My $2 on the Microsoft Issue (856 hits)
Category: Politics -> LibertariansRating: 1.1 on 13 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <ddas85.at.optonline.net> (View user info) at 2003-12-10 14:50:45 EST
A lot of people hate Microsoft, and Bill Gates in particular, with the fire of a thousand suns. Now, I hate a guy with 100 million times as much money as me as much as the next guy, but are we really justified?
Theres really nothing wrong with an imbalance of wealth. I kinda agree with John Rawls in A Theory of Justice. Rawls states that an imbalance of wealth is permissible if everyone in society benefits. So, if one person makes an invention that benefits everyone, it is all right for that person to recieve compensation for it. The money that the inventor recieves is a necessary incentive, because most people would not spend the hard work of inventing something for no reason. Even if Gates himself did not invent the operating system, he still deserves what he has because he worked hard to promote and distribute the technology. Inventing something requires more than just brainpower. You need money, bravery, and persistence. An invention does no good to society if it just sits in your garage.
Also, we live in a market economy. Capitalism has been around for hundreds of years now, and no one can deny that we, as a society, are fairly well off today. Conventional economic wisdom states that in order for capitalism to work, government should interfere as little as possible. The market has automatic checks and balances, and when left to its own devices, the market WILL allocate resources in the most efficient manner. Heres an example of how government meddling in economic affairs can be a bad thing: http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=1066233230797314290. But is this always true? Is government intervention always a bad thing? What should be done in the case of monopolies?
I think that this has to be decided on a case to case basis. Monopolies are not inherently bad. In the 'ideal' market system, a monopoly means one of two things: the product that the company produces is so high quality, others can not compete, or that the customer base is too small to support another company. In either case, society as a whole benefits, because in situation A, we are getting high quality product, and in situation B, the product is not being over-produced, resources are not being wasted. An example of a 'good monopoly' would be Starbucks. (I know, theyre not really a monopoly). They produce high quality coffee, and as long as they continue to do so, they can take over as many stores in the mall as they want. Also, other cafes can still compete with them by offering a lower cost alternative.
Microsoft, however, is different. There are about 700 million pcs out there. (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1210067,00.asp). About 70 million of them are Mac, and about 18 million are Linux. (http://counter.li.org/). This means Microsoft has about 88% of the very large personal computer market. It's gotten to the point where good programmers have to either work for Microsoft, or make a new version of Linux for 0 money. It's almost impossible for an innovator to create a new OS because Microsoft has deals with all the major computer manufacturers, and most of the software is written with Windows in mind. This hurts society as a whole. Every Windows operating system from Windows 95 on have been crap. Windows XP is pretty good, but why has it taken 6 years for them to finally produce a decent OS? Imagine how much sooner we could have had a good, non-crashing operating system if microsoft actually had some competition.
This brings us to the question: Is it OK for a government to 'bust' a monopoly, even if that monopoly was acquired legitimately? Answer: absolutely. Monopolies are good if they stay in power by offering the best product. Microsoft obviously does not do that. The interests of 700 million computer users are more important than the interests of Mr. Bill Gates. Let him walk off with his billions of dollars, and open up the market to some competition.
User Reviews
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-12-10 16:45:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Ah but Dell has competition. In the absence of competition, the quality of the product would drop off and the price would increase. It's the competition that drive innovation and is a catalyst for capitalism. Without that competition, there is no reason to improve.
Submitted by jinx (user info) at 2003-12-10 16:38:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Ah yes...INFLATION..now I see.
Submitted by glam_daddy (user info) at 2003-12-10 16:28:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
number 1 reason to hate bill gates: windows computers suck
I have a mac. I run OSX (ten) its based on unix. Havent crashed in 2 years (2 years ago i installed OSX).
Furthermore I have never had a virus. Not a single one. When thos worms came out I just laughed.
bill gates is a chump.
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2003-12-10 16:14:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I read the stuff about wal-mart. i agree that walmart is a 'bad' monopoly, since they are using their power and large amount of capital specifically to drive out competition, not improve the products or services they offer. The same thing recently happened with a new Home Depot that opened near me: low prices for the first few months, then high prices once all the hardware stores are gone. But not all monopolies get that way because of unfair business practices like this. Dell has a huge share of the pc market because they offer good, customizable systems and easy online ordering.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-12-10 15:58:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, how about this for an example. Wal-mart is not a monopoly in the strictest sense of the word but they engage in business practices that pretty much illustrate the dangers of a monopoly. For example, my family is from a town the size of a postage stamp in eastern Texas. It's mostly cattle country which is an odd coincidence since most of my family is in the business of cattle ranching. When I was a kid, there were quite a few small, ok I'll pull the trigger on "quaint" little shops. I used to love going into town and running around the downtown area. There were hat shops, boot shops, book stores, music stores, antique shops, and most importantly a fudge shop. The last time I was there all of that was gone an in it's place was a Wal-mart super center. I heard that all the people who used to own those shops are now working in Wal-mart for the whopping pay of $7 an hour.
After that, I started digging into the phenomena that is Wal-mart and found out that this is not all that uncommon. They open a store, run the small businesses out, and then jack prices back up. They exert enormous pressure on their supplies to cut costs because their major push is that they are low-cost. A huge expense that can be controlled is payroll. The LA Times did a series of articles not too long ago that detailed how they stiff arm suppliers. They profiled a woman working in one of the plants that supplies clothing to wally world who is making $35 a week and the plant she works for is getting additional pressure to cut costs even more.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-walmart-sg,1,1534896.storygallery
(if you don't want to register, my user id is loki-dan and my password is sexgoddess)
A couple of years ago, they had a series of commercials that were all gung ho buy America. One of the plants they had in the commercials had been shut down for two years because Wal-mart decided to use an overseas plant in order to save costs. Two years and they were still running the commercial.
I'm just using Wal-mart because I know the most about them. This is the type of thing that you get when you allow monopolies. If they had any real competition, they would not have that much power over the suppliers or the downward pressure on wages.
Never underestimate the power of greed.
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2003-12-10 15:36:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd be interested in hearing why, but if you have to dig through mountains of old notebooks don't bother. I believe that a monopoly does not interfere with the flow of capitalism as long as other companies actually have a chance to compete.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-12-10 15:25:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
<groan>
I'm having flashbacks to Econ 101. There is a difference between making a decent profit and fleecing people. Monopolies are inherently bad because they disrupt the free flow of capitalism and are in fact counter to the principles of capitalism. If you really want to get into it, I can shoo away, look a few things up and come back here. It pains me to do so though.
</groan>
Submitted by The.Masked.Assailant (user info) at 2003-12-10 15:19:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
this post made my ball itch; good job!
Submitted by Phinch (user info) at 2003-12-10 15:19:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
well written.
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2003-12-10 15:15:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
jinx: inflation, dude.
grizzly: i'm not a fan of communism/socialism either, but a monopoly can be just as destructive to the free market system as an oppressive government. Imagine a company that aggressively destroyed all competition. That would undermine the market system, and it would be bad for society as a whole.
Submitted by lucid (user info) at 2003-12-10 15:11:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Do I care if Bill Gates has billions? Hell no. If he doubles his wealth, quite frankly, so would I.
I don't want the government going near this company. Their stock is looking really good right now and being the greedy capitolist that I am I don't want some penguin loving, broke dick peddler of 3rd rate software developed by hacks in their basement messing up my plans to buy a new boat next summer.
Submitted by GrizzlyHunter62 (user info) at 2003-12-10 15:09:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I have an iBook. Do you know how hard it is to find a good video game for the Mac? EA Sports doesn't even make Mac-compatible games! Fuckers.
I don't know...monopolies are bad, but that's what the market dictates.....is it right for the government to interfere with business? That sounds communist/socialist to me.
AND I'D RATHER BE DEAD THAN RED!
Submitted by jinx (user info) at 2003-12-10 15:07:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Isn't it 2 cents ? $.2?
I'm just sayin'.....