(Untitled)

Oct 16, 2005 17:23

The government looks out for us by forcing prices to be higher than necessary ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 10

xv October 16 2005, 19:32:45 UTC
Sexy.

Taking sides with Apple, eh? I never knew you were so concerned about the price of iPods. AFAIK the FTC is simply trying to figure out if the market value for memory is over-inflated. If this is true, then samsung has merely let the cat out of the bag and now the entire industry must level the playing field at a new lower price. Or maybe I'm just not 'getting it.'

Reply

xv October 16 2005, 19:39:50 UTC
nevermind, I looked into it. Their case is a bit batty.

Reply

sanitycandy October 16 2005, 21:14:35 UTC
I hope I've never come off as being against Apple, or even Microsoft, except in cases where those companies try to reduce freedom.

If the FTC wants to level the playing field, it should let Samsung (and all other companies) offer the price it chooses to offer.

Reply


illicon October 17 2005, 07:57:41 UTC
So what do Libertarians think about anti-trust situations and monopalistic business practices? You believe in a totally free marketplace, right?

Reply

sanitycandy October 17 2005, 19:02:16 UTC
Monopolies aren't inherently evil. The word "monopoly" is an inflammatory straw man--it's a fake-out meant to distract the debate. In a free market, a "monopoly" (i.e., a business that dominates its market) exists only because of voluntary transactions. The dominant business provides services that people value. In the US, the "abusive" monopolies often use the State (government) to gain power because of bad laws (the fault of the State). Microsoft uses "intellectual property" law to sue companies out of existence since they can't afford to defend themselves (Blizzard, the game company, sued and won in a case to prevent people from programming software that communicated with their games). Power companies have monopolies in their respective districts, because the State gave them exclusive rights to property "owned" by the State (an abstract entity, which can't legitimately hold property). Communications companies are glad that the State regulates its industry, keeping competitors out of the way ("leasing" agreements such as Earthlink ( ... )

Reply

sanitycandy October 17 2005, 19:02:27 UTC
As time goes on, the State co-opts services incrementally, and placates people who see value in the free market with the fact that the free market still provides many functions. When the State co-opts a new service (essentially killing the market for that service), most people don't have the energy to worry about it since the process happens so slowly. It's taken over 200 years for the US government to grow from literally _zero_ taxes, to sucking up 25% of the annual gross domestic product (that is, the US government uses 25% of our capital for its operations). If that moves to 1% over the next 10 years, most people won't care or remember why or if the free market solution was more desireable ( ... )

Reply

sanitycandy October 17 2005, 19:08:47 UTC
> If that moves to 1% over the next 10 years,

In this passage, I meant to say: "If that increases by 1%..."

Reply


jealousflower March 16 2006, 22:50:28 UTC
Keyes, you son of a bitch. I am in China again.

BURN.

I will buy you YET ANOTHER Mao lighter, I suppose, although you'll have forgotten that I even existed in the first place by July. I can't guarantee that it will sing. I mean, that seems like a once in a lifetime offer to me.

<3
Samantha

Reply

sanitycandy March 17 2006, 07:55:19 UTC
o...m...g.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up