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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (22463)	1/23/1999 12:48:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Gerald, I wonder if you'd like to comment on another economist's view I brought up a while back in Message 7096978 . This one being Robert Hall of cheap suit fame, also a 3rd cousin of mine who taught my high school physics class. Actually, this one is a Hoover Institute economist. As ever, I won't judge the details of the economic policy argument, which quickly get into political philosophy issues at this level. Way too esoteric for hearts and minds guy. I will extract just a couple points from the summary of Hall's paper at netecon.com, though, to maybe stimulate discussion. (full paper at netecon.com The government must prove five elements to prevail in this challenge: (1) there is a distinct relevant market for the desktop operating system, (2) Microsoft has monopoly power there, (3) Microsoft's exclusionary conduct has a dangerous probability of keeping rivals out of the operating system market, (4) the conduct is not justified by efficiency considerations, and (5) the conduct has caused substantial harm to the consumer. This sounds like a pretty serious burden, though not insurmountable. On the dreaded "harm to consumers" issue, my line, as ever, is that maybe the consumers would like an OS that sucks less. Also, maybe they'd like to have a chance to have some say in what products succeed and fail, rather than relying on Bill to kill what's "bad for consumers" before it hits the market. The Netscape-AOL merger would generally be in the consumer's interest, but it has no prospect for weakening Microsoft's grip on the desktop. Right, I never understood the Microsoft defense line on that one. Another one of those context things I think.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (22463)	1/25/1999 5:49:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

<< Political freedom and economic freedom cannot be separated; they are two sides of the same coin. >> This is simple overstatement. In China, as in other countries, for instance Mexico, you have substantial economic freedom combined with near total lack of political and legal freedom. << As regulations beget more regulations, substantial restrictions on economic freedom will, eventually, result in a reduction in political freedom. >> In Scandinavia and much of Europe, there is nearly complete technical systems and commercial regulation with near total political freedom. They did overdo it, but that's an adjustment to make, not a systems failure. Now that those adjustments have been made, BTW, the economic right has been voted out there. ------------------------ There is no empirical evidence for this position. Neither the economy nor political empowerment flourish in the absence of rules. The old west and other frontiers might seem to have to provided a counterexample or two, but that frontier situation is usually one of redistributing what has been taken from others, or in any event having found some great new resource that may be distributed to the first comer, not to established economies or societies. Not only that, but the frontier normally provides great examples of the failure of political rights and legal rights, as in the growth of banditry and vigilanteeism. Of course I realise that you did not present the frontier as an example of where your principle might have proven true in practice. I present it myself, because I believe that illusions retained from our frontier days are the source of much unrealistic american populist ideology, which is where this idea comes from. The Americqan right likes to confuse their ideology with business realism, but I think that Ross Perot amply demonstrated some time ago that the hands off model of the right does not in fact run the economy as well as the regulators of the middle and left, the last few years being a great demonstration of that, but also the 1950's, the 60's, 1929. Chaz