To: paul_philp who wrote (21798 ) 7/28/2002 7:09:57 PM From: Maurice Winn Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74559 Paul, another angle on the same idea is that the losses could have been avoided if great care and small incremental steps were taken. That's true, but it would have meant a much greater development time. When there's a gold rush on, it's no use being last. Or, as Jay crudely but precisely put it, if there's an orgy on, it's better to arrive early than late. But that's from the viewpoint of the entrepreneurs and profit-makers. I brought in the consumer surplus idea, which should be added in. By that I mean, if a person wants a cancer cure, they do NOT want to wait until 2010 for loss-free technology to be developed. If the cure costs only $1000 when developed, there is a $1 million benefit to the buyer and that is a huge loss if delays due to due process are excessive and too much attention is given to worrying about what might go wrong and the person dies in a couple of years due to the delay. Similarly, millions of people have enjoyed benefits from the telecosm and cyberspace who would not have had those benefits if due care and attention and no losses had been the approach. Freedom means people are free to make their choices, take the risks they like and while there are losses, and big losses when potential profits are vast, it's a great system and gets action fast. The Kremlin 5 year centrally-planned approach is hopeless by comparison. The infrastructure and trained people are all ready to go now. Software engineers are rehired to do profitable things but without inflationary salary pressures [due to there being a lot of them]. Fibre is filling. ASICs are roaring off the production lines: cdg.org The red hot revolution in technology and globalisation continues. Thanks to the quick and huge investment in the late 1990s, as you say. It's happened and it happened quickly. Better to have the goodies early, with bigger losses, than late and with fewer losses. Mqurice