>>>Well, I don't know what the Congress was thinking when it passed the antitrust laws. ;)<<<
If you are putting up all this argument without having read the history, shame on you. If you have read it but refuse to admit the truth, then you're a lawyer. (OK, just kidding. But I can't believe you haven't read the history of antitrust, given all the references you've posted.)
The original intent of antitrust was to rein in the power of those who often were known as 'Barons' because their private power had assumed the form of feudalism within their domains.
>>>But, seriously, if you go back and read "The Antitrust Paradox," you will see that Bork lays out in very meticulous detail why he thinks<<<
Could care less about Bork. Not one of my heros. Him being on my side on this only serves to make me re-examine my arguments in more detail.
>>>Well, here I have to disagree with you. The government is singularly incompetent when it comes to micro-managing the economy, or predicting the future course of the evolution of technology and markets.<<<
Yet that is what you are trying to do. Micromanagement has a bad name, but only the naive would imagine that at least macro-management is not required. The macro case says that the best simple strategy is to break up every monopoly and support competition in every field of endeavor. No exceptions. You are saying that the details are very important, not me. You want exceptions, based on the fine points of the situation. That is picking winners. That is micromanagement.
>>>And I'm saying that getting "honest law enforcement" as you call it is a lot harder than it seems. It's not that law enforcement is dishonest or corrupt, it's just that any time you set up a regulatory agency to act as a watchdog over some indusrty, that agency is going to get captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate. It's going to happen every single time. It's impossible to avoid.<<<
This happens because politicians take money from businessmen. No other reason. That is not a subtle cause. If you say it can't be cured by reasonable means then you are making an argument for revolution. Personally, I don't believe things have gotten that bad, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you would say you can't make democracy work?
>>>So I say, let's leave the scoundrels alone as long as they are not hurting anyone <<<
There's no question that monopolies are hurting someone. Usually a lot of someones.
>>>Government solved the problem of monopoly? Then why is it suing Microsoft?<<<
I think you should go back and read my paragraph again, if that is what you got out of it. (Geez, this is just like arguing with a lawyer. A nice challenge. ;-) (Yesterday, a lawyer at the coffeehouse where I was working on a program argued with me over the choice of radio station, which I wanted to change. He had to take the position that Wayne Newton singing 'Strangers in the Night' was classic jazz. We both ended up laughing.)
>>>Well, if you are against the market, and against regulation, what are you in favor of?<<<
Pardon me if I say that as a person who has spent most of his life since the age of 11 involved in running some kind of business, never mind how small time, I am not anti-business. Just anti those folks who would like to put me, and those like me, out of business.
It is a bit silly to accept the idea of a monopoly and then talk about markets. When you have a monopoly there is no market. I am pro free market and often pro regulation, something that antitrust occasionally makes simultaneously possible as a concept, but more often it depends on the situation which is better. I would prefer some regulation of automobile safety for instance, while preferring a completely free market in the production of oil paintings. This is not a contradiction.
You say that industry always wins in these regulated situations, and I would say they often do. If you understand the lesson of Yin and Yang you realize that by definition good versus evil is always a close match. And eternal, too. But there are times when one side gets a lot of licks in, and times when the other side does.
Lots of regulators get undermined. For instance, I used to check the effluent ponds at timber companies for illegal, poisonous releases into the rivers. Since they had bribed the local politicians, I was required to give 15 minutes notice before I showed up, to give them time to turn on their pollution prevention equipment, if they had turned it off to save money or for convenience. After I left, they would dump into the river, turn off the aerators, and so on. Well, the environment has continued downhill since those days, particularly the water, after a brief respite. I am well aware that industries end up owning the regulators more often than not. (In fact the reason the EPA was created was to gut the state EQ efforts that were far more effective and aggressive. The EPA is a great example of what you are talking about.)
On the other hand, most of the world's cities now have at least some sewage treatment. The gas mileage of cars has tripled, under the influence of regulation. People are aware enough of some of the dangers to protect themselves somewhat. We don't allow lead pipes or paint anymore. We have slowed the use of clorofluorocarbons
On the third hand, at the current rate of destruction, we will have killed over 50% of the world's species by the year 2050. Not to mention it's getting rather overheated. We are making improvements, but we are not winning that one.
When you say it's hard, I say so is much else it's important to work on. You get used to that.
(Well, wasn't that high-minded. I'm not really sure it's effective to fight the fight with this kind of wordy ideological attack. However, it's what we do here. I think I'm going to give it up soon, and go back to writing for paper pubs when I have the itch. After you guys I think I could handle any editor ever made ;-)
Have a nice day,
Chaz |
