SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PMG who wrote (7029)8/13/2001 9:44:28 AM
From: smolejv@gmx.net  Respond to of 74559
 
Good stuff, PMG & elmatador.

[off the air to spare the bandwidth g]

dj



To: PMG who wrote (7029)8/13/2001 10:35:55 AM
From: Don Lloyd  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 74559
 
PMG -

>i>According to industrial economic theory there is one and only one economic condition where a monopoly adds more to welfare (w), defined as "producers' rent"(pr) + "consumers rent'"(cr). (I hope the English terms are correctly chosen or understandable).
Ok, the economically optimal goal is: w=pr+cr -> max ...

What makes this nonsense in the real world is that in general almost all consumers are also producers and investors as well. The proper use of competition is to determine which producer shall be the monopoly producer for a given product as it makes the most economizing use of available resources at available prices. The existence of a monopoly producer simply means that actual competition is restricted to the discouragement of production entry of potential competitors and responding to consumer price/demand preferences between all available products and services, not demanding an artificial production competition which ties up and consumes labor and other resources in futile and unprofitable efforts. All prices are ultimately determined by the consumer as he exercises his ability to choose what and how much, if any, of a given product or service to buy at what price.

Every product or service whose price and total revenue are driven towards zero by artificial competition loses its ability to contribute to the economy by employing labor and producing profits and the resulting new investment.

Regards, Don



To: PMG who wrote (7029)8/13/2001 10:36:13 AM
From: elmatador  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 74559
 
The theory is perfect. But in practice the theory is another one:

Let everyone pirate our software until there are 10 million people out there that knows how to use it. Can spread by word of mouth the benefits and do the marketing for us. Pretty soon we have a standard product while all those Lotus and VisiCalc that are trying to sell their stuff go out of business. Bu then -and only then- you can extract the profits. We have Office 97 and sent a document produced created with it to our client, that had Office 2000. And then there is a chart or drawing or whatever that it will not appear or print and our client gets pissed with us. So we go and buy an upgrade for Office 2.000.

But if flash back to the beginning of this thing it was pirating that created a standard and got the competition squeezed. But lots of people benefited from the product. Compare the with TV: NTSC, SECAM, PAL.

If you had the only single fax machine in this planet how much was it worth? Nothing. Because you couldn't fax to anyone. But the more fax machines you have out there the more valuable your fax machine is. The problem with economics is that it is a province of Austrians and Scotsmen. Because of those countries' limited resources the theory of economics are based on scarcity. Now that we have economies that do not depend on mass, (limited) but on knowledge (plenty) it can't apply.

I think MSFT as a one-stop shop. As a good software integrator. Look the damage done to the wireless industry balkanisation: EPOC, Symbian and Palm OS. Where are the terminals for 3G? Nowhere to be seen. Because no one wants to hand over this market to WindowsCE. I am here waiting to see how the OS for 3G mobiles will be handled.