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.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: derek cao who wrote (23550)	8/28/1998 6:12:00 PM
From: Katherine Derbyshire	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

>>Agree. But government intervention in my dictionary means set priority for individuals or companies and redistribute income. It is not rules or laws govern the exchange goods or money between them. I hope I made myself clear.<< I think your definition fails because, under it, one man's rule is another man's intervention: zoning laws, taxes, and environmental regulations, for starters, all depend on what chair you're sitting in. >>Agree. But without government's mandates cost, therer will be competitions soon or later. Do you agree? << No, I don't agree. If Standard Oil controls the oil coming out of the ground, the pipelines, the refineries, and the distribution to the customer, how exactly is competition supposed to get a toehold? Katherine

To: derek cao who wrote (23550)	8/28/1998 6:55:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 70976

Derek - Ok, I think we agree in principle, although not necessarily in detail. Of course debates between those who almost agree are often much more vicious than those between distant ideologues. Wanna duke it out? <g> Clark

To: derek cao who wrote (23550)	8/28/1998 11:24:00 PM
From: Chuck Williams	Respond to of 70976

To: derek cao who wrote (23550)	8/28/1998 11:40:00 PM
From: Chuck Williams	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

Kinda late to join the debate. I Got a real job, okay?? Must agree with Derek and have faith in humanity's creativity and drive for success. Who's to say that AT&T's "monopoly supported gouging" if left unfettered wouldn't have driven other brilliant minds to develop superior technology? Who knows. Maybe Cellular phones would have been developed years earlier, or people would have developed ways to bounce communication waves off of the stratosphere or resonated them through the earth's crust. Far out, I know, but just imagine the possibilities. Just thought of an "real life" example. Cable. Infrastructure is owned by a few who wouldn't share so what did the creative, competitive homo sapien do? Skip the coax and use satellites... Great. the consumer gets a choice and competition exists in the markets. Has this competition benefited the consumer? somewhat, I believe more to come. Free markets, with a free, creative, competitive society. Groovy. People talk about the greed of businesses and business owners and how regulation is necessary to keep them "honest" and prices manageable for the masses. I say god bless 'em. Let 'em get greedy and piss someone off just enough so they go out and create something better. It's happened before and it'll happen again. My .02, naive and unscholarly as it may be. Agree. But without government's mandates cost, therer will be competitions soon or later. Do you agree?