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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: miraje who wrote (8699)	6/26/1998 6:47:00 PM
From: Ibexx	Respond to of 74651

Thread, The following are excerpts taken from Closing Market Commentary by Larry Wachtel of Prudential Securities: "The NASDAQ was goosed by gains in Microsoft, Cisco Systems and Intel. Microsoft continued in the spotlight as Windows 98 met with a good reception, while Cisco improved after Morgan Stanley raised the target price from 90 to 110. An estimated 5.3 billion flowed into equity funds in the week ended Wednesday, which was up from 2.8 billion a week earlier, according to Trim Tabs Financial Services, which tracks fund flows. Ibexx

To: miraje who wrote (8699)	6/26/1998 9:41:00 PM
From: Hal Rubel	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 74651

The Maintenance of Free Markets Under Libertarianism RE:"Libertarians trust the free market to correct itself, including so called "abusive" monopolies. Mandated and regulated monopolies, such as the old AT&T, are a whole nother story." I know you don't think you are talking double-talk, but I have to ask: 1) Are monopoly markets free markets? Do Libertarians actually believe monopoly markets are fully functioning free markets capable of righting themselves in short, intermediate, and long term time periods with no looting of the public's pockets in the meantime? 2) What remedies do Libertarians advocate if the abuse of the "abusive" monopoly is to effectively limit the entry of competitors into the market? None?! 3) By exempting a monopoly from anti-trust law enforcement coverage to some degree, isn't that the same as legally mandating a monopoly to that same degree? So, what is the Libertarian "nother story" on mandated monopolies? 4) Are Libertarians comfortable with a corporate citizen using a monopoly in one market to mandate a monopoly in another market thus avoiding having to compete for it? 5) Do Libertarians actually believe a mandated monopoly can credibly defend its success as being solely based on superior product or marketing? 6) How liberal are Libertarians on collusion, exclusionary contracts, price-fixing, and combinations in restraint of trade? Are these things to be considered crimes or just passing fluctuations in market conditions? 7) Do Libertarians believe consumers are entitled to the remedy of collecting damages in a court of equity if they have been grievously injured by an abuse of monopoly power? If not, just who gets to keep the loot? Please remember, most of us out here are not Libertarians. So, Libertarian self-evident truths are not quite self-evident to the rest of us. I fully understand the idea of not acting when no action is necessary, especially in a self-regulating environment. (Example: natural price fluctuations in response to market conditions.) But, I do not understand what actions, if any, Libertarians think should be taken when the self-regulation of an environment has been subverted for illegal gain. Where do Libertarians draw the line? Will Libertarians intervene to defend the freedom of their so called "free markets" under any conceivable circumstance? I suspect not. I do hope Libertarianism is not just a one-trick pony. Libertarians are famous for what they won't do. But as a political party that's so fuzzy on the specifics of critical issues and so completely unprepared to act decisively in the public interest as needed, Libertarians may not be relevant enough to attain public office, thus eventually rendering themselves extinct. What Libertarianism May Come Down to: A) Restraint from regulating what is self-regulating is quite admirable. B) Realizing that all things are self-regulating in the long run is very perceptive. C) However, fanaticizing that everything is self-regulating in the here and now and ignoring the hurt and harm just won't cut it. Sorry. Rules and governments to enforce them seem necessary evils in the real world. Which brings us back to Microsoft's and its true and proper place in society. Hal PS: This is a facetious, but not totally facetious, question: Does going long on Microsoft shares automatically make one a raging Libertarian? :-)