texas S&Ls triple in size between 1982 and 1986; many of them grow by 100% each year. California S&Ls follow a similar pattern.

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/index.html

 

[manifold]

in light of our current fiasco with sub-prime mortgages I think im gonna have to disagree.


1980-1982 Statutory and regulatory changes give the S&L industry new powers in the hopes of their entering new areas of business and subsequently returning to profitability. For the first time, the government approves measures intended to increase S&L profits as opposed to promoting housing and homeownership.

March, 1980--Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) enacted. The law is a Carter Administration initiative aimed at eliminating many of the distinctions among different types of depository institutions and ultimately removing interest rate ceiling on deposit accounts. Authority for federal S&Ls to make ADC (acquisition, development, construction) loans is expanded. Deposit insurance limit raised to $100,000 from $40,000. This last provision is added without debate.

November, 1980--Federal Home Loan Bank Board reduces net worth requirement for insured S&Ls from 5 to 4 percent of total deposits. Bank Board also removes limits on the amounts of brokered deposits an S&L can hold.

August, 1981--Tax Reform Act of 1981 enacted. Provides powerful tax incentives for real-estate investment by individuals. This legislation helps create a "boom" in real estate and contributes to over-building.

September, 1981--Federal Home Loan Bank Board permits troubled S&Ls to issue "income capital certificates" that are purchased by FSLIC and included as capital. Rather than showing that an institution is insolvent, the certificates make it appear solvent.

1982-1985 Reductions in the Bank Board's regulatory and supervisory staff. In 1983, a starting S&L examiner is paid $14,000 a year. The average examiner has only two years on the job. Examiner salaries are paid through OMB, not the Bank Board. During this period of supervisory and examination retraction, industry growth increases. Industry assets increase by 56% between 1982 and 1985. 40 Texas S&Ls triple in size between 1982 and 1986; many of them grow by 100% each year. California S&Ls follow a similar pattern.

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/index.html

Those things all contibuted for sure. However, even collectively it doesn't add up to the losses they suffered when they were forced to liquidate high yield "junk" bonds for pennies on the dollar. The bottom line is the govt. fucked up royally on that one, just like they did when they took steps to contract the money supply after the 1929 stock market crash. Deregulation allowed them to buy the junk bonds in the first place, yes. But then shortsighted oversight forced them to sell them. Had they been allowed to hold them to maturity, there would never have been a crisis. The passage of time has proven this to be true.

 

[Shogun]

Those things all contibuted for sure. However, even collectively it doesn't add up to the losses they suffered when they were forced to liquidate high yield "junk" bonds for pennies on the dollar. The bottom line is the govt. fucked up royally on that one, just like they did when they took steps to contract the money supply after the 1929 stock market crash. Deregulation allowed them to buy the junk bonds in the first place, yes. But then shortsighted oversight forced them to sell them. Had they been allowed to hold them to maturity, there would never have been a crisis. The passage of time has proven this to be true.

do you have a source for this or shall I just take your word on it?

 

[Bern80]

Sure, no system is perfect.. do you accept that answer regarding socialism too or is it just applicable to capitolist fuckups? YOu know, commie cuba didn't happen in a vacuum, dude. There is a very real reason why the peasant class sided with fidel and che and it has nothing to do with drinking commie juice.

Agreed. But I beleive communism has had does fail because it completely ignores human nature. Whether you think it bad or not, we don't put others above ourselves. We are driven by incentives, that for producing will be rewarded. In pure communism, it doesn't matter whether I pump out 5 widgets a day or 10 or if I make 9 faulty ones or 1 faulty one. What I get in return is always going to be the same. Thus I have no incetive to do my job well.

In fact, if IM using the expection and not the rule then why did YOUR wource agree with my point regarding deregulated airlines? the first railroads?

I don't know if your looking at something different or if your picking the few pieces oppossed to deregulation. The link i gave has a myriad of other links within it. http://www.answers.com/topic/deregulation?cat=biz-fin Some examples do indeed show that some dergulatino attempts have not helped. The majority of what is there though is an eplanation of what deregulation is designed to accomplish. As to airline deregulation, where it is mentioned notes that post deregulation consumer fairs went down.

How is it reality that grabbing for as much market share as possible is not a drive towards a monopoly? Ever hear of Microsoft? Are THEY just an exception too?

People point to Microsoft and use windows as a suppossed example that they have a monoply on OS's. The fact is though, you don't have to have Windows or Vista on your computer. You do have other options. There is another instance in where a single company can have large or almost monopolistic market share and that is they simple have the better product. The company I work for has 80% market share in the product it produces. We dont' cut corners, we dont' rest on our laurels, we have a better product than the other guy, period. Most everyone that buys that product knows this and that is why we have the market share we have. Now what do you suggest the government meddle in where our company is concerned?

 

[Bern80]

do you have a source for this or shall I just take your word on it?

Why can't people objectively judge for themselves whether someone knows what they're talking about or not?

 

[Shogun]

Why can't people objectively judge for themselves whether someone knows what they're talking about or not?

Because in this world of opinions and assholes, Bern, there is something to be said for evidence. You know, like the S&L evidence that Im using to indicate that deregulation is no mana from heaven.

 

[Shogun]

Agreed. But I beleive communism has had does fail because it completely ignores human nature. Whether you think it bad or not, we don't put others above ourselves. We are driven by incentives, that for producing will be rewarded. In pure communism, it doesn't matter whether I pump out 5 widgets a day or 10 or if I make 9 faulty ones or 1 faulty one. What I get in return is always going to be the same. Thus I have no incetive to do my job well.


Who is ignoring human nature, Bern? Those of us who understand to role that greed plays in capitolism or those of us who are insisting that monopolies are the exception? Work is not the prerequisite for living a human life. We don't value our health care just because some of us have it while others have to work their ass off for it while still others just don't apply. Health care is not the reason we work either. I have no problem with a blended mix of capitolism and socialism. Indeed, your acceptance of govt. roads indicates that you don't either. The question becomes not a matter of how to we achieve any pure form of either but rather how can we create an American standard of living that is worth the effort involved in participating in this nation. This might just be the time and place where we the people add UHC to our short list of roads, clean water and fire protection.





I don't know if your looking at something different or if your picking the few pieces oppossed to deregulation. The link i gave has a myriad of other links within it. http://www.answers.com/topic/deregulation?cat=biz-fin Some examples do indeed show that some dergulatino attempts have not helped. The majority of what is there though is an eplanation of what deregulation is designed to accomplish. As to airline deregulation, where it is mentioned notes that post deregulation consumer fairs went down.


did those fairs stay down? no? Is the design of deregulation a guarantee that it's application is as beneficial as you claim? no? You origianlly said "Deregulation" as if that one word was supposed to explain everything. I specifically asked you for actual examples and THIS is why. I told you, im willing to discuss deregulation but im not willing to burn the entire forrest down just because Deregulation is a talking point that sells. There have been clear detriments in the aftermath of deregulation which deflates using it as a cure for anything besides a lack of excuses.




People point to Microsoft and use windows as a suppossed example that they have a monoply on OS's. The fact is though, you don't have to have Windows or Vista on your computer. You do have other options. There is another instance in where a single company can have large or almost monopolistic market share and that is they simple have the better product. The company I work for has 80% market share in the product it produces. We dont' cut corners, we dont' rest on our laurels, we have a better product than the other guy, period. Most everyone that buys that product knows this and that is why we have the market share we have. Now what do you suggest the government meddle in where our company is concerned?


vista is not a better product. As steerpike mentioned, after the next direct x, ANOTHER MICROSOFT PRODUCT, anyone who doesn't hop on board the M$ bandwagon can look forward to not having necessary driver support to play any of their games. Does that sacrifice sound like much of an option to you? Sure, dude... linux would be great if all I wanted to do was use command lines to network my house.

I guess you'd have to tell me what your company markets in order to see if your statement is a matter of fact or opinoin. After all, is it REALLY shocking when bill gates, or any given robber barron, rationalized their monopolies?



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AT
MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1997 (202) 616-2771
TDD (202) 514-1888


JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CHARGES MICROSOFT WITH
VIOLATING 1995 COURT ORDER


Asks Court to Impose $1 Million a Day Fine if Violation Continues

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Department of Justice asked a
federal court today to hold Microsoft Corporation--the world's
dominant personal computer software company--in civil contempt
for violating terms of a 1995 court order barring it from
imposing anticompetitive licensing terms on manufacturers of
personal computers.

The petition filed today by the Department's Antitrust
Division alleges that Microsoft violated the court order by
requiring PC manufacturers to license and distribute Microsoft's
Internet browser, called Internet Explorer, as a condition of
licensing Microsoft's Windows 95. Most PC makers preinstall
Windows 95--the dominant PC operating system--at the factory on
the PCs they sell.

"Microsoft is unlawfully taking advantage of its Windows
monopoly to protect and extend that monopoly and undermine
consumer choice," said Attorney General Janet Reno.

The Department brought today's action to enforce the earlier
court order, and to prevent Microsoft from being able to expand
and protect its monopoly in the PC operating system market by
anticompetitive means. The Department also wants to ensure that
PC manufacturers and consumers will be able to choose among
competing software products.

"Our main concern is that by violating the court order,
Microsoft is using an unlawful advantage to beat back an
important competitive challenge to its Windows monopoly," said
Joel I. Klein, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the
Department's Antitrust Division. "Even as we go forward with
this action today," Klein added, "we also want to make clear that
we have an ongoing and wide-ranging investigation to determine
whether Microsoft's actions are stifling innovation and consumer
choice."

Much of Microsoft's market power today results because most
applications programs for PCs--programs such as word processing,
spread sheets and money managers--are written to work with
Microsoft's Windows 95 PC operating system, the Department said.
Unfettered competition among Internet browser products could lead
to development of a computer environment in which business and
consumer applications would work regardless of which operating
system was installed on the PC. Software companies are currently
developing applications that use an Internet browser as the user
interface and work on other operating systems as well as with
Windows 95.

Microsoft's operating system is installed on more than 80
percent of the nation's PCs, and preinstallation on PCs at the
factory is Microsoft's main distribution channel.

Under the 1995 court order, Microsoft is prohibited from
forcing computer makers to license any other Microsoft product as
a condition of licensing Windows 95. Many PC manufacturers want
the ability to choose freely among competing software products
when they decide what to package with their PCs in order to offer
their customers the best mix of software products available.

The petition charges that Microsoft has conditioned licenses
to Windows 95 on manufacturers' licensing of Internet Explorer
and that it has denied manufacturers' requests not to ship
Internet Explorer on new PCs with Windows 95.

The Department stressed that it is not taking sides in the
"browser war" between Microsoft and its rival, Netscape
Communications Corporation, or in any emerging competition
between Windows and other products.

"Microsoft is not entitled to require computer manufacturers
and consumers to take Internet Explorer when they license Windows
95," said Klein. "Each of Microsoft's products should compete on
its own merits."

Klein stressed, however, that today's action in no way
prevents consumers or PC manufacturers from voluntarily choosing
to obtain Internet Explorer and Windows 95, either together or
separately, if they so wish.

In its petition, the Department asked the court:

* To stop Microsoft from requiring PC manufacturers to
accept Internet Explorer as a condition of receiving Windows 95.

* To require Microsoft to notify consumers of PCs that have
Windows 95 that they are not required to use Internet Explorer,
that they are free to use any compatible Internet browser, and to
give consumers simple instructions about how to remove the
Internet Explorer icon from their PC desktop if they choose.

* To impose large daily fines--$1 million--on Microsoft if
it continues to violate the court's order.

* To strike down broad portions of non-disclosure
agreements that Microsoft requires those with whom it does
business to sign.

The non-disclosure agreements may deter companies and
individuals from coming forward voluntarily to provide
information about Microsoft to the Department. Moreover, they
sometimes require signatories to notify Microsoft first before
complying with the Department's formal requests, or even court
orders, for such information.

Microsoft has advised the Department that it would not
insist on prior disclosure when the Department approaches
companies or individuals and assures them that it will keep
information confidential. But, this informal agreement, Klein
said, does not address the concerns of parties who wish to come
forward voluntarily.

Klein stressed the importance of full, voluntary disclosure
of information relevant to the Department's larger investigation
of Microsoft's practices. He expressed concern that the broad
non-disclosure agreements could possibly hamper its investigation
and indicated that, to remove any possible impediment, even if
unintended, the Department was seeking a court order.

"We need a court order to clear the air here so that anyone
with relevant information will feel free to come talk to the
Department without any fear of intimidation or reprisal," Klein
said. "We will not let Microsoft or anyone else burden that
fundamental right."

Today's petition was filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, where the 1995 consent decree was entered.

Microsoft will have an opportunity to respond to the
Department's petition in writing within 11 days. At that time,
the judge will decide whether a hearing is appropriate.
###
97-435

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/October97/435at.html


Microsoft: Don't sell PCs without operating systems

"We want to urge all system builders — indeed, all Partners — not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business — with specifically 5 percent fewer opportunities to market software and services," wrote Alexander.

Linux vendors and free software supporters, though, believe these base systems can play an important role in supporting the open source market. Some are concerned that Microsoft may be attempting to use its powerful position in the market to hamper competition.

The European branch of the Free Software Foundation hopes that PC vendors will not be swayed by Microsoft.

"We would be happy to see any kind of hardware being shipped without an operating system, or pre-installed with free software. Furthermore, we would be happy to get in contact with any hardware vendor who wants to free his customers this way," said Joachim Jakobs, of the FSF Europe.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39261437,00.htm


Windows XP to be phased out by year's end despite customer demand

Computer makers have been told they'll no longer be able to get Windows XP OEM by the end of this year, despite consumer resistance to Vista and its compatibility problems.

By early 2008, Microsoft's contracts with computer makers will require companies to only sell Vista-loaded machines. "The OEM version of XP Professional goes next January," said Frank Luburic, senior ThinkPad product manager for Lenovo. "At that point, they'll have no choice."

http://apcmag.com/5835/vendors_in_no_rush_to_ditch_xp_for_vista


Microsoft gets green light to punish OS-less PC vendors

MDPs and MDAs

In testimony during the DoJ's antitrust case, IBM alleged that Microsoft used the MDA as a kind of pre-nuptial agreement that dictated the terms of the pricing structure, before formal negotiations over Windows licensing could begun. For example, in October 1994 Microsoft offered IBM an MDA that listed up to $27 per license in potential discounts, if IBM met certain conditions. The more points in the MDA that IBM agreed to, the lower the price became. IBM was then promoting its OS/2 operating system as an alternative to Chicago, which was released as Windows 95 ten months later.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/20/microsoft_gets_green_light/

 

[manifold]

do you have a source for this or shall I just take your word on it?

Whatever you like I suppose. But I assume you're intelligent enough to realize that actual investment losses don't materialize out of thin air because of deregulation. You have to actually invest in a security and then have it either default or sell it for a loss. Virtually all the investment losses that led to the s&l crisis were from junk bonds. Bonds that ended up paying off and making the rock bottom buyers an ass load of money. I don't need a "source" to confirm what I already know as a matter of fact.