Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 20th Mar 2011 20:20 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless A major deal just went down in the United States, which seriously shakes up the mobile industry on the other side of the pond: AT&T has announced it plans to buy T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom.
E-mail Print r 2   · Read More · 74 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 467138
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Invisible hand
by ricegf on Mon 21st Mar 2011 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Invisible hand"
Member since:

That's interesting, but I don't see the value in the government owning these telecom companies. Can you elaborate?

I "get" private / corporate ownership of telecom companies with the government as referee (strong consumer protection and management of public resources such as frequency allocation, and ensuring no monopoly abuses against competitors), but that may be cultural predisposition. Having government own the corporations seems like a conflict of interest with it's duty to regulate.

I'd love to learn more, though.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Invisible hand
by molnarcs on Mon 21st Mar 2011 18:55 in reply to "RE[3]: Invisible hand"
molnarcs Member since:

Yeah, I was a bit surprised about this - have no idea what is their interest in this at all. It might be a cultural thing. Vietnamese are competitive and have a very keen business sense. Every single family I know has some sort of business. Thanks to the fierce competition, these companies might work on pretty low margins - so it's not like the government can reap lots of profits or something.

It might be a strategic decision, part of opening up the economy and politics. Perhaps they didn't attract enough capital at the beginning, so they invested in this area. I know that IT and telecommunications is regarded as a strategic area for the country's development goals. Internet penetration is high, even in remote villages I saw internet cafes and "GameOnline" places... I'm especially puzzled by the Army running a telecom service in a free market economy (so it's not like they are the only players, controlling what people can or can't do). Anyway, I don't really have an answer to your question - some things around here defy traditional logic ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Invisible hand
by ricegf on Tue 22nd Mar 2011 10:47 in reply to "RE[4]: Invisible hand"
ricegf Member since:

Likewise here. *sigh*

Well, if they're competing fairly in the open market, the more the merrier, I suppose. I just get a little nervous when the referees throw together a team and join the tournament. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Invisible hand
by spiderman on Mon 21st Mar 2011 19:19 in reply to "RE[3]: Invisible hand"
spiderman Member since:

I don't think there is any conflict of interest in principle. They recognize that competition is stimulating. The advantage of having the government own the carriers is that the profits don't go through the hand of local and foreign parasites (share holders). The profits can be used to serve the population instead.
Actually, I see a conflict of interest in corporations run by private share holders. Their interest is in direct conflict with the company (both the consumers and the workers). Their only interest is to make money, with the company or elsewhere.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Invisible hand
by ricegf on Mon 21st Mar 2011 23:00 in reply to "RE[4]: Invisible hand"
ricegf Member since:

Well, I own quite a bit of stock myself (mostly in mutual funds), so I probably should take offense at your characterizing me as a "parasite". :-D

Stockholders provide capital for business expansion, and expect to earn profit commensurate with the risk that the expansion will fail. The average annual rate of return over the past 100 years (based on the S&P 500) after inflation is 6% to 7%. Not exactly usurious or abusive, IMHO - and a majority of Americans own at least some stock (bunch of parasites that we are).

One alternative is for a company to grow on a cash-only basis with a single owner. This is a great plan, IMHO, but it has disadvantages. If I owned Microsoft lock, stock, and barrel, for example, to which individual would I sell it when I wanted to do something else? And if I wanted to motivate my employees to perform at their best, what better motivation than if they own part of the company (sometimes called stock options or company stock programs). They may or may not receive an annual bonus, but they own their stock options - if the company earns a profit, their "bonus" is a sure thing!

So I suppose I disagree that I and my fellow shareholders are sponging off of the masses. We're actually financing their jobs. ;-)

Your suggested alternative is for the government to own all of the companies, bear the risks, and reap the rewards. This has some definite disadvantages, though. With a single owner, how much competition can you expect between different companies? Who will regulate their behavior (assuming we permit competition) or motivate them to take risks (if we don't)? Why would someone with a brilliant new idea invest his time and effort to build a market so that the government can profit from it?

Socialism sounds as attractive in theory as communism does, but in practice it tends to work less well - compare Taiwan and Hong Kong (capitalists) to China (formerly socialist), for example. When China decided to push for economic growth, they turned to a regulated form of capitalism, though keeping a communistic form of government. Looks like it's working pretty well to me. (You might read for a reasonably objective take on this.)

All this is just my considered opinion, of course. I far prefer a carefully regulated capitalism to the alternatives, as it seems to breed a *lot* of wealth rather quickly. What I really dislike, though, is a heavily laissez-faire system that allows anonymous mega-corps like AT&T to abuse customers - and particularly when I'm unfortunate enough to be one of their customers!

Capitalism works great when underpinned by morality and generosity - and when not, IMHO, the non-invisible hand of government has a duty to slap it straight again. :-D

Reply Parent Score: 2