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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gao seng who wrote (221651)	1/24/2002 10:10:09 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Typical "Industrial Policy" initiative. The rich and politically connected reap the benefits, society in general gets screwed. It is inevitable when the government picks favorites.

To: gao seng who wrote (221651)	1/24/2002 10:52:47 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

gao, Is it likely that some bribes were used. YES. but the policy was bad. Three or four companies ended up with 90%. Not a monopoly of 1. A good monopoly of 1 would create the cheapest product and price. (msft the borg = evil bad monopoly O assimilated gao.) Having 3 or 4 means price competition and economy of scale that is good. Would have 10 20 50 competing companies give a better product or cheaper service. I think at some point more means higher pricing and not lower. Look how amd keeps Intel prices lower. In infrastructure services their is tremendous capitol equipment investment required. All attempt to manage competition are more likely just creating opportunities to create corruption and add cost. tom watson tosiwmee