"providing small businesses with tax incentives for buying broadband equipment and services"
Bad one. If broadband offerings are serving a need then businesses will invest anyway, without any tax incentive.
True but they would invest more with incentive.
If the services are useless it's a misdirection of funds.
How?
It's hard to believe that Grove is not aware of this argument.
Let's hear you make it.
Is Intel's situation getting desperate? I am reminded of Chamber's plea to lower interest rates.
The Wintel Axis has saturated its market. They bagged themselves by becoming too large and dominant. The government didn't need to interfere to stop them. Why not let the inherent inefficiency of large take its toll naturally? The reason is that most are poorly educated in the best B schools and so have no idea how business or economy works. They think big controls its destiny. They make this claim in spite of the evidence that all big goes bust without exception. Not even PG can resist the forces of destruction.
allowing Baby Bells to dominate their respective markets
Why not? Why should public institutions think about "allowing" or not at all?
They don't, but you aren't going to convince socialists, Democrats, and anyone anywhere near the left wing that that is the case. American tradition requires that institutions are regarded as intrinsically evil, that is, as long the institution isn't the one that pays you. It must be clear that there are two regimes that are working concurrently. There's the reality and then there's the make believe which arbitrarily disturbs the reality and pulls everyone down so that one fool can feel good.
Grove's viewpoint appears to coincide with that of those backing the controversial Tauzin-Dingell telecommunications bill, which allows for the Baby Bells to enter the nationwide high-speed Internet market without having to provide competitors with access to their local markets.
Go Tauzin - Dingell. I'm betting on it.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996, supposed to provide fairness, has created so much justice that another round of fair policy is required.
The Act was a creation of socialists. How can it do anything but create chaos in which the natural functioning of the free market prevails? This is happening now. I love it. So does Quasar I.
Hurley [program manager of e-networks and broadband access for the Boston, Massachusetts-based consulting firm Yankee Group] told NewsFactor that relaxing the strictures of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is not necessarily the best idea.
Said Hurley: "As the regulations [of the 1996 Act] enter the adolescent stage of application, the landscape at this time may give benefits back to the incumbents," even though the act was designed to prevent just that kind of dominance.
He's confused. That's part of the chaos that provides the intrinsic fairness of the dog-eat-dog of the free market. When its wild in the streets that's the only time that you will be free and be treated fairly. The socialists claim that means you will be treated roughly. Then you had better learn to be rough yourself. |
