Linked by David Adams on Wed 29th Oct 2008 20:55 UTC, submitted by Geir Johasen
Opera Software An interesting NYT Bits blog entry covers Opera's mobile browser. Buried in the middle of the article is this quote: "Opera's engineers have developed a version of Opera Mini that can run on an Apple iPhone, but Apple won't let the company release it because it competes with Apple's own Safari browser." It also talks about Opera on the Wii and browsers in cars. A good read. My Take: But back to the iPhone. As tempted as I am to just shrug it off, since Apple is free to run its App Store any way it pleases, as an enthusiastic iPhone user, I think Apple is shooting itself in the foot here, as it is with all the "competitive" apps being rejected. Apple does stand to lose some Google revenue by letting people use other browsers, but they have much more to gain by unleashing the creativity of the developer community and giving them the freedom to improve or replace core iPhone functionality. Hopefully competition from Android forces them to wake up.
Thread beginning with comment 335794
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Ridiculous
by SReilly on Fri 31st Oct 2008 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Ridiculous"
Member since:

"Wealth of Nations" doesn't really mention regulation at all. In fact, the "invisible hand" from the book requires that participants be able to choose for themselves what they consider to be in their best interest. Strict regulation is the opposite of letting people choose for themselves.

The entirety of Book V covers the role of government, and limits its role to providing defense, justice, and public goods. It also covers tax collection and public debt. No where does it say the government should regulate industry and limit choice.

I agree with you on that and if you re-read my post you'll notice I never said that Adam Smith thought otherwise.

I'll also point out that "Wealth of Nations" was written over 230 years ago. The "state of the art" in economics has advanced a bit since then, and most modern economists would agree that regulation hurts markets far more than it helps.

Again, I'm more than in agreement with you as far as the age of "Wealth of Nations" goes and that modern economics has moved on from their but that is as far as my agreement goes. Most modern economies realize that to leave a mark totally unregulated is to invite profiteering and corruption, something I think you'll find the current credit crunch does more to validate than any argument I could post here.

As evidence that "Super Capitalism" does work, certainly better than USSR style socialism, notice that there's almost a direct correlation between the economic freedom in a country and the standard of living in that country. Countries with high economic freedom, such as Hong Kong or the United States rate significantly higher than the few USSR-like socialist/communist countries that haven't completely imploded.

Your standard of living examples display an alarming amount of naivety. Hong Kong is governed by a totalitarian regime where kleptocratic oligarchs embezzle the working mans wages and the United States has bankrupted itself over the past 8 years by paying private concerns in an unregulated industry to fight a war it cannot win.

Now take for example Luxembourg, the country I'm currently living and working in. Luxembourg uses a combination of market and planned economics, mostly codified by the Cristian Socialist party (a conservative party) and whatever other party has currently enough of the house to form a coalition with. Luxembourg is weathering the credit crunch remarkably well manly due to it's heavy regulation of it most important sector, banking.

These examples are not bland statistics or theoretical situation extrapolated from obscure mathematical formulas. These are concrete, real situation that demonstrate the fallacy that none regulation is good for the economy.

American style capitalism, the replacement of the jungle with markets wrapped up in a strange form of neo-Darwinist metaphysics, has shown itself to be non sustainable and has lost so much credit over the past decade that I would venture to say it's time is over.

Reply Parent Score: 2