Linked by Dmitrij D. Czarkoff on Fri 31st Aug 2007 08:54 UTC
Editorial This article is an answer to "Competition Is Not Good" by Kroc and reading it wouldn't be comfortable without switching to and from the original article. I wrote it just because I do strongly disagree with Kroc and I believe I can prove that he is not as close to truth as it may seem from the first glance.
Thread beginning with comment 267313
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I agree
by SReilly on Fri 31st Aug 2007 11:06 UTC in reply to "I agree"
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

Agreed. What you are saying is very much what I have been hearing from economists for years now. Government regulation of markets and businesses is a must for a healthy economy.

Often, I hear the free market and free market economics hailed as the bastion of freedom when, time and again, a truly free market has been proven to limit customer choice. One good example of this is that without intervention, we would have more monopolies.

In fact, the deregulation of markets has often proven to be detrimental to the market itself. Take WorldCom and Enron as two prominent examples. Also, most of the worst stock market hiccups and crashes have been the direct result of nonregulation/deregulation.

Competition is, IMO, healthy but true competition is only possible when all parties are made to play fair.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: I agree
by ddc_ on Fri 31st Aug 2007 11:47 in reply to "RE: I agree"
ddc_ Member since:
2006-12-05

That's just one school of economics, while other exist. The monopoly is not as bad as it is considered untill there's some unbreakable way to force competitors to shut down. In software there is such a way: copyright. In hardware no such barrier exists, so monopoly is just no bad thing. See the PC processor market history for example.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: I agree
by SReilly on Fri 31st Aug 2007 14:29 in reply to "RE[2]: I agree"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

See the PC processor market history for example.


I'm afraid that the PC processor market is a prime example of what happens when there is competition involved. If it where not for AMD, Intel would have no reason to push they're x86 design forward.

Take the Itanic (Itanium) mess. It's a prime example of a company which thought that the world would follow it's lead no matter what it did. AMD brought out the x86-64bit extensions which proved so popular that Intel had to follow suit.

If Intel where the sold manufacturer of x86 processors, all 64 bit PCs today would be running Itanium.

There is no monopoly in the x86 processor market and there hasn't been in a while.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I agree
by dylansmrjones on Fri 31st Aug 2007 12:05 in reply to "RE: I agree"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Government regulation of markets and businesses is a must for a healthy economy.


Negative. That is definitely what the healthy economy does NOT need. Government regulation is the situation to day and we don't have healthy economies.

Healthy economy can only become reality through the absence of government regulation. Government regulation is the reason why software patents exist. Government regulation upsets the market and creates instability and stagnation, followed with regression and ever-increasing national debt and inflation. Politicians don't understand the market and therefore should not intervene. Intervention is bad.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: I agree
by SReilly on Fri 31st Aug 2007 13:31 in reply to "RE[2]: I agree"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

I'm afraid that, considering the fact that most world economies are capitalist, regulation is a must. You state that regulation creates instability but have not provided any proof to back up your statement. If fact, any economics will point out quite clearly that exactly the opposite of your statement is true.

Just look at the Wall Street crash of 1929. Because of unregulated trading, millions of people lost they're life saving not to mention that it worsened an already terrible situation, namely the Great Depression.

More recent examples are WorldCom and Enron. Both companies where working in recently deregulated industries and anybody can tell you what happened there in more detail than this post allows for.

The evidence to back up my claim is common knowledge. Just because you don't believe in regulation does not mean it's not vital in a capitalist society.

To think otherwise has proven to be extremely detrimental to economies the world over, not to mention stupid.

Reply Parent Score: 2