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: Elmer Phud who wrote (259508)	4/7/2009 12:53:14 AM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Now fpg, we were doing so well and now you have to go and misrepresent my position again. How so? Below you affirm everything I said about your position. Protecting competition is good as long and it benefits consumers, which is it's real intention. "B) His insistence that the only goal of antitrust law is to protect consumers." Check. And yes, if there can not be shown to be any harm to consumers then protecting competition for it's own sake will reward incompetence when it can not be shown that failure is the result of an abusive monopoly. Now you weasel out of your previous statements by adding the condition, "when it can not be shown that failure is the result of an abusive monopoly." Your assertions about what happens outside the scope of abusive monopolies are irrelevant in a discussion about antitrust laws, which protect the market from abusive monopolies. Duh. Furthermore, an abusive monopoly is not measured solely by the failure of it's competitor. Who has claimed that? Abusive monopolies are not measured solely by harm to consumers either. One last thing, competition has not necessarily failed because a competitor has. Who has claimed that? It may be proof that competition works. Your idea of competition would be a baseball game that never ends but is forever in extra innings. Sometimes someone wins and someone else loses. That is not what my idea of competition is, and I have no idea how you can describe my position as such. I fully appreciate that businesses may fail vs. stronger competitors. I have repeatedly stated my opinion that antitrust laws only protect consumers and competitors indirectly by keeping the competitive playing field level, a position supported by the USDOJ Antitrust Agency. There is no mechanism beyond the protection of the process of competition that a competitor can use to seek relief from an abusive monopoly... If there is no abuse, there is no possibility of relief. fpg