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 : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Scott who wrote (2439)	7/12/1998 12:35:00 PM
From: Terrapin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

Or sticking with the 2 pizza parlors: What if they collude to fix the prices of their pizzas (assuming the consumer does not have a third choice). In this way competition is avoided and the consumer suffers. This is the false market because it creates a shadow monopoly over the consumer. Big Oil is known for these practices. While I find these discussions a wonderful addition to this thread I am not sure how it actually relates to the merger of T and TCOMA. The government has indicated that the merger will face a favorable review and will likely go forward. The RBOCs are pursuing redress for their grievances which is their Constitutional right and I'm sure receives the blessings of their shareholder's. They will pursue every legal avenue to protect their monopoly and it may add time to the implementation of the merger but that is the price we pay for our systems of justice and government and what I believe to be the most competitive markets in the world (my opinion and I welcome correction). This competition has been fostered by an anti-trust department that is probably the only part of the government that still looks out for the consumer (OK, I may be stretching it a bit here :) ). I understand ahhaha's point that competition is inherently unfair because it is the goal of every company to become a monopoly in its market; not to peacefully coexist with its competitors. Therefore a company will seek out every advantage and exploit it to their benefit. However, the definition of the word unfair does not apply to that scenario. If the first pizza parlor develops a tastier sauce and gains market share - that is fair. If the second pizza parlor goes across the street and throws a trash can through their window - that is unfair. The second pizza parlor has prevented the consumer from equal access to a competitor's product thus creating a temporary monopoly. The only thing this merger does is create competition and so, in the end, it will prevail.

To: Robert Scott who wrote (2439)	7/12/1998 1:00:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 29970

You are unfairly competing with my claim. If one of the pizza parlor's boss takes a gun and goes over to the other pizza parlor, kills all the employees, the first parlor can still operate whereas the second can't. The second now has an operating advantage though their boss is in jail. You can't say the second has engaged in "unfair competition", when the second actually has only engaged in an illegal action regardless of whether it had economic consequences for the first. You say unethical action constitutes unfair competition and you say one parlor may do better because it provides a better product. Everything I have said entails the assertion that unethical is equivalent to provides a better product. That is the assertion made by government and university professors. They look at it from the view that when you work harder you force others to work harder to keep up. They might not be able to do that. Thus you are threatening their very existence. So governments feel they must pass laws to prevent you from excelling in order to protect the weak. Aren't they justified in so doing? The nature of improvement implies the destruction of what is inefficient or what is being improved. Consider all the people thrown out of employment when the buggy whips industry collapsed. Congress should have passed a law outlawing such change. Think of the suffering of those who dedicated their lives to making good whips suddenly being thrown to the dogs by an uncaring, unethical world. It's unfair. Four years ago before MSFT was deemed unethical their competitors took the attitude that MSFT had nothing. They were a toy computer OS manufacturer. As MSFT got larger and more successful even though they piled junk on top of junk, their competitors didn't respond. At that time they had an attitude problem of hubris and indifference. IBM, AAPL, SUNW, and many others were only interested in what MSFT could do for them as far as selling their stuff. They simply conceded the OS to MSFT because none of them could conceive that the PC would become a vast market. They all have benefited by whatever MSFT had done. It has only been since the advent of the NSCP browser that MSFT has been considered to be the evil monopolist practicing "unfair competition", though NSCP still has a larger market share. A lousy product can become successful if there is no competition. If competitors don't wish to compete does that mean the junk product manufacturer has engaged in unethical action? If the public doesn't choose to buy a competing product like IBM's OS2 for whatever reason, does that mean MSFT has engaged in "unfair competition"? Everyone cries for standards. If you have a competitive market it is difficult to create standards. If one company dominates, it is easy to standardize. Standards tend to retain an environment of imitation and slow product development whereas the alternative means faster product evolution but with more pain for everyone. There is a trade-off between the two. Something presumably desirable, standards, can be quite undesirable in practice especially if government creates laws enforcing the standards fixing product definition to the detriment of competitive innovation. Government inadvertently selects winners and losers in their zeal for fairness. The winners become protected and continue to generate antiquated fixed products which don't meet the changing needs of people. They make the market unfair. Does that sound like the telcom market? The point I'm trying to make is that authorities like government shouldn't get involved in deciding who are the winners and losers in the unethical Darwinian struggle to excel. Government has the responsibility to make sure the game is played under the rules of law. They have no business creating laws that misallocate resources by structuring the content of the game. The rules have to be flexible even if that means someone is going to get hurt. The alternative is and always has been that to protect a few from an unclear pain, interference precipitates pain clearly and on many.