3 ms·

> Giant corps are the engines that drive the economy. Take them away, and you've got an economy in the dumpster. I didn't say take them away, I said don't prio

> Giant corps are the engines that drive the economy. Take them away, and you've got an economy in the dumpster. I didn't say take them away, I said don't prioritize them. There is no reason to cater to big corporations. No one will voluntarily not make more money, so there is no reason to assume that regulation will disincentive growth. Same way taxes don't stop people from wanting to make more money. Make corporations do things that are in societies interest, not their own. Why do we require people to sign up for the draft or pay taxes? Not because people want to enlist, but because its good for society. Why do we require drivers licenses and car insurance and air bags? Because having competence and protections is good. > Businesses neither aid nor retard inflation. Today, there is record inflation constantly in the news. Many businesses are also posting larger profit margins. We could lower prices closer to their pre-inflation values if they lowered their profit margins to pre-inflation values too. > your exposition admits they are all illegal, although selectively applied. Yea, thats the difference between legal and not illegal in most cases? Driving 50 mph is illegal in a school zone but not a highway. Its even more illegal to drive 50 mph into a group of children crossing the road in said school zone. The laws protect against behavior that is bad in a certain context. > Mostly for BS reasons, like Microsoft being charged with giving away a browser for free The Microsoft case rested on the fact that bundling the product restricted market entrants ability to compete, not on pricing. > (no harm to consumers was ever established) Thats not necessary to prove anti-competitive. Anti-competitive is when you're bad for competition not consumers. Specifically, the FTC claims that their purpose is to prevent monopolies, not to prevent consumer harm... > ...the legislative history is replete with statements to the effect that Congress wanted the FTC to stop monopolies in their “incipiency"...

WalterBright 4y ago
> I said don't prioritize them You said screw them. > We could lower prices closer to their pre-inflation values if they lowered their profit margins to pre-inflation values too That's a fantasy. Communist countries have inflation, too (and higher), and the industries don't make any profits. > Yea, thats the difference between legal and not illegal in most cases? The difference here is extremely subjective. Selective prosecution is a real thing, and it's not about whether a crime was committed or not. > The Microsoft case rested on the fact that bundling the product restricted market entrants ability to compete, not on pricing. It was about giving it away for free. (Microsoft never tried to prevent Netscape from running.) Note that everybody gives it away for free today. As for bundling, operating systems have always "bundled" all sorts of programs and utilities. My Kindle even comes with a browser "bundled" into it. Oh, the humanity! Apple's walled garden ecosystem is far, far more anticompetitive than MS and Explorer, and not a peep from the Justice Dept. > Specifically, the FTC claims that their purpose is to prevent monopolies, not to prevent consumer harm... Or maybe Bill Gates did not acknowledge the authority of the FTC and the FTC decided to show him who's the boss. This is not unfounded, there was a fair amount of talk about that at the time.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  > You said screw them. Yea, I said I don't prioritize them. Glad we agree. > That's a fantasy. yea. Corps of course would never give up profit margin voluntarily. > Communist countries have inflation, too (and higher), and the industries don't make any profits. Why are we talking about communism? Some of them have inflation, some don't. Some industries make profit, some don't. > The difference here is extremely subjective. Good things there's a body to investigate. > Selective prosecution is a real thing, and it's not about whether a crime was committed or not. Hmm i don't know that doesn't seem right. > It was about giving it away for free. Price is a component of this case, but its not about the price, its about the business decisions and impact it had on the particular market. > Note that everybody gives it away for free today. So no more price undercutting. > My Kindle even comes with a browser "bundled" into it. Good thing there was a market for browsers. It'd be a shame if that never formed. > Oh, the humanity! Now we're thinking of the right people in these cases. > Apple's walled garden ecosystem is far, far more anticompetitive than MS and Explorer, and not a peep from the Justice Dept. I agree. And I suspect this new FTC statement is a warning that it'll change. > the FTC decided to show him who's the boss. And they did. And they won.

WalterBright 4y ago

> I said don't prioritize them You said screw them. > We could lower prices closer to their pre-inflation values if they lowered their profit margins to pre-inflation values too That's a fantasy. Communist countries have inflation, too (and higher), and the industries don't make any profits. > Yea, thats the difference between legal and not illegal in most cases? The difference here is extremely subjective. Selective prosecution is a real thing, and it's not about whether a crime was committed or not. > The Microsoft case rested on the fact that bundling the product restricted market entrants ability to compete, not on pricing. It was about giving it away for free. (Microsoft never tried to prevent Netscape from running.) Note that everybody gives it away for free today. As for bundling, operating systems have always "bundled" all sorts of programs and utilities. My Kindle even comes with a browser "bundled" into it. Oh, the humanity! Apple's walled garden ecosystem is far, far more anticompetitive than MS and Explorer, and not a peep from the Justice Dept. > Specifically, the FTC claims that their purpose is to prevent monopolies, not to prevent consumer harm... Or maybe Bill Gates did not acknowledge the authority of the FTC and the FTC decided to show him who's the boss. This is not unfounded, there was a fair amount of talk about that at the time.

vineyardmike 4y ago
> You said screw them. Yea, I said I don't prioritize them. Glad we agree. > That's a fantasy. yea. Corps of course would never give up profit margin voluntarily. > Communist countries have inflation, too (and higher), and the industries don't make any profits. Why are we talking about communism? Some of them have inflation, some don't. Some industries make profit, some don't. > The difference here is extremely subjective. Good things there's a body to investigate. > Selective prosecution is a real thing, and it's not about whether a crime was committed or not. Hmm i don't know that doesn't seem right. > It was about giving it away for free. Price is a component of this case, but its not about the price, its about the business decisions and impact it had on the particular market. > Note that everybody gives it away for free today. So no more price undercutting. > My Kindle even comes with a browser "bundled" into it. Good thing there was a market for browsers. It'd be a shame if that never formed. > Oh, the humanity! Now we're thinking of the right people in these cases. > Apple's walled garden ecosystem is far, far more anticompetitive than MS and Explorer, and not a peep from the Justice Dept. I agree. And I suspect this new FTC statement is a warning that it'll change. > the FTC decided to show him who's the boss. And they did. And they won.