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.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Windsock who wrote (241466)	9/29/2007 2:44:06 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

You seem to believe that the thoughts of one economics professor[...] You're wrong right off the bat. I've linked several times to the Wikipedia page for "Antitrust", (which, btw, redirects to the "Competition Law" page.) Let me post it for the third or fourth time now: en.wikipedia.org Do I really have to reproduce all of that content, which fully supports my assertion, here? Nevermind, I'll just assume you missed the link(s); but wbmw is willfully maintaining his ignorance. Despite you and wbmw not providing me the courtesy, I'll address your links: http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/hr5252-jud-req-20060501.pdf "The enhancement of consumer welfare is widely-regarded as a fundamental purpose of the antitrust laws." see page 1 (citing works by Robert Bork who has a tad more knowledge about the law than an MIT economics professor) This document supports my position. A) Compare the number of times "competition" is referenced in that document, vs. the number of times "consumers" are referenced. B) "a fundamental purpose", not "the fundamental purpose". Which is what I've been saying all along. WMBW is saying that antitrust laws are specifically designed to directly protect consumers. Message 23924218 He is wrong, and he's only arguing to support his pro-Intel stance. I'm not arguing from a pro-AMD stance, I'm only disputing his concept of antitrust law. The laws fundamentally protect competition. They are based on the theory that unimpeded competition is optimal, and conversely, when competition is impeded, the market is non-optimal (i.e. consumers are not getting the benefit of an optimized market.) http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000219-13.htm An extreme view for sure, but no more extreme than the sophomoric notion that your idea is the only correct position. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Extreme for sure, and factually incorrect from the get-go: "Antitrust laws purport to prevent monopolies and encourage competition. [...]" IMHO, your rebuttal has come up short. fpg