Re: Microsoft takes on ACT

[Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org>]

On Fri, 24 May 2002 10:31:01 -0400, Marin David Condic wrote:
>>
>> What is a totally free market? Looking at the "Free" Markets today one
> 
> There is no such thing as a "totally free market" and I doubt there ever has
> been. There are always some parts of any economy that are what is called
> "command economy". (Police protection, fire protection, public libraries,
> etc. are all examples of "command" aspects of the economy.)

What has this to do with the "market" being free or not. You can also
add: Schools, army, hospitals etc... It depends in which country you
are. American hospitals are private (at least most) but as I recall they
are not at all cost effiecient compared to hospitals in other countries
where this service is in the "command economy" sector.

>> see that companies gets bigger and bigger and fewer and fewer. I think
> 
> Not at all true. Actually, quite the opposite. "Free" markets are for the
> most part driven by small businesses. Generally, the less they tend towards
> "Command" economies, the easier it is for small businesses to start up, gain
> a toe hold and  become successful. The more an economy tends towards a
> "Command" economy, the more it tends to breed large, inefficient,
> politically driven and unaccountable organizations to deliver goods and
> services.

Ok you are discussion something else. I have not said anywhere that one
shouldn't have a free market I was just commenting on some of its flaws.
But it is quite typical that if one do this one gets stamped as being on
the other side. I don't understand why.

>> been a company, Microsoft would have bought it and dismantled it in
>> order to keep its place. Now they try by spreading FUD.
>>
> You may be right if Linux had been a closed source, proprietary thing.
> However, Linux *could* have been a company and *still* been in a position to
> threaten Microsoft. ACT is a company and they build GNAT for fun and profit,
> yet it is still open source and of some potential threat to Microsoft.

Look at the history of f.ex M$ and you will see that they have bought a
lot of companies to keep its position. You can start with Corel. 
>>
>> The Free Market revolves around the survival of the fittest which means
>> you will always get large companies dominating and smaller companies
> 
> Not at all true. Sure, there is a tendency for successful companies to get
> more successful, but there is also a tendency for large companies to get
> "too large" for their own good & they are easily beaten by smaller, more
> agile companies. History is repleat with examples. IBM? Where did Compaq,
> Dell and Gateway get the idea they could ever kick IBM's butt when they were
> just little guys starting out in garages?

But this is survival of the fittest. The bigger companies gets bigger
and bigger and then they may fall over if/when they get too static.

>> trying to grow up to overturn the "leader". The problem is that the
>> bigger companies won't play fair. The advantage smaller comanies may
> 
> Where does it say on the admission ticket that existence is "fair"? :-)

It is the foundation of Free market.

> Markets work. I'm not against some regulation by government to make sure
> that companies don't do bad things - like pollute Lake Erie or lie to their
> investors. However, you really have a kind of a line on which to choose from
> as to how you want to distribute goods and services:
> 
> {Totally-Free-Market}.........................................{Total Command
> Economy}
> 
> You have to pick where on that line you want to fall. Hint: The closer
> people have come to the right-hand-side, the more they have generated
> poverty, oppression and failure. :-)

Actually that is not true at all. The closer you get to either side of
your line the more poverty and class distinction you will find. I
visited Denver for a conference and in one week I was begged for money
more times than in other west European country. 

No I believe more in a balanced point somewhere on this line.

Preben