Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: flatsville who wrote (102224)	5/15/2001 8:56:05 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

However, a natural monopoly isn't a permanent state of affairs. The "excess" money being made acts as an incentive for technological innovation - e.g., Microsoft has, or had, a de facto natural monopoly on operating systems, but is being challenged for dominance by innovators like Linux. Is the solution to break up Microsoft? Some, of course, say yes. We don't have decentralized, sustainable, alternative energy sources in large part because there is no economic incentive to develop them. Government regulation makes electricity generated by large monopolies too cheap to compete with. There's also no incentive to conserve energy. If you were able to take the long view, you'd be able to see what a mistake is being made. But not everyone is able to foresee the future, and those of us who can are doomed not to be believed. -g- Cassandra (Man has a history of exploiting energy sources until they are depleted - all the trees in England, all the trees in Africa, even whales, even mummies. After the pyramids were opened, mummies were used for fuel. We even want to burn all the coal under some of the most beautiful land in the West - so short-sighted. So human. -ng-)

To: flatsville who wrote (102224)	5/15/2001 9:39:31 AM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 436258

< regulation forces a company to take a longer term view of return on investment. > Yes, long term views & planning....like draining certain seas in Russia. ROFLMAO! Just what we need some long term Govermental planning! Is that the best the 'regulatos' can offer? DAK

To: flatsville who wrote (102224)	5/15/2001 10:09:42 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

flatsville--The key to any regulated system is INTELLIGENT regulation. And I also agree with Nobel laureate George Stigler, who argued that it is difficult or even impossible to have a regulated system that doesn't favor the companies under regulation, rather than the consumer. This is an important point that must be weighed by anyone considering regulation vs. deregulation. Stigler (a Univ. of Chicago economist) saw that under normal circumstances a regulatory commission would be useless because its members would likely favor the businesses most responsible for influencing their appointment. Thus, pricing of services, for example, would be set to give an advantage to the firm under regulation. This is one reason why Alfred Kahn, a Cornell professor who became well known for deregulating the airlines under President Carter, advocated deregulation, but with one proviso--it must be done in the public interest, as must regulation itself. To regulate or deregulate in the public interest can be done ONLY if those who are charged with the work represent the public and NOT particular business interests. Thus, the choice of who staffs an agency dealing with these problems becomes very important. Just look at the appointees to regulatory agencies, such as the EPA and the Dept. of Energy, and you will see why, regardless of whether you favor regulation or deregulation, the Administration is doing exactly the opposite of what it should be doing to ensure it acts in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Art