7 ms·

"... and own a monopoly" Like Bill Gates and Microsoft, who were actually convicted as monopolists? After working in aid in Africa, I have to say I agree more

"... and own a monopoly" Like Bill Gates and Microsoft, who were actually convicted as monopolists? After working in aid in Africa, I have to say I agree more with the Mexican monopolist than the American one.

jshen 16y ago
except one could say that mexico represents Slim's philosophy and America (and most industrialized countries) more closely represent Buffet's/Gate's philosophies. I think it's clear which philosophy has the better outcome for people in general.
- makmanalp 16y ago
  Wow, and this one is a false analogy. Just because one is from America and the other is from Mexico doesn't mean that they've been the sole affectors of their respective countries' welfares, or that the current (good or bad) state of their countries is a direct result of their actions. What is this, fallacy friday?
  - bilbo0s 16y ago
    I was thinking it was fallacy friday too. I think when people debate things like Charity, they take leave of logic.
    - lzw 16y ago
      I think the leave of logic is to reject economics and just believe in something for ideological reasons. Slim is making an economic point. Part of the reason there is no end of poverty in this US is due to the "War on Poverty" which destroyed the charity system (via government takeover of welfare programs) and has inhibited job creation (via government regulation, taxation and inflation.) We were well on our way to ending poverty in this country before the New Deal was done to us.
  - jshen 16y ago
    Mexico has virtually no safety net, a fraction of redistribution of wealth for social good such as infrastructure and education, etc Using taxes for laying a foundation that provides greater opportunity for society in general is very similar to doing it with charity. Not doing it is very similar to saying, "leave it to the private sector"
    - lzw 16y ago
      It is "very similar" in the way that buying a meal at mcdonalds is "very similar" to being mugged. In one case you do it voluntarily and the people involved are incentivized to do it efficiently.... and in the other case you do it at gun point and the person involved has no incentive to spend the money efficiently.
      - jshen 16y ago
        i disagree with the premise that the only motivation people have is personal greed. I disagree with the depiction of taxation is a mugging, even libertarians want government when push comes to shove. Afghanistan is what it's like with no real government, and no one is for that. Even libertarians want the government to put a gun to your head to enforce contract law!
        lzw 16y ago
        I never said the only motivation people have is personal greed. Taxation is literally a mugging. And you are in error to assume that governments cannot exist without mugging. Businesses provide services and charge for them. A government could do this as well. don't speak for libertarians if you aren't one. If you are one, you've failed to apply the zero aggression principle. You also seem to fail to distinguish between using violence defensively against an agressor, which is moral, and using violence offensively to steal from someone (eg: taxation) which is immoral.
        jshen 16y ago
        So you believe there should be no government? We have many examples of this throughout modern history. They were all shit holes. Every country on this planet that is a decent place to live has a strong central government. QED
- maxawaytoolong 16y ago
  one could say that, but I don't think anyone would would actually say that with a straight face.
  - jshen 16y ago
    Read my reply to the above commenter
jakarta 16y ago
That's the point. Bill Gates was convicted of being a monopolist and checks were put on what his company could and could not do. That does not happen in Mexico. In more extreme cases, look at John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Rockefeller used to be the wealthiest person in the world (according to some, if you inflation adjust his money, he may have been the wealthiest person in the last 200 years). His company was broken into parts in order to promote competition. Same goes for the Bell Telecom companies in America, they were also all broken up. We have checks in place to curb the anti-competitive forces of certain companies.
- volski 16y ago
  In more extreme cases, look at John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Rockefeller used to be the wealthiest person in the world (according to some, if you inflation adjust his money, he may have been the wealthiest person in the last 200 years). His company was broken into parts in order to promote competition. John D. Rockefeller actually ended up being a lot richer because the courts broke up Standard Oil[1]. He went from having a controlling stake in the most powerful company in oil, to having a controlling stake in most of the powerful companies in the whole oil industry (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell). I just wanted to clarify that point because the order in which your statement was crafted kind of made it seem like the courts broke up his wealth when they actually expanded it. 1.Rockefeller, who had rarely sold shares, held over 25% of Standard’s stock at the time of the breakup. He, as well as all stockholders, received proportionate shares in each of the 34 companies...The companies’ combined net worth rose fivefold and Rockefeller’s personal wealth jumped to $900,000,000.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller
  - napierzaza 16y ago
    I agree with your statement, while at the same time it was the monopoly that got him to the position he was in. It's hard not to make money once you're at that point. I don't think he could have gotten that rich if actual competition existed and he was investing in hundreds of companies. He didn't do any manoeuvring to get his stakes in all those separate companies, unless you count back room deals.
sprout 16y ago
Wow, that's a load of non-sequiturs. Monopoly is a side effect of the massive corruption plaguing Mexico. Microsoft doesn't even come close. As for aid in Africa, that's a specific charity you worked with in Africa. There are people who do good work there. Dismissing aid because people are bad at it is like dismissing software development because people are bad at it. One way or another it's necessary.
- bilbo0s 16y ago
  Just to round it out... There is also the logical fallacy known as "Appeal to Authority" in @maxawaytoolong's comment. But we should not be logic nazis I suppose. My own opinion is that both Slim and Gates can be right at the same time. Lots of businesses provide for lots of people...but not all.
- yters 16y ago
  I went to a missionary conference once where an African princess came in and talked to us. Exactly the place where you'd expect a plea for more aid, right? Well, not really. She said we needed to mind our own business and let Africa take care of itself. Then a Bono video from his opulent mansion came on with some sort of campaign to end world poverty or something.
  - euccastro 16y ago
    "Minding your own business" may be a loaded phrase there, though. Much of the misery in Africa is a direct result of western exploitation. That includes much misery the proximate cause of which is corrupt leaders. Guess who keeps many of them there. She has a point that truly letting Africa "take care of itself" may be more effective than any aid. But that statement is not primarily about aid, and withdrawing aid doesn't help with the subjacent problems.
- huherto 16y ago
  "Monopoly is a side effect of the massive corruption plaguing Mexico" Hold it. Please don`t make broad accusations. If you have any specific information about Telmex say so, but do not generalize. That badly hurts our reputation and it has been said many times that people just take it as true. Mexico has corruption levels that are consistent with outher countries with similar development levels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
damoncali 16y ago
Where is being a monopolist a crime?

jshen 16y ago

except one could say that mexico represents Slim's philosophy and America (and most industrialized countries) more closely represent Buffet's/Gate's philosophies. I think it's clear which philosophy has the better outcome for people in general.

makmanalp 16y ago
Wow, and this one is a false analogy. Just because one is from America and the other is from Mexico doesn't mean that they've been the sole affectors of their respective countries' welfares, or that the current (good or bad) state of their countries is a direct result of their actions. What is this, fallacy friday?
- bilbo0s 16y ago
  I was thinking it was fallacy friday too. I think when people debate things like Charity, they take leave of logic.
  - lzw 16y ago
    I think the leave of logic is to reject economics and just believe in something for ideological reasons. Slim is making an economic point. Part of the reason there is no end of poverty in this US is due to the "War on Poverty" which destroyed the charity system (via government takeover of welfare programs) and has inhibited job creation (via government regulation, taxation and inflation.) We were well on our way to ending poverty in this country before the New Deal was done to us.
- jshen 16y ago
  Mexico has virtually no safety net, a fraction of redistribution of wealth for social good such as infrastructure and education, etc Using taxes for laying a foundation that provides greater opportunity for society in general is very similar to doing it with charity. Not doing it is very similar to saying, "leave it to the private sector"
  - lzw 16y ago
    It is "very similar" in the way that buying a meal at mcdonalds is "very similar" to being mugged. In one case you do it voluntarily and the people involved are incentivized to do it efficiently.... and in the other case you do it at gun point and the person involved has no incentive to spend the money efficiently.
    - jshen 16y ago
      i disagree with the premise that the only motivation people have is personal greed. I disagree with the depiction of taxation is a mugging, even libertarians want government when push comes to shove. Afghanistan is what it's like with no real government, and no one is for that. Even libertarians want the government to put a gun to your head to enforce contract law!
      - lzw 16y ago
        I never said the only motivation people have is personal greed. Taxation is literally a mugging. And you are in error to assume that governments cannot exist without mugging. Businesses provide services and charge for them. A government could do this as well. don't speak for libertarians if you aren't one. If you are one, you've failed to apply the zero aggression principle. You also seem to fail to distinguish between using violence defensively against an agressor, which is moral, and using violence offensively to steal from someone (eg: taxation) which is immoral.
        jshen 16y ago
        So you believe there should be no government? We have many examples of this throughout modern history. They were all shit holes. Every country on this planet that is a decent place to live has a strong central government. QED
maxawaytoolong 16y ago
one could say that, but I don't think anyone would would actually say that with a straight face.
- jshen 16y ago
  Read my reply to the above commenter

jakarta 16y ago

That's the point. Bill Gates was convicted of being a monopolist and checks were put on what his company could and could not do. That does not happen in Mexico. In more extreme cases, look at John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Rockefeller used to be the wealthiest person in the world (according to some, if you inflation adjust his money, he may have been the wealthiest person in the last 200 years). His company was broken into parts in order to promote competition. Same goes for the Bell Telecom companies in America, they were also all broken up. We have checks in place to curb the anti-competitive forces of certain companies.

volski 16y ago
In more extreme cases, look at John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil. Rockefeller used to be the wealthiest person in the world (according to some, if you inflation adjust his money, he may have been the wealthiest person in the last 200 years). His company was broken into parts in order to promote competition. John D. Rockefeller actually ended up being a lot richer because the courts broke up Standard Oil[1]. He went from having a controlling stake in the most powerful company in oil, to having a controlling stake in most of the powerful companies in the whole oil industry (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell). I just wanted to clarify that point because the order in which your statement was crafted kind of made it seem like the courts broke up his wealth when they actually expanded it. 1.Rockefeller, who had rarely sold shares, held over 25% of Standard’s stock at the time of the breakup. He, as well as all stockholders, received proportionate shares in each of the 34 companies...The companies’ combined net worth rose fivefold and Rockefeller’s personal wealth jumped to $900,000,000.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Rockefeller
- napierzaza 16y ago
  I agree with your statement, while at the same time it was the monopoly that got him to the position he was in. It's hard not to make money once you're at that point. I don't think he could have gotten that rich if actual competition existed and he was investing in hundreds of companies. He didn't do any manoeuvring to get his stakes in all those separate companies, unless you count back room deals.

sprout 16y ago

Wow, that's a load of non-sequiturs. Monopoly is a side effect of the massive corruption plaguing Mexico. Microsoft doesn't even come close. As for aid in Africa, that's a specific charity you worked with in Africa. There are people who do good work there. Dismissing aid because people are bad at it is like dismissing software development because people are bad at it. One way or another it's necessary.

bilbo0s 16y ago
Just to round it out... There is also the logical fallacy known as "Appeal to Authority" in @maxawaytoolong's comment. But we should not be logic nazis I suppose. My own opinion is that both Slim and Gates can be right at the same time. Lots of businesses provide for lots of people...but not all.
yters 16y ago
I went to a missionary conference once where an African princess came in and talked to us. Exactly the place where you'd expect a plea for more aid, right? Well, not really. She said we needed to mind our own business and let Africa take care of itself. Then a Bono video from his opulent mansion came on with some sort of campaign to end world poverty or something.
- euccastro 16y ago
  "Minding your own business" may be a loaded phrase there, though. Much of the misery in Africa is a direct result of western exploitation. That includes much misery the proximate cause of which is corrupt leaders. Guess who keeps many of them there. She has a point that truly letting Africa "take care of itself" may be more effective than any aid. But that statement is not primarily about aid, and withdrawing aid doesn't help with the subjacent problems.
huherto 16y ago
"Monopoly is a side effect of the massive corruption plaguing Mexico" Hold it. Please don`t make broad accusations. If you have any specific information about Telmex say so, but do not generalize. That badly hurts our reputation and it has been said many times that people just take it as true. Mexico has corruption levels that are consistent with outher countries with similar development levels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

damoncali 16y ago

Where is being a monopolist a crime?