Posted on 06/20/2002 4:40:17 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
Incessant ad hominem attacks lends no legitimacy to your argument.
Absence of competition is the very definition of a monopoly, regardless of any overt attempt to control the market by the single participant. You can get a clue from the word itself: "mono-", meaning "one".
If there is nothing preventing competition from entering the market then there can be no monopoly. By definition, a monopoly means exclusive ownership and control.
There is nothing preventing somebody from developing an OS of their own to compete with Microsoft. Therefore, Microsoft isn't a monopoly. I can tell you what is a monopoly. The US Post Office is. In fact, private letter carriers attempted to compete with the USPO in the past but were run out of business by the federal government through endless litigation. Lysander Spooner's American Letter Mail Company was one of those private businesses.
Another monopoly is the Food and Drug Administration. No other organizations can approve food and drugs for consumption. Even worse, when somebody is harmed by an FDA-approved drug the FDA is immune from liability.
For a long time cable-TV and phone companies had monopolies because local governments permitted only one company to run cabling. Fortunately, we have other options now such as wireless and satellite.
Whine about the name-calling all you want, you haven't said anything to earn respect.
Once again, more ad hominem attacks. I'm sorry that you're incapable of debating. You just seem unable to do anything but call people names.
Hogwash.
Monopoly is merely the term applied to a market structure characterized by a single seller with no competition.
There is no "exclusive ownership" implied.
With no competition, the single seller inherently controls the market, whether or not it exerts effort to do so.
The 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language defines monopoly as follows:
A monopoly is characterized by the obstruction of competition, not the absence of it. If there are no barriers obstructing competitors from entering the market then there can be no monopoly.
Here's a more competent definition from Deardorff's Glossary of International Economics:
Monopoly :A market structure in which there is a single seller.There are many other reputable websites, usually associated with the Economics Department of major universities, that offer similar definitions. The following comes from "AmosWeb", which is somewhat more thorough in its presentation:
MONOPOLY: A market structure characterized by a single seller of a unique product with no close substitutes. This is one of four basic market structures. The other three are perfect competition, oligopoly, and monopolistic competition. As the single seller of a unique good with no close substitutes, a monopoly firm essentially has no competition. The demand for a monopoly firm's output is THE market demand. This gives the firm extensive market control--the ability to control the price and/or quantity of the good sold--making a monopoly firm a price maker. However, while a monopoly can control the market price, it can not charge more than the maximum demand price that buyers are willing to pay.If you wish to discuss Economics, I would suggest enrolling in an entry-level course at your closest community college or junior college. You will benefit by learning both fundamental principles as well as proper use of terminology. Citing some antiquated lay definition out of Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary is ludicrous.
How do that get that advantage?
Seems obvious enough to me that lobbyists and special interest groups seeking to buy access to government power in order to gain unfair competitive advantages would be non existent if politicians weren't putting government power up for sale in the first place. They sell the "little guys" snake oil while they sell access to government power to their cronies.
Absence of competition is the very definition of a monopoly, regardless of any overt attempt to control the market by the single participant. You can get a clue from the word itself: "mono-", meaning "one".
According to your "logic", which I disagree with, Thomas Edison and every other inventor that took a never-before-seen product to market had a monopoly.
According to your definition of monopoly, if government outlawed monopolies there never would be newly invented or created products marketed.
Think First!
A Red Herring.
Monopoly :A market structure in which there is a single seller.
By this definition a patent-holder could be said to constitute a monopoly. But, the operative phrase in the definitions you supplied is market structure. Microsoft isn't a market structure and neither is a patent-holder. Since only the government has the power to forcibly structure the market only the government can create a monopoly. If the government throws up barriers which obstruct competition from offering alternatives then a monopoly exists. Otherwise it doesn't.
There are a dozen different definitions of "monopoly" all over the Internet. Each of them contain suttle differences. I'll stand by Noah Webster's definition.
If you wish to discuss Economics, I would suggest enrolling in an entry-level course at your closest community college or junior college. You will benefit by learning both fundamental principles as well as proper use of terminology.
Argumentum ad Hominem.
Citing some antiquated lay definition out of Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary is ludicrous.
Argumentum ad Novitam.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Monopoly, hmmmm. Who was it again that accused Microsoft of being a monopoly? Initially it was Microsoft's competitors (isn't this hypocritical in and of itself?), but someone took up the cause and made it a fedral case. Let's see... it was a very ugly woman, liked to burn people out of their homes, liked to send refugies back to dictatorships, covered up felonies by the president.... Thats it! Janet Reno!
The charge against Microsoft is what trigered the recession since the tech sector was driving the economy, and Microsoft was driving the tech sector.
There are other operating systems available, but few people want them. Prices have been dropping for decades, and the product has gotten better. This is the exact opposite of what happens with a monopoly. Microsoft and windows is what got computers into most homes by making computers understandable.
To continue to pursue this unholy crusade, started by the pyromaniac is to condemn our economy, our nation, and freedom!
MARK A SITY
Poppycock.
The bally-hooed high-tech sector was overinflated with flatulence.
Speculation squandered $-billions on dot-bombs that never had a chance of earning a penny of revenue.
It was an overhyped bubble primed for popping.
The computing power that cost five hundred dollars today cost a million dollars twenty years ago. 56
Silicon foundry economies of scale do not translate to equivalent numbers in software development. In fact, the increasingly complex nature of modern software if anything mitigates against a lower price for out-the-door software products.
I 'm glad you noticed. When I wrote the post I thought somebody would point that out.
If you go back and look at post 56 you'll see that I included the below paragraph that does make an accurate comparison of software. When I did the processing power/computing power that was for comparison to the overall computer industry and was addressed in post 56. And is reposted below as well.
The Windows OS integration and performance that cost a hundred dollars today would have cost thousands of dollars ten years ago. 56
There's no other industry that I know of that can touch those beyond-exponential increases in value. Fortunately, it's because the computer industry has had the least regulation foisted on it by politicians and bureaucrats -- parasitical elites versus market-driven hosts. 56
Your comment is accurate and at the same time it is inconsequential to the context of software comparison which I made in the below paragraph. The context of the hardware/processor comparison was to the computer industry which encompasses both hardware and software.
More important is the thrust of the post came to the conclusion as re-posted below.
Government intervention into peaceful, private activity -- free association wherein any or all parties are free to walk away -- will make things worse rather than better.56
Any government agency that is a value to the people and society could better serve the people by being in the private sector where competition demands maximum performance.56
Wake up! They are the parasites. We are the host. We don't need them. They need us.56
I assume you understood this. And that the only thing you had issue with was one of the sub-context. In other words, I responded to Knitebane in are wider-scope context which had the software comparison as a sub-context as was the hardware comparison a sub-context. And the major context was juxtaposition differentiating damage by government regulation in the computer industry and how with most other industries government has already trampled through.
Crime against humanity. LOL. The ICC is going to have a very fun future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.