FCC Plan to Alter Media Rules Spurs Growing Debate

[Cain]

And it only takes one person to start the Twinkies are Evil Boycott 2004.

You seem to have missed my point on Boeing, or similar companies. But to start a boycott, you need to organize large numbers of people. To start a recall, you need to file papers with a judge.

A politician may or may not represent my area; Washington's senators don't /ever/ answer to me.

No, but you can file recall paperwork against them as easily as I could.

Let's not ignore the important point being made here just so we can point out that I'm a nihilist.

Ok. We could debate what the "common good" is for years and not get anywhere. And you can try to justify anything as being in the common good. The "common will" is a bit easier to define, subjectively, so a politicial who follows the common will is probably doing as much "common good" as is reasonably possible.

Removing a CEO from power would be pretty silly, anyhow, when it's a corporate policy to which you're objecting.

Cain, the fact of the matter is, both commerical and governmental enterprises are so vastly much more powerful than individuals that action taken at the individual level will have next-to-no effect. Sure, I can petition to recall Bush, but how effective do you think that'll be? Probably about as effective as me trying to force the CEO of Sony to step down.

My response to this is to put more power in the hands of the people in the first place, so we don't have as large a difference between personal right and governmental right.

And this is what I meant by saying you constantly advocate for grass-roots organizing. Individuals never have much power, so the only way to get support for a cause is to organize a large number of people, to do whatever needs to be done. You seem to be saying that responsible people will begin an organizatonal campaign from scratch each and every time a pothole needs to be filled-- after all, anything else would be "relying on the government", right?

Well, more than likely, given the scale of organizations we're talking about, these companies are /already/ on the internet. Who cares? So Franko, Inc., owns the Des Moines Times, Des Moines TV-8, and www.desmoinesmedia.com. It doesn't matter; since there's no "given area" for the internet, I fail to see how that changes anything.

Because then your local news could be restricted to just one source. Given the nature of the internet, one company that dominated information services in that area couldpush its way into dominating other aspects of the information infrastructure fairly readily.

...yes. That's true, and I don't dispute it. What I dispute is that America would automatically be a better place to live if Microsoft held 20% of the OS market and not 80% [or whatever they have].

I'm not going to get into another silly debate about browser wars or OS dominance, particularly since it wouldn't be about monopolies at all by the third post. If we're going to discuss a given example, let's use another one, please? I think Microsoft is a great example of the pros of single-corporation market-dominance, but I'd rather cede that advantage than talk about "the open source community" and Sun's superiority for the 30th time. I hope you don't mind.

Ok. It was more to illustrate how if a company corners or monopolizes one section of the market, how they can use that influence to push into and take over other sections of the market as well. I'll take that point as conceded.

Now, since we've demonstrated that a monopoly can (and likely will) expand its dominance into other areas, and will use it's existing dominance to force its way in, we can see that unregulated monopolies are bad for the economy. Bad for the economy = bad for the state.

[Anguirel]

Because the jet engine is faster? Because walking gets you there much more cheaply when everyone else is driving and clogging up the system? I mean, I can draw this metaphor out until next Tuesday, but the fact remains that there are ample reasons to re-engineer a system if it's not working properly or if something else will work better.

Nice sidestep. The fact is, we have a functioning apparatus for expressing the will of and mobilizing large groups of people. Your personal responsibility arguments have been that it's better to begin a grass-roots campaign each and every time something needs to be done. Which is not only inefficient, but slow and wasteful. It is much more efficient to use an existing structure than start one from scratch each and every time one wishes to get something accomplished.

And so someone formed the ACLU so that we wouldn't need to organize a grass-roots campaign every time a civil liberties violation came up that we wanted to protest. And then someone else formed the EFF to combat abuses by large corporations in the electronic world. And I think there's some group called Green Peace or something that gets pissy about environment issues. And some guy started this group called the SPCA that organizes people on a alrge scale whenever there's a major animal abuse case. And Consumer Watch started checking out products to make sure that people got the best stuff, and also make sure that producers were keeping their word about the capabilities of various items (they publish Consumer Reports, I think). And I'm pretty sure... well, you get the picture. So... why do we need the government to step in prior to such a campaign (such as a specific complaint being brought to court)?

As an answer to Cipher's signature - Yes, you would, because a good idea for society is not always the same as a good idea for an individual.

[Cain]

I think you'll discover, Ang, that every one of the groups you mention largely work *with* the government, and not *instead* of it. They're the ones who bring potential problems to the government's attention, sometimes by filing charges. Even they don't try and re-invent the wheel; the ACLU might think the criminal justice system is broken, but they're not trying to construct a totally new one separare from the existing ones, which is more-or-less what 32's indicating as being "personally responsible".

[3278]

But to start a boycott, you need to organize large numbers of people. To start a recall, you need to file papers with a judge.

No, to start a boycott, you need only stop buying a corporation's products. If you'd like to have a /successful/ boycott, then yes, you're certain to need some other people's support, but if you'd like to have a successful recall, you'll need the same thing.

The "common will" is a bit easier to define, subjectively, so a politicial who follows the common will is probably doing as much "common good" as is reasonably possible.

If this is true, then we don't need representation; a volksraad would work as well. In any case, the common will frequently has nothing to do with the common good, and neither are necessarily products of government. In any case, the politicians still have their best interests ultimately at heart, and the system is designed to capitalize on that.

You seem to be saying that responsible people will begin an organizatonal campaign from scratch each and every time a pothole needs to be filled-- after all, anything else would be "relying on the government", right?

No, I've never said any such thing. In fact, acting alone or gathering a group of people for a specific cause and then discarding them afterward seems foolish to me. [I'd go on, but Ang's argument is more compelling than any I was prepared to make.]

I'd also like to point out that I've never stated that support of individual rights means that citizens must do everything for themselves. In fact, I've expressly said otherwise, directly to you, which leads me to conclude you've either forgotten or you're being an asshole.

Given the nature of the internet, one company that dominated information services in that area couldpush its way into dominating other aspects of the information infrastructure fairly readily.

I still don't understand. How does the nature of the internet assist in monopolization of media markets? To me, it seems like the decentralized nature of the internet makes such a controlling interest impossible.

Furthermore, it seems to me like the lack of government regulation of the internet is what has allowed for this decentralization. Imagine a country in which the government didn't legislate who could and could not have a radio or television station. Anyone with a camera and a Radio Shack could start his own televsision studio, with his own unique frequency. Then it would be /impossible/ for a single network to own all media outlets in a given market; in this way, I believe it is the /regulation/ of television and radio which has led to the state of affairs in which monopolization is a problem; if the airwaves were as minimally legislated as the internet, I believe decentralized information would be much more common.

I'll take that point as conceded.

Why don't you not take points as conceded until I concede them, okay? Is there an abnormal amount of sand in your vagina today, or are you just so unable to make good arguments that you have to resort to bullshit like this to win your point? I'm not trying to be inflammatory; it's an honest question.

Here's a pointer, Cain: if logic and evidence won't prove your viewpoint, your viewpoint is wrong, and you should change it.

Now, since we've demonstrated that a monopoly can (and likely will) expand its dominance into other areas, and will use it's existing dominance to force its way in, we can see that unregulated monopolies are bad for the economy. Bad for the economy = bad for the state.

Whoa, whoa. Let's take it one at a time.

1. A monopoly can and likely will expand its dominance into areas other than this which it already monopolizes.

I'll agree with that, at least for the moment.

2. Unregulated monopolies are bad for the economy.

How do you get from 1 to 2? There's nothing you've presented that draws a line between them.

3. What is bad for the economy is bad for the state.

Well, okay, that's generally true. So? Simply because something is "bad for the state" doesn't mean it's the government's job to take care of it, and in fact, many of the worst atrocities have been committed using just that justification. If those are the criteria for government action, it can very easily be shown that nearly anything is "bad for the state," and the government, thus empowered, gets to burn the books that are causing the problems, or kill the people at the heart of the matter.

So, you've failed to show that monopolies are bad, and failed to show that government is the answer if they are. And seriously, I think maybe if you thought through your arguments in outline format, or numbered like I've been doing here, you could avoid a lot of the logical disconnects that seem to plague the arguments that you make. I'm not trying to be a dick when I say that; I really believe that it would help you out a lot to try to take each argument step-by-step. That's why I keep writing out your arguments like this; it makes it very obvious where the holes are.

[3278]

I think you'll discover, Ang, that every one of the groups you mention largely work *with* the government, and not *instead* of it.

When the government is in ultimate authority over every issue, they have very little choice. The design of the system in which they work determines their tactics; if you change that system - which is what we're talking about - then their tactics will change, also.

Even they don't try and re-invent the wheel; the ACLU might think the criminal justice system is broken, but they're not trying to construct a totally new one separare from the existing ones...

The fact that the ACLU isn't trying to overthrow the government in no way contradicts Ang's point that individuals can and do form large and semi-permanent groups to take action where they feel it is warranted, and that those groups are indeed effective at this task.

[Cain]

If this is true, then we don't need representation; a volksraad would work as well. In any case, the common will frequently has nothing to do with the common good, and neither are necessarily products of government. In any case, the politicians still have their best interests ultimately at heart, and the system is designed to capitalize on that.

An interesting suggestion; it can be argued that representative government was a necessity in the days before rapid communication, but is less necessary nowadays. However, the common good is still a very subjective thing, one we could argue over for years and not get anywhere. The common will may or may not be equal to the common good, but enough arguments can be made that it is so. Someone who has to serve the common will has more checks on his abilites than someone who has to serve a profit margin.

No, I've never said any such thing. In fact, acting alone or gathering a group of people for a specific cause and then discarding them afterward seems foolish to me. [I'd go on, but Ang's argument is more compelling than any I was prepared to make.]

I'd also like to point out that I've never stated that support of individual rights means that citizens must do everything for themselves. In fact, I've expressly said otherwise, directly to you, which leads me to conclude you've either forgotten or you're being an asshole.

More that I misunderstand your points. You keep saying that people need to do more for themselves, and stop depending on others. Taken to the extreme, that is what you're advocating, as I see it.

I still don't understand. How does the nature of the internet assist in monopolization of media markets? To me, it seems like the decentralized nature of the internet makes such a controlling interest impossible.

Let's say Media Outlet A manages to completely dominate the local media for an area. Now, politicans who want to run for office *have* to go to them for advertising. Media A decides to be a jerk about things, and only supports those propose tighter internet regulations, or setting up local server networks that are most compatible with Media A's products, and less for others. Media A also uses it's jacked-up advertising revenue to start buying out all the local server companies. It becomes possible for Media A to control the internet services in a given area, which in turn means they control the communication services in the area.

Furthermore, it seems to me like the lack of government regulation of the internet is what has allowed for this decentralization. Imagine a country in which the government didn't legislate who could and could not have a radio or television station. Anyone with a camera and a Radio Shack could start his own televsision studio, with his own unique frequency. Then it would be /impossible/ for a single network to own all media outlets in a given market; in this way, I believe it is the /regulation/ of television and radio which has led to the state of affairs in which monopolization is a problem; if the airwaves were as minimally legislated as the internet, I believe decentralized information would be much more common.

While that specific example has no proof, history in the USA has shown us that deregulation of any industry has always led to mergers. I would think that this industry would be no exception.

Whoa, whoa. Let's take it one at a time.

1. A monopoly can and likely will expand its dominance into areas other than this which it already monopolizes.

I'll agree with that, at least for the moment.

2. Unregulated monopolies are bad for the economy.

How do you get from 1 to 2? There's nothing you've presented that draws a line between them.

We've already established that. Any monopoly can charge whatever they like, can offer whatever crappy service they want, and people will still have to pay for it. An unregulated monopoly is one where there is nothing preventing them from muscling them into other areas, where they can monopolize that as well.

In a monopoly situation, actual value and price begin to lose their connection. Without further regulation, this problem will spread-- after all, once a corporation has dominated a given market, the only way they can make more money is to move into a different one.

3. What is bad for the economy is bad for the state.

Well, okay, that's generally true. So? Simply because something is "bad for the state" doesn't mean it's the government's job to take care of it, and in fact, many of the worst atrocities have been committed using just that justification. If those are the criteria for government action, it can very easily be shown that nearly anything is "bad for the state," and the government, thus empowered, gets to burn the books that are causing the problems, or kill the people at the heart of the matter.

You're the one who said the primary duty of the state is to preserve the existance of the state. Well, preserving the economy is very essential to preserving the state-- a state ismade of people, and people need to eat. Without a functioning economy, food and needed goods are not being transacted in, meaning people (and thus, the state) is starving.

So, you've failed to show that monopolies are bad, and failed to show that government is the answer if they are.

*sigh* I've amply demonstrated that monopolies are a bad thing; a company that dominates a market will need to move into other markets if it wants to make more money. Since all corporations want to make more money, if they achieve a monopoly, good business sense dictates that they try and use that as leverate todominate another market.

As far as government being the answer-- what other organization exists to curb the power of a monopoly? Remember, you said that throwing away a group of already-organized people is unwise. Well, since the government is already organized, and already in a position to do something, they are the best practical answer. If you don't like the way they work, if you think the government is inefficient, then that means its probably wisest to work to change the system, instead of trashing it.

[ratlaw]

Furthermore, it seems to me like the lack of government regulation of the internet is what has allowed for this decentralization. Imagine a country in which the government didn't legislate who could and could not have a radio or television station. Anyone with a camera and a Radio Shack could start his own televsision studio, with his own unique frequency. Then it would be /impossible/ for a single network to own all media outlets in a given market; in this way, I believe it is the /regulation/ of television and radio which has led to the state of affairs in which monopolization is a problem; if the airwaves were as minimally legislated as the internet, I believe decentralized information would be much more common.

I think that if this were the case, we'd hear a lot of static on the radio waves. There are only so many frequencies that can be utilized by broadcasters before they begin to interfere with each other. Such an unregulated situation could lead to competing broadcasters jamming each other, intentionally or otherwise. FCC regulation initially had as much, if not more, to do with that problem as with keeping information sources in one market from being owned by the same company. I think you'll need to better demonstrate that decentralized broadcasting would lead to a better situation than comparing it to the internet.

[3278]

The common will may or may not be equal to the common good, but enough arguments can be made that it is so.

Well, then I'd like to hear them, because I don't believe it's so, at least in the case of politics.

Someone who has to serve the common will has more checks on his abilites than someone who has to serve a profit margin.

I don't know about that. After all, if you have to serve the bottom line, your only options are those that are profitable, meaning popular. Common will.

I'd also like to point out that I've never stated that support of individual rights means that citizens must do everything for themselves. In fact, I've expressly said otherwise, directly to you, which leads me to conclude you've either forgotten or you're being an asshole.

More that I misunderstand your points. You keep saying that people need to do more for themselves, and stop depending on others. Taken to the extreme, that is what you're advocating, as I see it.

Don't take it to the extreme, then. Listen to what I'm saying and base your responses on that, please, and not on what happens if you ignore all moderation. When I say government is only for essential things, and you say that means you have to form a citizen's coalition to fill potholes, we've stopped having a productive conversation and started just mutually verbally masterbating.

Let's say Media Outlet A manages to completely dominate the local media for an area. Now, politicans who want to run for office *have* to go to them for advertising.

Or set up their own server, which is cheap and easy. I have four, myself, and I'm not running for office.

Media A decides to be a jerk about things, and only supports those propose tighter internet regulations, or setting up local server networks that are most compatible with Media A's products, and less for others.

If government control over nonessential issues were gone - the prerequisite for my position - then tighter internet regulations would be, well, illegal. I don't know how you set up local server networks that don't allow people to simply go somewhere else, so it's hard for me to reply to that. Could you explain?

Media A also uses it's jacked-up advertising revenue to start buying out all the local server companies. It becomes possible for Media A to control the internet services in a given area, which in turn means they control the communication services in the area.

Well, I do see how it's possible for a company to buy up all the telecoms and ISPs in an area, and buy up all the webhosts in an area, but what effect does that have? Are you positing that these ISPs would no longer let you log on to cnn.com?

Why doesn't Media B just, I don't know, buy a server somewhere else?

While that specific example has no proof, history in the USA has shown us that deregulation of any industry has always led to mergers. I would think that this industry would be no exception.

The internet is deregulated. It has not ceased to be decentralized, despite a high number of mergers. That's my example.

How do you get from 1 to 2? There's nothing you've presented that draws a line between them.

We've already established that. Any monopoly can charge whatever they like, can offer whatever crappy service they want, and people will still have to pay for it.

Why? I mean, if Microsoft is a monopoly and you don't like them, why don't you buy a Mac? Use Linux? If your local gas company sucks, why don't you pool the resources of your community and negotiate with the supplier directly, cutting out the gas provider? I just don't see where monopolies eliminate all your options.

You're the one who said the primary duty of the state is to preserve the existance of the state. Well, preserving the economy is very essential to preserving the state-- a state ismade of people, and people need to eat. Without a functioning economy, food and needed goods are not being transacted in, meaning people (and thus, the state) is starving.

But "bad for the economy" doesn't necessarily equal "threatens the state." Economic pressures can suck, sure, but that doesn't mean the end of life as we know it.

As far as government being the answer-- what other organization exists to curb the power of a monopoly? Remember, you said that throwing away a group of already-organized people is unwise. Well, since the government is already organized, and already in a position to do something, they are the best practical answer.

Not necessarily. That position assumes that the government is the best at everything, the best solution to all problems, which just ain't so. By this position, we shouldn't ever start corporations in the first place, since we can just pay the government to sell us milk or whatever. But it just ain't so; the government is staggeringly inefficient, largely because of exactly the complaints you have about monopoly businesses. The government, by virtue of being the only game in town, gets to do pretty much whatever it wants, and our control of the government isn't significantly greater than our control over business. We can threaten either one, appeal and boycott where we choose, but the difference in power between me and the US government isn't any different, functionally, than the difference in power between myself and Sony.

If you don't like the way they work, if you think the government is inefficient, then that means its probably wisest to work to change the system, instead of trashing it.

I disagree, of course. I think there comes a time when you have to start fresh, and I think the US government is reaching that time. The kinds of changes I'd like to see would require overhauling everything from the Constitution up, which simply couldn't be done in my lifetime.

[3278]

I think that if this were the case, we'd hear a lot of static on the radio waves. There are only so many frequencies that can be utilized by broadcasters before they begin to interfere with each other.

I thought about that while I was writing it, and I had this whole thing written about comparing IPs to frequencies and who could regulate them privately and blah blah blah, but I ended up cutting it. The example is flawed, and that's all there is to it; in order to make sense, there'd have to be millions of freqencies available to anyone, which just isn't so. I'd ask, then, for the purposes of argument, that we imagine a world in which it is; more significantly, that we imagine a world in which there are too many frequencies available for a single entity to control all of them in a given local area. That's more realistic, and still compares [locally] to the internet. Yeah?

[ratlaw]

Well, I suppose we could, I just don't see how it helps since it's not the way radio frequencies work. Perhaps I'm not getting the jist of your argument. I see that you're comparing the internet (mostly unregulated except for what little is needed for the technology to work) with the radio (heavily regulated both for technological reasons and, for lack of a better phrase, social reasons). However, I think the core problem is that the internet is something that isn't based on how it is transmitted. In fact, TCP/IP, and any similar protocol, is ignorant of the physical medium of transmission. However, radio isn't and never will be. As you pointed out in the first part of your reply, it's nearly impossible for one company to control the servers and access of an entire community. For that reason, similar regulation of the internet is wasteful. And perhaps the interenet means that we no longer need to regulate broadcast media, because of the inability to choke off dissenting views on the internet. But the regulation, both technical and social, was necessary when it was enacted. First to protect the viability of the technology from abuse and destruction of common area and later to ensure adequate voices in a market when there were only three major broadcasting companies with the capital and werewithal to dominate a local media market.

[Cipher]

The argument's gotten too prosaic, too fast for poor ol' Cipher; I don't like wading through nests of quotes. So I'll just pick and choose which points I'll respond to.

As an answer to Cipher's signature - Yes, you would, because a good idea for society is not always the same as a good idea for an individual.

Okay. What's a society?

Cain: We could trade examples until we're both blue in the face. If you want to make the point that "large corporations have been known to ignore the harmful side-effects of their behavior in pursuit of the bottom line," then I agree. Wholeheartedly. However, I find a corporation's sins far easier to stomach than a government's sins - because, as I said, they're always looking for the bottom line. There may be a profit in burying toxic waste drums near a reservoir instead of in a safe facility. But there's no profit in killing the Jews. It takes a government to try something like that.

So, in sum, while a private entity's malice may be awful, it is never deliberate.

Worst possible outcome of media monopolization: let's presume the new legislation goes farther than it in fact does, and allows a single corporation to purchase as many media outlets (print, broadcast, etc) in as many regions as it likes. Through aggressive management and fortunate timing, every newspaper, TV station and radio station in the world is bought up over the next 6 years by the same three or four companies. News Corp, ABC/Disney, Westwood One and the New York Times Publishing Group now get to push their agenda on the unsuspecting public. What is their agenda? Getting people to watch television or read their paper. So Fox gets a little more trashy, and the New York Times sacrifices what little credibility it had left for a colorful front page. Okay.

Worst possible outcome of media regulation: Mr. Goebbels Goes to Washington.

It is because a government agency does not have to look out for its bottom line that it is capable of such unlimited evil. The twentieth century did nothing but prove that, over and over, in big black letters. It still creeps me out that people trust the government to "oversee" media.

[Cain]

Well, then I'd like to hear them, because I don't believe it's so, at least in the case of politics.

That would take several days, and I don't think we'd actually get anywhere. Let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that many people do think the common will = the common good.

I don't know about that. After all, if you have to serve the bottom line, your only options are those that are profitable, meaning popular. Common will.

Untrue. You're assuming a corporation will be selling products to general consumers. A corporations' products only need to be popular to it's buyers. Boeing, for example, doesn't need to be popular with the general consumer; they just need to be popular with airlines. Their suppliers don't need to be popular with general consumers either, just Boeing. And so on.

If government control over nonessential issues were gone - the prerequisite for my position - then tighter internet regulations would be, well, illegal. I don't know how you set up local server networks that don't allow people to simply go somewhere else, so it's hard for me to reply to that. Could you explain?

All right. You still need cables and wires to connect to the internet. Let's say Comcast and Verizon merged, giving them dominance in an area over both cable and DSL service. With no regulation, Verizon would not be required to lease out it's lines to competing DSL servers, so the new combined corporation would control all the internet access in the area. Verizon also controls cell towers; by denying their competitors access to their land lines, they can render their competitor's cell towers useless.

Now, I can't say that Verizon would do such a thing; however, the point is moot as regulation currently prevents them from doing so.

The internet is deregulated. It has not ceased to be decentralized, despite a high number of mergers. That's my example.

But it's also relatively new, and certain monopolies are already forming (Microsoft, Sisco, and so on.)

Why? I mean, if Microsoft is a monopoly and you don't like them, why don't you buy a Mac? Use Linux? If your local gas company sucks, why don't you pool the resources of your community and negotiate with the supplier directly, cutting out the gas provider? I just don't see where monopolies eliminate all your options.

I thought we were going to leave the browser wars out of it? As such, i'm going to ignore that section of your argument. However, what happens if your local gas company is also the supplier? Worse, what happens if they're the only supplier? Bear in mind, a monopoly can be vertical as well as horizontal-- if they control every aspect of production, down to the retail outlets, *and* they're the only game in town, you will never be able to bypass them or compete with them.

But "bad for the economy" doesn't necessarily equal "threatens the state." Economic pressures can suck, sure, but that doesn't mean the end of life as we know it.

Admittedly, it depends on how bad. Large numbers of disaffected people is bad for the state, and economic pressures can cause that problem.

Not necessarily. That position assumes that the government is the best at everything, the best solution to all problems, which just ain't so.

Those are actually two different points. Assuming the government is the best at everything, or even some things, is one point. And, to an extent, they are the best that exists for some things. But "the best solution to all problems" is a different matter-- something can be the best in the world at what it does, and still suck. All that means is that we don't have anything better at the moment.

Given that, a responsible individual will use the best tool on hand for a given situation. He or she may act to build a new tool when time and opportunity presents itself; but if one isn't readily availiable, they will use the best tool instead of constructing one from scratch. That's being responsible-- managing your resources efficiently.

But it just ain't so; the government is staggeringly inefficient, largely because of exactly the complaints you have about monopoly businesses. The government, by virtue of being the only game in town, gets to do pretty much whatever it wants, and our control of the government isn't significantly greater than our control over business. We can threaten either one, appeal and boycott where we choose, but the difference in power between me and the US government isn't any different, functionally, than the difference in power between myself and Sony.

No offense, but you're giving a speech instead of an argument. To humor you, I'll break down your statement in outline form.

1. Government is always inefficent.
2. Because government is inefficent, it is corrupt.
3. We have no control of the government.
4. We can threaten, appeal, and boycott government decisions.
5. Therefore, individual action has no effect on goverment or persona decisions.

Ok, you mind filling in the gaps for me?

I disagree, of course. I think there comes a time when you have to start fresh, and I think the US government is reaching that time. The kinds of changes I'd like to see would require overhauling everything from the Constitution up, which simply couldn't be done in my lifetime.

I think I'll leave that for another thread.

Cain : We could trade examples until we're both blue in the face. If you want to make the point that "large corporations have been known to ignore the harmful side-effects of their behavior in pursuit of the bottom line," then I agree. Wholeheartedly. However, I find a corporation's sins far easier to stomach than a government's sins - because, as I said, they're always looking for the bottom line. There may be a profit in burying toxic waste drums near a reservoir instead of in a safe facility. But there's no profit in killing the Jews. It takes a government to try something like that.

You're right, we could trade examples back and forth. However, ultimately a government exists to serve its citizens. In our government, there are many checks and balances that exist to curb a politican's power. Since we started on that subject, i feel we should remain on the subject of our country-- we can get into other forms of government later.

There are no checks on corporate power except for governmental regulation. As long as they make money, corporations can and will do whatever they want; they'll break the law if the cost of fines is less than the profit they will make. Even laws and regulations don't completely balance corporate powers, they only limit it somewhat.

It is because a government agency does not have to look out for its bottom line that it is capable of such unlimited evil. The twentieth century did nothing but prove that, over and over, in big black letters. It still creeps me out that people trust the government to "oversee" media.

What proof are you referring to?
And who says I "trust" the government? I don't, especially not the current administration. However, I do see it as their job to prevent abuses from happening.

[Marius]

Let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that many people do think the common will = the common good.

Sure. Let's also agree, for the sake of accuracy, that many people think things that are totally incorrect, this being one of them.

Now, I can't say that Verizon would do such a thing; however, the point is moot as regulation currently prevents them from doing so.

Of course, it's not the regulation which is the topic of this particular discussion, but why worry about that when we're having so much fun?

[3278]

Well, I suppose we could, I just don't see how it helps since it's not the way radio frequencies work.

Which is one of the ways it's a crappy example. Mea culpa. A better example, I suppose, would be a telephone system that anyone could be a part of and broadcast to any other phone or combination of phones, but that really /is/ the internet.

However, I think the core problem is that the internet is something that isn't based on how it is transmitted. In fact, TCP/IP, and any similar protocol, is ignorant of the physical medium of transmission. However, radio isn't and never will be.

Well, now, that's not so. TCP/IP is what it is because of the devices which transmit it, and vise versa. It's the same with radio; it's not as if the electromagnetic waves of the radio beam carry with them knowledge of the medium in which they travel; hell, the average IP packet has a lot more ability to effect its medium - switches and so on - than radio. But just as IP packets don't really carry with them information about the switches and routers they might encounter on their way, so are radio waves similarly passive.

What matters, in this case, is the combined total, both medium and protocol. The internet is the way it is because IP addressing lets an incredible number of people get on; radio is the way it is because a limited number of people can broadcast at once in a given geographical area. The internet requires a physical connection be provided by an educational, governmental, or commercial entity; radio has no such restriction. Internet is "selective broadcast" or narrowcast, as chosen by the sender; radio is broadcast-only. We regulate who can get on the airwaves; we don't regulate who can get on the internet.

I've just listed some more reasons my example's lousy, but it also occurs to me that an interesting comparison - well, contrast, I suppose - can be done between the two mediums. Media. Whatever.

As you pointed out in the first part of your reply, it's nearly impossible for one company to control the servers and access of an entire community. For that reason, similar regulation of the internet is wasteful.

But it's at least as impossible to control access to radio, isn't it? Anyone can build a radio at Radio Shack; not everyone can build a switching router and splice it into Sprint's fiber optics.

But the regulation, both technical and social, was necessary when it was enacted. First to protect the viability of the technology from abuse and destruction of common area and later to ensure adequate voices in a market when there were only three major broadcasting companies with the capital and werewithal to dominate a local media market.

Well, but: didn't that happen with the internet, too? Someone had to step forward and say, "Look, you can't all use the same addresses. We'll hand them out to everyone, okay?" And early on, there were certainly a very few ISPs: AOL, CompuServe, those days. The differences here, I think, are the need for a lengthy physical connection which needed to be upgraded semi-freqently, and the complete lack of controls put in place by the government to decide who could and couldn't be an ISP.

If radio had /never/ been regulated, then there never would have been a time when only three major companies ruled the airwaves. Or at least it wouldn't have lasted long; as with the internet, at first only a few people will be able to afford the equipment, but when anyone is allowed to use it, the costs come down awful quick as the demand soars.

Anyway, this is all speculation, obviously, and with a flawed comparison at that. But I think a lot of use can come from looking at the differences in these two media.

[Marius]

However, what happens if your local gas company is also the supplier? Worse, what happens if they're the only supplier? . . . if they control every aspect of production, down to the retail outlets, *and* they're the only game in town, you will never be able to bypass them or compete with them.

Thanks to government regulations, the gas company /is/ the only game in town. In't that nice? A government /mandated/ monopoly. Wheeee!

1. Government is always inefficent.
2. Because government is inefficent, it is corrupt.
3. We have no control of the government.
4. We can threaten, appeal, and boycott government decisions.
5. Therefore, individual action has no effect on goverment or persona decisions.

Ok, you mind filling in the gaps for me?

To begin with, I don't see your #2 anywhere in his statement. Your number 5 is totally your own invention. Furthermore, I don't see any gaps. Those five points you distilled (or fabricated) don't comprise an argument as presented in the quote. Either you're on medication again or you're being surly and childish.

[Bishop]

3. We have no control of the government

What?

[ratlaw]

32: You bring up some interesting points, some of which I did think of, some of which I didn't. All in all I think we're in agreement on the example being a poor comparision and that it's an interesting contrast

Well, but: didn't that happen with the internet, too? Someone had to step forward and say, "Look, you can't all use the same addresses. We'll hand them out to everyone, okay?" And early on, there were certainly a very few ISPs: AOL, CompuServe, those days. The differences here, I think, are the need for a lengthy physical connection which needed to be upgraded semi-freqently, and the complete lack of controls put in place by the government to decide who could and couldn't be an ISP.

I thought about bringing this up, but didn't due to time issues. It's an interesting example of what I think is a recent, 20th century, development: non-governmental organizations. NGOs can be interesting little things, particularly when they provide a semi-private/semi-public service. UL (mostly known for their little tags on christmas tree lights) is a good example. Rather than suffer government regulation, an independent, not-for-profit corporation was setup to verify that electrical components wouldn't burn your house down. Neat solution that doesn't depend on the government. Pretty much the same thing was done in the case of IP addresses and domain names, if my knowledge of the history is correct. Whether this would have worked for radio/tv frequencies, I'm not so sure. As you said, it's much cheaper to setup a radio transmitter than a server. Of course, in part I think the decision by business to create UL and follow it's guidelines was specifically because of the use of government regulation in other areas, and the incurred cost of doing business. Basically, without the experience of dealing with unions and the FCC, business might not have considered regulating themselves to be cheaper than trying to stonewall all regulation until the government did it for them.

If radio had /never/ been regulated, then there never would have been a time when only three major companies ruled the airwaves. Or at least it wouldn't have lasted long; as with the internet, at first only a few people will be able to afford the equipment, but when anyone is allowed to use it, the costs come down awful quick as the demand soars.

Well, admitedly the three major companies I was referring to were in the TV industry, which has much higher capital costs than radio. I think that changes matters to a degree. Businesses with high capital costs tend to be hard to break into once the market leaders have stabalized. I think that has more to do with the ABC/NBC/CBS situation than FCC regulations. Here's a question: if FCC regulations are the root cause of media consolidation, how come there were a plethora of small, independent radio stations throughout the United States up until recently, when FCC regs were relaxed? Is it /really/ a case of not enough deregulation, or is that the richer media companies have moved in and taken over the smaller, local companies? Again, is that what is best for us, the consumers? Personally, I don't really enjoy being able to drive from Raleigh, NC to St. Louis, MO (a distance of 800 miles) and hear exactly the same playlists because all of the non-public radio stations in both cities are owned by Clear Channel.

Anyway, this is all speculation, obviously, and with a flawed comparison at that. But I think a lot of use can come from looking at the differences in these two media.

Agreed. So it was good for you too?

[3278]

Well, then I'd like to hear them, because I don't believe it's so, at least in the case of politics.

That would take several days, and I don't think we'd actually get anywhere. Let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that many people do think the common will = the common good.

"The sky is black!"
"No, it's blue."
"Let's just agree, for the sake of argument, that blue is black."
"Oh, god damn it, not again."

I don't know about that. After all, if you have to serve the bottom line, your only options are those that are profitable, meaning popular. Common will.

Untrue. You're assuming a corporation will be selling products to general consumers. A corporations' products only need to be popular to it's buyers.

Right, because popular opinion doesn't matter to a corporation's bottom line at all. After all, shareholders don't care if you're evil! That's why public relations is such an underfunded department at, say, Boeing.

You still need cables and wires to connect to the internet. Let's say Comcast and Verizon merged, giving them dominance in an area over both cable and DSL service. With no regulation, Verizon would not be required to lease out it's lines to competing DSL servers, so the new combined corporation would control all the internet access in the area.

So, if Verizon is no longer required to let another company use the lines that Verizon installed and paid for, they'll have to string their own, or Verizon will have complete control over the market? Sounds perfectly fair to me.

The internet is deregulated. It has not ceased to be decentralized, despite a high number of mergers. That's my example.

But it's also relatively new, and certain monopolies are already forming (Microsoft, Sisco, and so on.)

The internet is deregulated. It has not ceased to be decentralized, despite a high number of mergers. Yes, the internet is new. Yes, there are monopolies. That doesn't dispute the facts as stated.

However, what happens if your local gas company is also the supplier? Worse, what happens if they're the only supplier?

Damn, that reply from Marius whipped ass. Not going to top that one. All I had was some useless stuff about contracting another company to be your supplier; his was much better.

But "bad for the economy" doesn't necessarily equal "threatens the state." Economic pressures can suck, sure, but that doesn't mean the end of life as we know it.

Admittedly, it depends on how bad. Large numbers of disaffected people is bad for the state, and economic pressures can cause that problem.

Mmm-hmm. But "bad for the economy" doesn't necessarily equal "threatens the state."

Assuming the government is the best at everything, or even some things, is one point. And, to an extent, they are the best that exists for some things.

Agreed.

But "the best solution to all problems" is a different matter-- something can be the best in the world at what it does, and still suck. All that means is that we don't have anything better at the moment.

I don't understand how this applies. You're using the government to cure problems for which it is not the best solution; that is my point. I have no idea what relation your reply has to that.

Given that, a responsible individual will use the best tool on hand for a given situation. He or she may act to build a new tool when time and opportunity presents itself; but if one isn't readily availiable, they will use the best tool instead of constructing one from scratch. That's being responsible-- managing your resources efficiently.

Well, I think that idea is short-sighted. Let's say I have to cut some wood, and all I have is a screwdriver. It'll take me ten hours to cut the wood with the screwdriver, but it'll take twenty to build a saw. So what should I do? By your argument, we cut the wood with a screwdriver. But that means that on the third time you have to cut wood again, you've just started wasting time.

None of which has any reference to my argument, since, once again I tell you, I'm not, and I never have been, advocating the creation of single-purpose "grass-roots" organizations. That's something you've tacked on to my argument because you seem to think that's the only way people can accomplish anything without government to do it for them; it is not, and never will be, a portion of my argument, which means your tool metaphor is not applicable.

But it just ain't so; the government is staggeringly inefficient, largely because of exactly the complaints you have about monopoly businesses. The government, by virtue of being the only game in town, gets to do pretty much whatever it wants, and our control of the government isn't significantly greater than our control over business. We can threaten either one, appeal and boycott where we choose, but the difference in power between me and the US government isn't any different, functionally, than the difference in power between myself and Sony.

No offense, but you're giving a speech instead of an argument. To humor you, I'll break down your statement in outline form.

1. Government is always inefficent.
2. Because government is inefficent, it is corrupt.
3. We have no control of the government.
4. We can threaten, appeal, and boycott government decisions.
5. Therefore, individual action has no effect on goverment or persona decisions.

Ok, you mind filling in the gaps for me?

That whacky, loveable Marius.

Sure, no problem.

1. Government is inherently a monopoly.
2. Monopolies have too much power, and cost too much for the returns they provide.
3. Governments have, therefore, too much power, and cost too much for the returns they provide.

That's the essence of the argument. The other stuff was just comparing government to a monopoly, but these points above are - I think - pretty much what I was trying to say.

<b>Now, I don't want this to make it sound like I'm saying governments have to go; on the contrary, I think government is absolutely essential. But I think government should be used only in the cases where it is the best or only solution, and not as the first solution to any problem, whether it is the best solution or not.</b>

I make that bold because, of all the other stuff I'm saying, that's the most important one. That's what I mean on this whole government issue.

There are no checks on corporate power except for governmental regulation.

Hey, you want to know what's more scary than that? There are no checks on <i>government</i> power except...<i>governmental regulation.[/i]

[3278]

32: You bring up some interesting points, some of which I did think of, some of which I didn't. All in all I think we're in agreement on the example being a poor comparision and that it's an interesting contrast

Mea <i>maxima</i> culpa!

Here's a question: if FCC regulations are the root cause of media consolidation, how come there were a plethora of small, independent radio stations throughout the United States up until recently, when FCC regs were relaxed?

No, no, sorry. I don't think that the FCC regulations are the cause of consolidation /now,/ just in the beginning. I do believe that, to some degree, it limits consolidation today, but I don't think it's the /current/ cause, only the root cause. Does that make sense? I ask because it doesn't to me.

Agreed. So it was good for you too?

Heck, yes. Pass the cigarettes?

[Cain]

Right, because popular opinion doesn't matter to a corporation's bottom line at all. After all, shareholders don't care if you're evil! That's why public relations is such an underfunded department at, say, Boeing.

Shareholders could care less, so long as you make them money. And Boeing's PR department isn't really all that big, in relation to, say, Microsoft. To some corporations, popular opinion really doesn't mean a damn thing.

So, if Verizon is no longer required to let another company use the lines that Verizon installed and paid for, they'll have to string their own, or Verizon will have complete control over the market? Sounds perfectly fair to me.

Except, of course, the government paid for those lines to be put up in the first place. And, Verizon/your local phone company owns the wires running into your house. A new company would have to do more than string their own lines, they'd need to go into each and every home and rewire it. If Verizon or the local equvalent wanted to stop them, all they have to do is threaten to cut off service to anyone who allows a competitor access to their home.

Damn, that reply from Marius whipped ass. Not going to top that one. All I had was some useless stuff about contracting another company to be your supplier; his was much better

Except that he has no actual point. Anti-trust laws exist to prevent monopolies. The government won't allow a gas monopoly unless you remove the anti-trust laws, creating that situation. The government would only allow it in the circumstances you seem to prefer.

To begin with, I don't see your #2 anywhere in his statement. Your number 5 is totally your own invention. Furthermore, I don't see any gaps. Those five points you distilled (or fabricated) don't comprise an argument as presented in the quote. Either you're on medication again or you're being surly and childish.

Point #2 comes from: "The government, by virtue of being the only game in town, gets to do pretty much whatever it wants, and our control of the government isn't significantly greater than our control over business." "Doing pretty much whatever it wants" indicates corruption. #5 comes from the last part of that sentence, and: "We can threaten either one, appeal and boycott where we choose, but the difference in power between me and the US government isn't any different, functionally, than the difference in power between myself and Sony. " Sorry, but if there wasn't an argument in my summation, it's because there wasn't an argument in the original post. 32 pontificated instead of making an argument, which is forgiveable, and why I asked hom to clear it up. Which he did:

Sure, no problem.

1. Government is inherently a monopoly.
2. Monopolies have too much power, and cost too much for the returns they provide.
3. Governments have, therefore, too much power, and cost too much for the returns they provide.

Prove #1, for starters. #2 seems to be contradicting what you've been saying before. Without proof for #1, and a contradiction on #2, you have no proof for #3.

Now, I don't know about you, but I happen to have about five governments where I live. Federal, State, County, City, and Regional (the multi-county board). All of which can make and enforce laws, levy taxes, and do all the other governmental duties. With five competing players, how can a government be a monopoly?

Now, I don't want this to make it sound like I'm saying governments have to go; on the contrary, I think government is absolutely essential. But I think government should be used only in the cases where it is the best or only solution, and not as the first solution to any problem, whether it is the best solution or not.

And what makes you think it's not the best or only solution in this circumstance? Certainly it's been the most effective means we've discovered, historically. Boycotts don't work nearly as well as legislation.

Hey, you want to know what's more scary than that? There are no checks on government power except...governmental regulation.

At least there are internal checks and balances. Having solid checks and balances is better than having none at all.

[Serious Paul]

Is this going to be eleven pages again?Serious Paul gets Cain and 32 room.

[3278]

Shareholders could care less, so long as you make them money.

Occidental Petroleum. SAS. Telestra. All top-level, non-consumer-based companies whose shareholders' bottom lines were hurt by public relations problems. This is off the top of my head; there are literally hundreds of other examples. Conversely, I point to 3M as a case where excellent public relations has led to greater commercial success.

And Boeing's PR department isn't really all that big, in relation to, say, Microsoft.

Oh my god. Give me solid numbers and sources for that information and I'll give you a dollar. Fail to, and be forced to admit you have no idea how many people work in public relations at Boeing and Microsoft.

Except, of course, the government paid for those lines to be put up in the first place.

That's completely untrue. Bell Telephone [mostly; other commercial ventures strung their share, too] paid for the lines, save the so-called "farmer lines," privately-built local loops built by investment capital from local citizens in rural areas which Bell wouldn't serve due to the expense of stringing lines for only two customers per mile. I originally come from a small town serviced by farmer lines; because our town built and paid for the lines ourselves, and ran our own telephone exchange, we never felt the effects of the Bell monopoly or its breakup. We also got really cheap rates on our phone service - since Bell didn't have to pay for our local loop hardware or service - and had the added benefit of only requiring four numbers be dialed if you were calling inside the village.

I should also note that the village government didn't organize the setup of the phone lines, nor the township government. Local people got together and decided amongst themselves, financed it themselves, and built it themselves. When I talk about personal responsibility, I'm not just making this stuff up; I've seen it, and I've lived it.

Anyway, my hometown's history notwithstanding, you're lying about the government paying for the lines.

And, Verizon/your local phone company owns the wires running into your house.

I don't know about you, but I prefer it that way; I hate having to do my own line maintenance. That's what I like about leasing the line, and not owning it.

A new company would have to do more than string their own lines, they'd need to go into each and every home and rewire it.

No, just the lines to the house; the wiring inside belongs to you.

If Verizon or the local equvalent wanted to stop them, all they have to do is threaten to cut off service to anyone who allows a competitor access to their home.

"Yes, I'd like to cancel my service? I'm moving to MCI."
"Oh yeah!? Well, we'll cut off your service, bastards!"

Anti-trust laws exist to prevent monopolies. The government won't allow a gas monopoly unless you remove the anti-trust laws, creating that situation.

You /do/ understand that most states are just beginning the process of utilty deregulation, don't you? That until recently, nearly every gas and electric [and phone, for that matter] company held a monopoly position because of federal laws preventing utility competition?

I don't mean to make it sound like you're stupid or anything, but it really sounds like you don't know that the government had been forcing a utility monopoly until, say, the mid-nineties, and that over half the states in the union haven't started deregulation yet. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has been dragging its feet on this for years, since they released the results of their year-long study in 1995 and decided they favored a gradual approach.

Oh, fuck, this next one's a fucking doozy. Let me get a cigarette before I just start screaming obscenities.

1. Government is inherently a monopoly.
2. Monopolies have too much power, and cost too much for the returns they provide.
3. Governments have, therefore, too much power, and cost too much for the returns they provide.

Prove #1, for starters.

Nations are inherently governed by a single government.

#2 seems to be contradicting what you've been saying before.

Like, for instance, when I said, "I hate monopolies a /lot,/ particularly utility and information monopolies [grumble, grumble] but I don't believe it's the government's right to interfere?" I never said I supported monopolies, not once; I simply believe it's not the government's responsibility to deal with them.

Without proof for #1, and a contradiction on #2, you have no proof for #3.

This is so symptomatic of your "win first" mentality. Instead of looking at the logic of this one situation and discerning first whether or not it's correct and /then/ deciding if you disagree with it, you look for a contradiction to a previous point and submit that therefore this one cannot be correct. What the fuck. I don't even know what to say about this.

Now, I don't know about you, but I happen to have about five governments where I live. Federal, State, County, City, and Regional (the multi-county board).

All of which are outgrowths of federal government and exist entirely by aegis of it. Nations are inherently governed by a single government.

And what makes you think it's not the best or only solution in this circumstance?

The botched history of government regulation of similar industries - like the utility companies - and the comparatively incredible success of those industries in which the government has played a minimal role, like the internet.

Certainly it's been the most effective means we've discovered, historically.

I don't understand; government has been the most effective means we've discovered, historically, at taking care of the broadcast industry? I think that statement bears some reconsideration if that's actually what you mean.

Hey, you want to know what's more scary than that? There are no checks on government power except...governmental regulation.

At least there are internal checks and balances. Having solid checks and balances is better than having none at all.

Corporations also have internal checks and balances; corporate policy forbids wrongdoing on the part of employees, and severely punishes those who defy that policy. Large corporations are structured in such a way that they answer to shareholders as well as the company policies. And if you've ever worked in a large corporation, you know that departmental and interdepartmental politics have their own checks and balances.

Anyway, none of it matters when the organization determines its checks and balances. Corporations can and do ignore policy, governments can and do ignore law. Honestly, I don't see much difference between the two, except that business is generally a lot more efficient.

[Anguirel]

Cipher: Answered your first question here.

Also, if you don't see the profit inherent in the eradication of the Jews, you just aren't looking hard enough. First, Jews have a great deal of wealth which you can take simply by killing them. Second, many of them slightly fat, making them good eats. Their skin is also generally soft, making excellent for a variety of clothing, furniture, sporting goods an other products. Their skulls make lovely drinking vessels. Finally, the eradication of that culture and racial type would greatly ease tensions in the Middle East, vastly improving the feasability of trade in the region. And you'd also gain the admiration of lots of people who would then be likely to support you and buy your products. you could market them with your "I killed the Jews" label on them and people would just buy, buy, buy...

I could equally point out that corporations weigh the cost of recalls of a given product with the price of the lawsuits that will result from the deaths of people because of that product, and in many cases they choose not to conduct that recall. Not only are they deliberately killing people, they're deliberately killing customers of their own products. This is at the same time callous and stupid. So... I don't think I'd be comfortable saying that I find corporate sins more palatable than governmental ones.

3279 / ratlaw: Rather than agree that the analogy is poor, why not improve it? For example, use Cable TV rather than radio, or use digital radio services which can fit hundreds or thousands more stations within the same frequencies without causing interference rather than analog systems (with the caveat that you'll need everyone to have access to the main transmission unit as I think most of those systems will require that all broadcasts use the same antenna). Granted, these still require a regulating organization to maintain unique identifiers, but then you could get into discussions on whether the FCC could or could not become a NGO, or whether it needs to do any more regulation than simply providing identifiers and frequencies.

We've already established that. Any monopoly can charge whatever they like, can offer whatever crappy service they want, and people will still have to pay for it.

Why? I mean, if Microsoft is a monopoly and you don't like them, why don't you buy a Mac? Use Linux? If your local gas company sucks, why don't you pool the resources of your community and negotiate with the supplier directly, cutting out the gas provider? I just don't see where monopolies eliminate all your options.

In this instance, Cain is correct. Monopolies wield an inordinate amount of market power once established that cannot simply be overcome with the methods you describe. For example a monopoly can use certain tactics that are simply unsound for companies without a monopoly such as undercutting a new competitor's prices to the point of taking a loss on the short term and then raising prices to cover that loss during times when there is no competition, or in places where competition doesn't exist.

If Microsoft were a complete Monopoly, there wouldn't be a Mac option. If someone tried to provide it, they'd need to charge more than Microsoft to cover initial fixed expenses. Further, Microsoft could offer sweet deals to specific other groups that would then blacklist not only the owner and workers of the other company, but
could also include their users (if easily identified).

In the case of the gas company, let's say they have a horizontal and vertical monopoly -- they own every drop of oil on the planet. So you can't avoid them simply by going to an alternate supplier - there are none. So you decide to build an alternative energy system. They get word of this and, if they consider it a potential threat, utilize their present earnings to move into this market and because they can funnel in money from their other operations they undercut or buy out all present competition then they dominate it as well. Soon, they own every type of portable energy production on the planet and attempting to break into the market is virtually impossible without your own monopoly in another equally strong arena from which to siphon large amounts of funding so you can weather their undercutting, block their attempts at black-listing and otherwise counter with your own versions of each of their strategies. And when you're done, you'll now have a monopoly in two arenas, which would be even more difficult to break by some third party.

In fact, the only way to break such a monopoly without corporate monopoly power is with military power, governmental power, or by a drastic shift in the economic and technological climate (see IBM for an example of that -- and that's only if the monopoly or near monopoly doesn't recognize the trends and move to keep up with them).


Note: First Attempt at this post was eaten, I may've missed a point I thought I'd made since I typed it the first time but not the second time -- please point out such errors so they may be rectified.

[3278]

That's all well and good, Ang, but history is full of monopolies broken by the market and not by the government. And if it takes examples as extreme as, "the oil company owns all oil," to validate a point, you might want to reconsider the point.

[Salvation122]

Now, I don't know about you, but I happen to have about five governments where I live. Federal, State, County, City, and Regional (the multi-county board). All of which can make and enforce laws, levy taxes, and do all the other governmental duties. With five competing players, how can a government be a monopoly?

The state, regional, county, and city governments are essentially wholly-owned subsidiaries of the federal government.

[Salvation122]

And because I'm an equal-opportunity nit-picker:

You /do/ understand that most states are just beginning the process of utilty deregulation, don't you? That until recently, nearly every gas and electric [and phone, for that matter] company held a monopoly position because of federal laws preventing utility competition?

I don't mean to make it sound like you're stupid or anything, but it really sounds like you don't know that the government had been forcing a utility monopoly until, say, the mid-nineties, and that over half the states in the union haven't started deregulation yet. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission has been dragging its feet on this for years, since they released the results of their year-long study in 1995 and decided they favored a gradual approach.

And deregulation worked /so well/ for California.

[Cain]

Actually, 32, government regulations on utilities were to prevent abuses of existing monopolies. As your local energy supplier is effectively a monopoly, regulation existed to prevent smaller utilities from merging, and to prevent them from raising prices. When deregulation began in the mid-90's, prices began to raise dramatically and service quality began to drop, not coincidentally during a time when many of said utilities began to merge. We can also refer to the Enron debacle; while they were never a monopoly, much of what they did would not have happened if utilities were still regulated fully.

Cain wrote:
And, Verizon/your local phone company owns the wires running into your house.

I don't know about you, but I prefer it that way; I hate having to do my own line maintenance. That's what I like about leasing the line, and not owning it.

Cain wrote:
A new company would have to do more than string their own lines, they'd need to go into each and every home and rewire it.

No, just the lines to the house; the wiring inside belongs to you.

Ok, please check me on your logic here--
My point 1: the phone company owns the wires inside your home.
Your reply 1: That's cool, I like only leasing the wires.
My point 2: A new company would need to come into your home.
Your reply 2: No they wouldn't, I own the wiring, I don't lease it.

"Yes, I'd like to cancel my service? I'm moving to MCI."
"Oh yeah!? Well, we'll cut off your service, bastards!"

Exactly. What could you do in that circumstance? If you wanted to stop using Verizon long distance, and they said you weren't allowed to-- what recourse would you have?

So, think of it this way. A new phone company would need to do more than string wires everywhere; they'd need to set up new poles everywhere, rewire every home, set up new switching grids and systems, and so on. Setting up the poles alone is going to be a nightmare, you can't simply put up new wires anywhere you want, nor can you dig up everything in your way to lay inderground cable. And you'd need to do all this before you could even ask people to switch, and hope the monopoly didn't try and use unfair practices to prevent you from getting that far.

This is so symptomatic of your "win first" mentality. Instead of looking at the logic of this one situation and discerning first whether or not it's correct and /then/ deciding if you disagree with it, you look for a contradiction to a previous point and submit that therefore this one cannot be correct. What the fuck. I don't even know what to say about this.

Oh, I did; I already feel it's a 32 soapbox statement and not a hard fact. The contradiction was just a bit extra. You were the one who said you felt single-company market dominance isn't that bad, or that monopolies weren't always threats.

All of which are outgrowths of federal government and exist entirely by aegis of it. Nations are inherently governed by a single government.

All right, let's take a good long look at this. First of all, state governments existed far before the Federal government did; in fact they founded it. They do not exist entirely by the aegis of the Federal government; Texas, in particular, reserves the right to secede at any time. States have the right to their own military forces, so even the threat of force can be met with threat of force (again, Texans generally believe that they could take on everyone else in the country and win).

So, in an area, we have five competing groups, all of whom provide similar services. If you need the government to do something, you could approach any of the five; whichever one you feel will provide the service the best and for the lowest price. That hardly sounds like a monopoly.

So, 32, I'm givning you examples and facts to show the Federal government, at least in the USA, is not a monopoly. Please provide examples and facts proving otherwise.

The botched history of government regulation of similar industries - like the utility companies - and the comparatively incredible success of those industries in which the government has played a minimal role, like the internet.

The botched history you're referring to was actually government deregulation. Once certain things were allowed that were forbidden previously, the predicted problems emerged. And certain parts of the internet are highly regulated-- if you have DSL, it uses your phone lines, which are regulated.

I don't understand; government has been the most effective means we've discovered, historically, at taking care of the broadcast industry? I think that statement bears some reconsideration if that's actually what you mean.

Apologies, I was referring to monopolies and corporate abuse of power. Government has been the most effective means of dealing with that, histprically speaking. You are correct that there might be a better method, but we haven't discovered it yet.

Anyway, none of it matters when the organization determines its checks and balances. Corporations can and do ignore policy, governments can and do ignore law. Honestly, I don't see much difference between the two, except that business is generally a lot more efficient.

Ultimately, a corporation answers to its shareholders. A government, particularily ours, answers to its citizens. We cannot all be shareholders, but we are all citizens. It's a matter of accountability, another thing I've heard you touting a lot.

[Cipher]

Cain says this:You're right, we could trade examples back and forth. However, ultimately a government exists to serve its citizens.

Whoa, hey, that's too big of an assertion for one sentence. A government claims to exist in order to serve its citizens. That's not why the first chieftain picked up the first bone club twenty thousand years ago, though.

And even were the assertion true, which I doubt, it's ultimately irrelevant. What a government should do has little actual effect on what government agencies in fact do (kill people, break things).

In our government, there are many checks and balances that exist to curb a politican's power. Since we started on that subject, i feel we should remain on the subject of our country-- we can get into other forms of government later.

Checks and balances? So if the government screws up, we just rely on it to police itself - that is, cross our fingers and hope that the Supreme Court will kindly ask the Chief Executive not to OK clandestine wiretaps or warrantless searches? We are the ones being wronged; what do we get to do if a federal agency wrongs us? Keep in mind that, if we wrong a federal agency (refusal to pay taxes, keeping large quantities of firearms, smuggling immigrants across the border), they get to fall on us like the love of God.

There are no checks on corporate power except for governmental regulation. As long as they make money, corporations can and will do whatever they want; they'll break the law if the cost of fines is less than the profit they will make. Even laws and regulations don't completely balance corporate powers, they only limit it somewhat.

I agree entirely. Let me say the same thing, changing only a few words:

There are no checks on government power except for the willingness of civilians with guns to tell government agents otherwise. As long as they stay in power, government agents (including Congressmen, chief executives, and federal employees) can and will do whatever they want; they'll ignore the law if the odds of getting punished are less than the effects they'll accomplish. Even laws and regulations don't completely limit government power, since one can't expect a corrupt government to police itself.

What proof [of government untrustworthiness] are you referring to?

Since we want to limit it only to the U.S. government, I'll be brief:

* The Spanish-American War
* World War I
* FDR's railroading of the Supreme Court
* FDR's confiscation of private gold reserves
* World War II
* The draft (technically part of the above, but it includes 'Nam as well)
* Interring Japanese Americans during World War II
* The House Committee on Un-American Activities
* Dispersing Southern civil rights protestors with fire hoses
* The Korean War
* The Vietnam War
* Shooting protestors at Kent State
* Watergate
* Grenada
* The Brady Bill
* Ruby Ridge

Hell, I only picked the popular atrocitieis. My original list had "Bretton Woods" on there, but I realized that was a luxury.[/quote]

[Marius]

First of all, state governments existed far before the Federal government did; in fact they founded it. They do not exist entirely by the aegis of the Federal government; . . . So, in an area, we have five competing groups, all of whom provide similar services.

Actually, only two -- and not really that. You're quite right about state governments. All divisions of the states into counties, cities, and localities, however, exist only at the pleasure of the state government. They are, definitively, only subsidaries of the state government. And even then, there's no real competition between state and federal governments. In fact, there's plenty of legal structure to insure the opposite.

So, in an area, we have five competing groups, all of whom provide similar services. If you need the government to do something, you could approach any of the five; whichever one you feel will provide the service the best and for the lowest price.

No, as a matter of fact, you can't. Especially if it's something another level of government is already providing, another level of government can only provide you with redundant services, additional services, or both, all at increased price. They can never give you less, nor can they give you a better price. You have no option whatsoever of ceasing to "do business" with any layer of government for a particular good or service. So yeah, it doesn't quite look like a monopoly. It looks more like both members of a bipolar oligopoly forming a highly conspicuous cartel.

The botched history you're referring to was actually government de regulation.

The botched history referred to created a supply structure in which a clean-slate deregulation is impossible. Thus, deregulations were sloppy and troublesome. The really crappy deregulation schemes some governments came up with didn't help either.

[Cain]

Actually, only two -- and not really that. You're quite right about state governments. All divisions of the states into counties, cities, and localities, however, exist only at the pleasure of the state government. They are, definitively, only subsidaries of the state government. And even then, there's no real competition between state and federal governments. In fact, there's plenty of legal structure to insure the opposite.

Not quite, but I'll explain the differences I see in a moment.

No, as a matter of fact, you can't. Especially if it's something another level of government is already providing, another level of government can only provide you with redundant services, additional services, or both, all at increased price. They can never give you less, nor can they give you a better price. You have no option whatsoever of ceasing to "do business" with any layer of government for a particular good or service. So yeah, it doesn't quite look like a monopoly. It looks more like both members of a bipolar oligopoly forming a highly conspicuous cartel.

That's untrue. For example, all five levels I mentioned deal with transportation and roads to some extent. If you need a pothole filled, you could approach any level, and request it, although it would be best to deal with that on a city level. You have the choice of lobbying ("doing business") with any level; it's simply that one government will work better than another.
As a more specific example-- a few years back, Paul Allen first approached the City of Seattle with his proposal for tax dollars to help build Seahwaks Stadium. After pouring money into registering an initiative and paying for a special election, when that failed he then went to the State goverment and did the same thing. City, County, and State were all competing, in a fashion, for those dollars; and he went to the one who would provide him the services he wanted.
As far as State/Federal cooperation goes, the Constitution is pretty flexible in what powers the State has in relation to the Federal government. As long as it's profitable for both to cooperate, they will do so. However, they can compete, and have done so many times in the past. That is similar to an oligopoly, but not quite the same, as a situational change will break it much more rapidly.

The botched history referred to created a supply structure in which a clean-slate deregulation is impossible. Thus, deregulations were sloppy and troublesome. The really crappy deregulation schemes some governments came up with didn't help either

Actually, the history shows that the supply structure for utilities worked just fine; maybe not as well as people would have hoped, but it did work. The regulations were formed to prevent exactly the issues that arose from deregulation. At any event, once the struture was in place, the point became moot. Regulating the monopoly prevented many issues. Deregulating caused them.
Of course, you're correct that deregulation in California was quite sloppy and half-assed; however, they're merely the most glaring example. Similar issues have arisien in states with better deregulation methods, although not as extreme. In Washington state, where deregulation is still only being considered, none of those problems emerged.

[Marius]

That's untrue. For example, all five levels I mentioned deal with transportation and roads to some extent. If you need a pothole filled, you could approach any level, and request it, although it would be best to deal with that on a city level.

Unless it's a county road, in which case the city will probably laugh at you. These guys aren't jumping out of their chairs to go fill potholes. They've already decided who fixes what, and they're already charging you for the work.

You have the choice of lobbying ("doing business") with any level; it's simply that one government will work better than another.

/Lobbying/ is "doing business"?!?! Lobbying is akin to purchasing a good or a service? Are you shitting me? Do you really think that?

As far as State/Federal cooperation goes, the Constitution is pretty flexible in what powers the State has in relation to the Federal government. As long as it's profitable for both to cooperate, they will do so. However, they can compete, and have done so many times in the past.

Ummm . . . . hmmm. The Constitution is pretty flexible in a lot of areas. In fact, the Constitution says, "Here's a list of the things the Federal government can do. The rest is up to the States." Which is all well and good, and to some people implies that they won't overlap. But then there are all the laws made by Congress. In the past 211 years they've made quite a few. And these are what set the framework in which the state wiggles around.

As a more specific example-- a few years back, Paul Allen first approached the City of Seattle with his proposal for tax dollars to help build Seahwaks Stadium. After pouring money into registering an initiative and paying for a special election, when that failed he then went to the State goverment and did the same thing. City, County, and State were all competing, in a fashion, for those dollars; and he went to the one who would provide him the services he wanted.

And how, exactly, would I stop doing business with the governments who /aren't/ providing me with what I want. When do I get the opportunity to say, "No, thanks, your services aren't very good, and they're not priced very well. I'm going to spend my money elsewhere."

See, Paul Allen was not purchasing services from the government. He was looking for a gift of money. In fact, if there are returns to the government for putting up the stadium, then Paul Allen was really selling services to the government. They give him money, he gives them a stadium in their community. And the money the government has to give? That comes from the taxpayers, who used it to buy the government, who used it to fund the stadium that Paul built. They taxpayers, of course, have no choice but to keep buying government, because the government throws them in jail when they don't.

Of course, you're correct that deregulation in California was quite sloppy and half-assed; however, they're merely the most glaring example. Similar issues have arisien in states with better deregulation methods, although not as extreme.

Show me other examples. Because if you just dump it out like that, I don't know which places you're referring to, so I can't know whether you're talking about real deregulation, or bullshit plans like California, and I can't know whether "problems" are real problems, or just pointless whining about nothing.

[Cain]

Show me other examples. Because if you just dump it out like that, I don't know which places you're referring to, so I can't know whether you're talking about real deregulation, or bullshit plans like California, and I can't know whether "problems" are real problems, or just pointless whining about nothing.

Well, let's start off with a discussion of the stranded-cost issue of deregulation. This is one of the reasons why deregulation may or may not work. Deregulation also enabled the Enron mess to occur. This article discusses how part of the California energy crisis, and rising prices elsewhere, was caused through Texas- and East Coast-based suppliers. This article is somewhat biased against deregulation, but cites a US DOE study on service failures caused by deregulation. Here's a report from Stanford University indicating that deregulation will result in unpredictable energy prices, instead of merely lower costs. This report is from the US department of Energy, and discusses how deregulation means less money spent on energy R&D, and less spent on developing new sources, which was part of the cause for California's energy crisis.

Now, you're probably going to point out that I just googled for those links, and i'm just citing the ones that support my case. Which is true as far as it goes; however, the pro-deregulation studies are all future projections, while the ones I cited are all studies on what has actually occured since.

[3278]

Actually, 32, government regulations on utilities were to prevent abuses of existing monopolies.

No, they weren't, they created the existing monopolies.

As your local energy supplier is effectively a monopoly, regulation existed to prevent smaller utilities from merging, and to prevent them from raising prices.

Your local energy supplier doesn't have to be a monopoly; government legislation made it so.

When deregulation began in the mid-90's, prices began to raise dramatically and service quality began to drop, not coincidentally during a time when many of said utilities began to merge.

Except that deregulation hasn't started in half the states. In only 18 is restructuring occuring at all, and in those states, all of them I've found any figures for have experienced an average of 7.5% reduction in consumer cost. And that's given the completely half-assed deregulation that's occuring. Now, if you have evidence that says otherwise, that's fine; I just couldn't turn up that much.

We can also refer to the Enron debacle; while they were never a monopoly, much of what they did would not have happened if utilities were still regulated fully.

...that's the most complete and utter crap I've heard in a long time. "What happened" was a violation of laws which have nothing to do with monopolies or government anti-trust legislation, and it happened in spite of those laws.

Cain wrote:
And, Verizon/your local phone company owns the wires running into your house.

I don't know about you, but I prefer it that way; I hate having to do my own line maintenance. That's what I like about leasing the line, and not owning it.

Cain wrote:
A new company would have to do more than string their own lines, they'd need to go into each and every home and rewire it.

No, just the lines to the house; the wiring inside belongs to you.

Ok, please check me on your logic here--
My point 1: the phone company owns the wires inside your home.
Your reply 1: That's cool, I like only leasing the wires.
My point 2: A new company would need to come into your home.
Your reply 2: No they wouldn't, I own the wiring, I don't lease it.

You're reading it wrong.
Cain: Verizon/your local phone company owns the wires <b>running into</b> your house.
3278: That's cool, I like only leasing the wires.
Cain: A new company would have to do more than string their own lines, they'd need to go <b>into each and every home</b> and rewire it.
3278: No, just the lines to the house; the wiring <b>inside</b> belongs to you.

See? I lease the wires outside my home; a new company would have to run new lines /to my home./ But I own the wiring /inside my house,/ and so they wouldn't need to rewire that.

Of course, they wouldn't need to rewire anything; they'd simply need to negotiate a fair market price for using the lines owned by someone else. The owning company /could/ refuse to lease lines, but since they can profit more from leasing semiprofitable lines to other, smaller companies, they'd have very little reason to.

"Yes, I'd like to cancel my service? I'm moving to MCI."
"Oh yeah!? Well, we'll cut off your service, bastards!"

Exactly. What could you do in that circumstance? If you wanted to stop using Verizon long distance, and they said you weren't allowed to-- what recourse would you have?

All right, check this. You transfer from Verizon to MCI. MCI runs a new line to your house [or negotiates to use the old one]. You call Verizon and let them know. Verizon shuts off your service, but it doesn't matter because /there's a new line running to your house./

Oh, I did; I already feel it's a 32 soapbox statement and not a hard fact.

Despite the hard evidence offered to support it? I have no idea how you can lack intellectual integrity so much.

All of which are outgrowths of federal government and exist entirely by aegis of it. Nations are inherently governed by a single government.

All right, let's take a good long look at this. First of all, state governments existed far before the Federal government did; in fact they founded it.

Yeah, I got that wrong way 'round. Marius covered this, in any case; I don't think I have anything to add.

So, 32, I'm givning you examples and facts to show the Federal government, at least in the USA, is not a monopoly. Please provide examples and facts proving otherwise.

Sure. I'd like you to pick up the phone right now and tell the government you're going to have Argentina come in and provide you with military services, because those provided by the US aren't sufficient for your needs. Let them know Germany's going to be fixing the potholes from now on, because German roads cost twice as much but last three times longer. Tell them you're switching your governmental services - water, sewage, schools - to Mexico, and you'll be picking up their Law package, too, so you can buy all the ketamine you want.

Anyway, none of it matters when the organization determines its checks and balances. Corporations can and do ignore policy, governments can and do ignore law. Honestly, I don't see much difference between the two, except that business is generally a lot more efficient.

Ultimately, a corporation answers to its shareholders. A government, particularily ours, answers to its citizens. We cannot all be shareholders, but we are all citizens. It's a matter of accountability, another thing I've heard you touting a lot.

A corporation answers ultimately to the people to whom it provides services, just as government does. The difference is, you can /choose/ not to use the services of a corporation, even a monopolistic one. You cannot choose to abandon the services of a government.

[3278]

In checking to see which points you dropped, I noticed you dropped one of the most important.

And Boeing's PR department isn't really all that big, in relation to, say, Microsoft.

Oh my god. Give me solid numbers and sources for that information and I'll give you a dollar. Fail to, and be forced to admit you have no idea how many people work in public relations at Boeing and Microsoft.

Cain, I'll ask again for a response to this, one way or the other, and I would prefer it to be an honest response: did you, or did you not, fabricate an argument with no support in order to prove your point?

[CykoSpin]

After reading the title to this thread, for just a brief moment, I thought it had something to do with cyber spurs. Methinks that I may need to get out more....

[Cain]

No, they weren't, they created the existing monopolies.

Your local energy supplier doesn't have to be a monopoly; government legislation made it so.

Cain: Here's facts and figures indicating that utility monopolies were created through lack of competition.
32: No they weren't!
Cain: Here's an argument that hurts that position.
32: No it doesn't!

Except that deregulation hasn't started in half the states. In only 18 is restructuring occuring at all, and in those states, all of them I've found any figures for have experienced an average of 7.5% reduction in consumer cost. And that's given the completely half-assed deregulation that's occuring. Now, if you have evidence that says otherwise, that's fine; I just couldn't turn up that much.

The links I posted above, and my own research, indicates that there should be a projected 7.5% decrease nationally. The *actual* numbers indicate that there hasn't been a noticeable drop, nationally. Granted, that includes the California case, where prices more than tripled. However, every link I've seen regarding the cost saviings of deregulation is either a projection, or says it hasn't occured yet (but expects it to in the future). All the ones that study actual numbers since deregulation occured, in the states where deregulation occured, have had no significant change or have actually increased.

...that's the most complete and utter crap I've heard in a long time. "What happened" was a violation of laws which have nothing to do with monopolies or government anti-trust legislation, and it happened in spite of those laws.

Except for the fact that Enron couldn't have had nearly as much scope if utility regulationw ere still in force.

See? I lease the wires outside my home; a new company would have to run new lines /to my home./ But I own the wiring /inside my house,/ and so they wouldn't need to rewire that.

This could vary from state to state or locality to locality, but here, the phone company *does* own the wiring inside the home. Do you have proof it's different in your area?

Of course, they wouldn't need to rewire anything; they'd simply need to negotiate a fair market price for using the lines owned by someone else. The owning company /could/ refuse to lease lines, but since they can profit more from leasing semiprofitable lines to other, smaller companies, they'd have very little reason to.

Maybe in the short term; in the long term it's always more profitable to drive your competitors out of business.

All right, check this. You transfer from Verizon to MCI. MCI runs a new line to your house [or negotiates to use the old one]. You call Verizon and let them know. Verizon shuts off your service, but it doesn't matter because /there's a new line running to your house./

If Verizon owns the wires, the poles, the switching stations, and the wires inside your home-- how can MCI run a new wire to your place without setting up thousands of miles of cable? If everyone else in on the Verizon network, and they really want to get nasty about it, how can an MCI signal get to anyone on that network?

Despite the hard evidence offered to support it? I have no idea how you can lack intellectual integrity so much.

What hard evidence? You've backed up statements with statements, and not a touch of evidence. I can't believe you'd mistake your personal prejudices for fact.

Sure. I'd like you to pick up the phone right now and tell the government you're going to have Argentina come in and provide you with military services, because those provided by the US aren't sufficient for your needs. Let them know Germany's going to be fixing the potholes from now on, because German roads cost twice as much but last three times longer. Tell them you're switching your governmental services - water, sewage, schools - to Mexico, and you'll be picking up their Law package, too, so you can buy all the ketamine you want.

I can go to the State for military services, or found one myself; that's what the Second Amendment says, at any rate. I can petition city, state, county, or regional transportation boards for potholes to be filled; heck, if I wanted to, I could even petition the Federal level for it. Water and Sewer aren't governmental services, and I can go to private schools. Law isn't a service, exactly, but judicial services are-- and I can take a complaint to any level of judiciary.

A corporation answers ultimately to the people to whom it provides services, just as government does. The difference is, you can /choose/ not to use the services of a corporation, even a monopolistic one. You cannot choose to abandon the services of a government.

A corporation answers to it's shareholders; so long as they make money, they could care less. The junk bonds of the early 80's are ample proof of that. And sure, you can choose to not use the services of a corporation-- but in some cases, it could be fatal; if you need a medication and only once company provides it, you either buy it from them at whatever price they choose, or die.

You can move away from a government. However, you can't move away from a monopoly.

Cain, I'll ask again for a response to this, one way or the other, and I would prefer it to be an honest response: did you, or did you not, fabricate an argument with no support in order to prove your point?

My baby's crying right now, and my computer is about ready to crash. I know people who worked for Boeing PR, and people who work for Microsoft PR. Microsoft people make more money for the same job, and there are more of them. If you want solid numbers, you can look them up yourself here and here.

[3278]

No, they weren't, they created the existing monopolies.

Your local energy supplier doesn't have to be a monopoly; government legislation made it so.

Cain: Here's facts and figures indicating that utility monopolies were created through lack of competition.
32: No they weren't!
Cain: Here's an argument that hurts that position.
32: No it doesn't!

Well, for one, I missed any arguments or evidence you gave that supported your position, and two, I really don't understand how you can think the government /didn't/ create the utility monopolies by negotiating exclusive contracts with utility carriers. It's just whacky, and I'm not sure what you need from me to prove it. I mean, what, do you think it's called "de"-regulation by coincidence?

Except that deregulation hasn't started in half the states. In only 18 is restructuring occuring at all, and in those states, all of them I've found any figures for have experienced an average of 7.5% reduction in consumer cost. And that's given the completely half-assed deregulation that's occuring. Now, if you have evidence that says otherwise, that's fine; I just couldn't turn up that much.

The links I posted above, and my own research, indicates that there should be a projected 7.5% decrease nationally. The *actual* numbers indicate that there hasn't been a noticeable drop, nationally.

Oh, gee, in the few years since a couple of states started half-assed deregulation attempts slated to take decades, we're only breaking even, and we won't see price breaks for a while? Cry me a river. Or better yet, let's have this little talk again in 20 years.

Neither of us can speak intelligently about the effects of deregulation on the United States, but that doesn't matter since we're not talking about deregulation anyway; what I'm proposing in not deregulation, but a lack of regulations in the first place. In other words, not what effect it would have /now,/ but what effect there would be if there hadn't been unnecessary regulation in the first place.

...that's the most complete and utter crap I've heard in a long time. "What happened" was a violation of laws which have nothing to do with monopolies or government anti-trust legislation, and it happened in spite of those laws.

Except for the fact that Enron couldn't have had nearly as much scope if utility regulationw ere still in force.

...so what? What does their scope have to do with it? If they were smaller, their CFO would have been honest?

See? I lease the wires outside my home; a new company would have to run new lines /to my home./ But I own the wiring /inside my house,/ and so they wouldn't need to rewire that.

This could vary from state to state or locality to locality, but here, the phone company *does* own the wiring inside the home. Do you have proof it's different in your area?

Well, the back of my old AT&T bills, but I doubt you'll accept that. For what it's worth, I spent a bunch of time googling for web-based answers to you, and everything I found told me that you own the wires inside your house - the property owner does, that is; I, for instance, don't own the wires in this house because I rent - and that that is true everywhere in the US. But they're not links to the FCC - whose regulation it is, even though nothing about the issue is mentioned on their website - or God, so they're no more support than my word.

On the other hand, I'm curious if you have some sort of evidence that legislation in your area flies in the face of federal regulations and common sense. Every phone company I called told me that they only own the lines to your phone box - NID, they call it - and nothing beyond, which is why you have to pay a fee for them to fix problems in the house, as opposed to external line problems. Anyway, if your service is otherwise, you should seriously complain.

Despite the hard evidence offered to support it? I have no idea how you can lack intellectual integrity so much.

What hard evidence? You've backed up statements with statements, and not a touch of evidence. I can't believe you'd mistake your personal prejudices for fact.

Well, if the evidence I've provided that governments aren't monopolies isn't sufficient for you, perhaps you could provide evidence to the contrary, like your signed agreement that Chile will now by providing your water treatment services.

Sure. I'd like you to pick up the phone right now and tell the government you're going to have Argentina come in and provide you with military services, because those provided by the US aren't sufficient for your needs. Let them know Germany's going to be fixing the potholes from now on, because German roads cost twice as much but last three times longer. Tell them you're switching your governmental services - water, sewage, schools - to Mexico, and you'll be picking up their Law package, too, so you can buy all the ketamine you want.

I can go to the State for military services, or found one myself; that's what the Second Amendment says, at any rate. I can petition city, state, county, or regional transportation boards for potholes to be filled; heck, if I wanted to, I could even petition the Federal level for it. Water and Sewer aren't governmental services, and I can go to private schools. Law isn't a service, exactly, but judicial services are-- and I can take a complaint to any level of judiciary.

Yeah, that's great, but none of those are foreign governments. They are all, by extension, state governments. Please stop trying to hold on to this point, because you're way wrong, and it's silly. A country can only have one government; that government is what makes it a country. National boundaries exist by agreement between governments. The only exceptions I can think of are situations in which a country has had more than one government simultaneously, as in the case of the last century's colonialism.

A corporation answers to it's shareholders; so long as they make money, they could care less.

Yeah, you already said that once, and it's still not correct. Without shareholders, you can still sell products and make money. Without customers, you cannot. So the corporation answers ultimately to the market.

And sure, you can choose to not use the services of a corporation-- but in some cases, it could be fatal; if you need a medication and only once company provides it, you either buy it from them at whatever price they choose, or die.

What the heck is this supposed to prove, exactly? I mean, I guess I agree with you, but them's the breaks: if no one else spent all that money to develop that medication, no one else gets to sell it. That's not monopoly, that's copyright. Do you think that all pharmecutical companies should be forced to give up their copyrights? I just don't know what you're trying to say here.

You can move away from a government. However, you can't move away from a monopoly.

The US is a monopoly government. You move to Andorra and they're not. Bell was a monopoly phone company. You move to Andorra and they're not. So, you're wrong, is what I'm saying.

Cain, I'll ask again for a response to this, one way or the other, and I would prefer it to be an honest response: did you, or did you not, fabricate an argument with no support in order to prove your point?

My baby's crying right now, and my computer is about ready to crash. I know people who worked for Boeing PR, and people who work for Microsoft PR. Microsoft people make more money for the same job, and there are more of them. If you want solid numbers, you can look them up yourself here and here.

You have to be joking.

"Did you make up an argument?"
"Uh, uh, well, the dog ate my homework and I knew some people who said something once. Here, look it up in the Library of Congress. Later!"

The size of their respective PR departments is not listed on their sites that I can see. There is no proof of your assertion that I can see. There is nothing at all to contradict the presumtion that you manufactured "soft evidence" to prove your point. I think you're being pathetically competitive, and I wish you'd stop and just explore the possibilities of a thing with us.

I like to win as much as the next guy, but if you're just making shit up, you're not winning, you're cheating. Cut it out.

[Anguirel]

And sure, you can choose to not use the services of a corporation-- but in some cases, it could be fatal; if you need a medication and only once company provides it, you either buy it from them at whatever price they choose, or die.

What the heck is this supposed to prove, exactly? I mean, I guess I agree with you, but them's the breaks: if no one else spent all that money to develop that medication, no one else gets to sell it. That's not monopoly, that's copyright. Do you think that all pharmecutical companies should be forced to give up their copyrights? I just don't know what you're trying to say here.

Patent, not copyright, which have fairly short durations -- long enough to allow higher prices to recoup R&D costs, but not much beyond that. Enacted to allow that recoup, but limited in duration well beyond copyright for the sole purpose of avoiding monopoly issues. However, if there aren't any other pharmaceutical companies around to manufacture the wonder drug once the patent expires, you're still screwed. Only having Advil around instead of generic ibuprofen to push costs down and the like when you have a pain that is only effectively treated by ibuprofen.

It's really hard to envision a total monopoly and the effects it might have since we've been protected from them for a long, long time. Standard economic theory says they'd be excessively bad news, though, should one manage to arise in some fashion, and incredibly difficult to break even if you could manage to become a new entrant to the market with a superior product manufactured and sold at a lower cost. The best examples were the Railroad Tycoons, and even they only had limited-arena monopolies, which they then organized into trusts and cartels to protect their controlled regions from any new entrants, jacked up prices to the limit of what was feasible (which was a lot since the alternative was horse or barge, depending on exactly where you were going). The effect of government trust busting was less influential on the demise of such monopolies than the changing technological climate and the advent of personal motor travel, along with increased regulation of price-fixing schemes for transportation industries of that nature (which hold over into the airlines regulation today, which is why they need to keep bailing those industries out -- an example of regulation going too far to the point of hurting the industry considerably).

[Cain]

Well, for one, I missed any arguments or evidence you gave that supported your position, and two, I really don't understand how you can think the government /didn't/ create the utility monopolies by negotiating exclusive contracts with utility carriers. It's just whacky, and I'm not sure what you need from me to prove it. I mean, what, do you think it's called "de"-regulation by coincidence?

Initally, there was only one provider for several utilities-- Bell and Westinghouse being the most prevalent. The anti-trust laws swung into play fairly early on, so Ang's contention does hold sway-- it's hard to say what the ultimate effect would be.

Oh, gee, in the few years since a couple of states started half-assed deregulation attempts slated to take decades, we're only breaking even, and we won't see price breaks for a while? Cry me a river. Or better yet, let's have this little talk again in 20 years.

Neither of us can speak intelligently about the effects of deregulation on the United States, but that doesn't matter since we're not talking about deregulation anyway; what I'm proposing in not deregulation, but a lack of regulations in the first place. In other words, not what effect it would have /now,/ but what effect there would be if there hadn't been unnecessary regulation in the first place.

Well, you did bring it up. Deregulation has yet to lower prices; in fact, the average national price has risen significantly. Of course, the national averages are skewed because of California, but I haven't been able to locate any national statistics that exclude California. Still, the US DOE links that I provided earlier do say that a significant drop in service quality occured almost immediately after deregulation.

So, we have immediate loss of quality, but no cost savings for several years to come. From what I can tell, that's a sign that deregulation isn't working.

Yeah, that's great, but none of those are foreign governments. They are all, by extension, state governments. Please stop trying to hold on to this point, because you're way wrong, and it's silly. A country can only have one government; that government is what makes it a country. National boundaries exist by agreement between governments. The only exceptions I can think of are situations in which a country has had more than one government simultaneously, as in the case of the last century's colonialism.

Excuse me, but weren't you the one tossing around Government like it's some big monolithic entity? A country can in fact have many different governments, like the United States does. In fact, the name should be a big clue for you-- our government is technically a Federation, a group of smaller governments that have banded together for common interests. "United" as in joined for a purpose, and "States" as in multiple territories, got it? So, there is ample evidence that our government is not, in fact, a monopoly-- that it's one of over fifty entities founded to provide governmental services.

Yeah, you already said that once, and it's still not correct. Without shareholders, you can still sell products and make money. Without customers, you cannot. So the corporation answers ultimately to the market.

Market!= Customers. Take a corporation that primarily does Wall Street business, like a corporate raider's company. Such places have no customers, merely investors. They don't answer to customers, because they have none. Also consider holding companies-- they don't actually do anything or provide any services, they merely own smaller companies and see them to other corporations.

What the heck is this supposed to prove, exactly? I mean, I guess I agree with you, but them's the breaks: if no one else spent all that money to develop that medication, no one else gets to sell it. That's not monopoly, that's copyright. Do you think that all pharmecutical companies should be forced to give up their copyrights? I just don't know what you're trying to say here.

Ok, let me elaborate. Even with copyrights, there are laws enacted to prevent rampant profiteering on drugs. While a corporation is allowed to make a reasonable profit and to recover R&D costs via their patent, they cannot simply jack the price up to whatever they feel like. As such, drug prices are kept down, to a price far less than people would pay-- if it were your life on the line, after all, what would you pay?

The US law actually allows for a much higher profit margin than most other countries; for example, AZT treatment used to run somewhere around a thousand dollars a month, even though it only cost them around 25 cents per pill. However, that was also a case of massive profiteering-- the actual cost of 5 pills a day was only $37.50 per month! A profit is one thing, but a 2500+% markup was obscene.

The law exists to prevent such abuses, to keep any monopoly from gethering too much power. Pharmecutical companies, for example, have the right to profit; but they don't have the right to abuse their power, and make people suffer simply because they can.

Now, you wanted to know why monopolies were so bad. Let's assume that the price control legislation were removed from perscription drugs. Suddenly, the price on many drugs would skyrocket. Consumer groups would be largely helpless, as you can't boycott something you're dependant on. Further, as the prices rise even higher, insurance companies would be forced to pay more and more, and inurance premiums would rise. A major pharmecutical company could start applying undue pressure on insuracne companies, offering perscriptions "discounts" if they let themselves get bought out. In the meanwhile, many otherwise-productive workers would die, as they cannot afford heart medication. Heart attack rates rise, production nationwide drops, and our entire economy starts to slide down the toilet.

So, there you have an example of an existing monopoly, and how controls on it are benefical for the economy overall.

The US is a monopoly government. You move to Andorra and they're not. Bell was a monopoly phone company. You move to Andorra and they're not. So, you're wrong, is what I'm saying.

But the US isn't a monopoly government. Even Marius has conceded that point.

I like to win as much as the next guy, but if you're just making shit up, you're not winning, you're cheating. Cut it out.

Pot. Kettle. Also, try looking a bit harder, and checking out their respecitve PR employment sections.

Ang: Good points, and some of which I hadn't considered. However, from what I can tell, it's government pressure that keeps them from forming in the first place. Also, while prige regulations can hurt an industry by going too far, they can also allow them a lot of profit-- should actual costs somehow be lowered, they can charge exactly the same as before, and still rake in cash.

[3278]

Ang's contention does hold sway-- it's hard to say what the ultimate effect would be.

Yeah, I said that in my last post, too.

So, we have immediate loss of quality, but no cost savings for several years to come. From what I can tell, that's a sign that deregulation isn't working.

It is, yes, a sign that deregulation isn't working, but it isn't a sign that a lack of regulation in the first place wouldn't work, or that deregulation /won't/ work.

A country can in fact have many different governments, like the United States does.

Well, the Federal Government of the United States of America still won't let me contract with any governments outside the United States of America, so whether it's a company or a conglomerate, it's a monopoly.

Oh, my god, why am I still trying to explain this to you? You'll never accept anything I say, no matter how rational or axiomatic it is. Why don't I just say, "Okay, Cain, governments aren't monopolies and you can get governmental services from any government you choose. None of which matters; this is all from one tiny aside I made a week ago that didn't have any bearing on my base assertions."

Market!= Customers.

Yeah, sorry. I thought about that at the time but didn't fix it. Corporations answer to customers, ultimately, yes, and not to the market at large, although they answer to that, too.

Take a corporation that primarily does Wall Street business, like a corporate raider's company. Such places have no customers, merely investors. They don't answer to customers, because they have none. Also consider holding companies-- they don't actually do anything or provide any services, they merely own smaller companies and see them to other corporations.

And at the end of that very long and highly limited-in-scope chain, you end up with customers, buying the products of the companies being traded. And are you trying to assert the government needs to have anti-trust laws on /all/ businesses just to stop those comparatively few companies that don't directly sell to consumers? You always have these whacky anecdotal examples, but they don't prove the case, they only provide an exception to the common rule.

So, there you have an example of an existing monopoly, and how controls on it are benefical for the economy overall.

Uh, no. There you have an example of a company which is the only provider of its product - the product it paid to create - and how controls on it are beneficial to the economy overall. Are you claiming that all companies which are the only companies to sell a given product are monopolies? It's not like there's only one pharmecutical company, ruling all the others; you're talking about monopoly of a single, patented [thank you, Ang; mucho estupido on my part] product. No one else is allowed to manufacture or sell Cherry Garcia; does that make Ben and Jerry's a monopoly?

But the US isn't a monopoly government. Even Marius has conceded that point.

I think you'll find that I don't generally accept, "Because Marius said so," as telling proof of a thing. I've even been known to disagree with him at times. He's even been wrong, once.

I like to win as much as the next guy, but if you're just making shit up, you're not winning, you're cheating. Cut it out.

Pot. Kettle.

Right, except that I'm not the guy who's manufacturing evidence. Jesus.

Also, try looking a bit harder, and checking out their respecitve PR employment sections.

Try fucking off. You want to make a point, you make a point, and you provide your evidence when called-for. You don't make someone else do your impossible research for you in order to prove you weren't making up the evidence in the first place. Man, what /happened/ to you?

[Cain]

It is, yes, a sign that deregulation isn't working, but it isn't a sign that a lack of regulation in the first place wouldn't work, or that deregulation /won't/ work.

However, it is evidence that deregulation may not work, and that a lack of regulation may have caused a similar situation.

And at the end of that very long and highly limited-in-scope chain, you end up with customers, buying the products of the companies being traded. And are you trying to assert the government needs to have anti-trust laws on /all/ businesses just to stop those comparatively few companies that don't directly sell to consumers? You always have these whacky anecdotal examples, but they don't prove the case, they only provide an exception to the common rule.

As a matter of fact, anti-trust legislation is primarily aimed at said holding companies. That's why all mergers need to be approved by the FTC, as well as major acquisitions. Otherwise, one could obtain a monopoly simply by gaining controlling interest in all the competitors, using a holding corporation. This isn't an exception, this is how a lot of antitrust problems actually begin in reality.

Uh, no. There you have an example of a company which is the only provider of its product - the product it paid to create - and how controls on it are beneficial to the economy overall. Are you claiming that all companies which are the only companies to sell a given product are monopolies? It's not like there's only one pharmecutical company, ruling all the others; you're talking about monopoly of a single, patented [thank you, Ang; mucho estupido on my part] product. No one else is allowed to manufacture or sell Cherry Garcia; does that make Ben and Jerry's a monopoly?

Not quite. A company that is the only one to sell a product is a monopoly, but more importantly, it must be the only one to sell that product or anything similar. For example, while there's lots of pharmecutical companies, there's only one that can make a given medication-- and if there are no other medications that can treat what it does, then it's a monopoly.

Let's use Pfizer as an example. Pfizer has a patent on Neurontin, a very effective and popular anti-seizure medication. It's not the only one, but it does have the issue that it cannot be simply stopped, a person needs to be gradually "weaned" off of it before another medication can be put in place. If there were no price controls, Pfizer could charge whatever they liked; people would be forced to pay it, because they can't simply switch without suffering significant side effects.

The AZT example I listed earlier is also a good example. Back in the day, there were no other treatments for AIDS. The company who owned the patent on AZT (the name eludes me right now) could charge whatever they liked, and people would pay it. (And, in fact, they did push things as far as the law would let them.) A 2500+% markup is more than enough for someone to recover R&D costs for the lifespan of a patent, IMO, especially when said research was also funded partly by taxpayer dollars.

Your analogy to ice cream is highly flawed; you're comparing a trademark to a patent. The name "Cherry Garcia" is all that Ben and Jerry's has rights to; if someone came up with an identical ice cream, they couldn't do anything about it. A trademark is a different matter than a patent; trademarks have nothing to do with the actual product.

I think you'll find that I don't generally accept, "Because Marius said so," as telling proof of a thing. I've even been known to disagree with him at times. He's even been wrong, once.

However, you'll discover that no one else here seems to think that the federal govenrment is the only power in the USA; for that matter, the evidence seems to be quite the contrary. Heck, "Federal" comes from Federation, and you know that means a group of cooperating governments. Ergo, the US Federal government is made up of multiple competing governmental bodies. If you care to discuss rather or not you feel the exact degree of competition is sufficient, feel free. However, don't try and suggest that our government is some sort of monolithic structure with no dissent or competition.

In an attempt to not let this thread get further knocked off-course, I will ignore the rest of your post, as it degenerated into name calling, incoherent ranting, and other behavior i find to be far beneath you.

[Gunny]

If you want solid numbers, you can look them up yourself here and here.

Cain, I searched both sites and didn't find anything that supported your arguments.

[3278]

It is, yes, a sign that deregulation isn't working, but it isn't a sign that a lack of regulation in the first place wouldn't work, or that deregulation /won't/ work.

However, it is evidence that deregulation may not work, and that a lack of regulation may have caused a similar situation.

"May" being the operative word here.

As a matter of fact, anti-trust legislation is primarily aimed at said holding companies.

Okay, so would you care to explain why every other type of company needs to be handicapped by legislation intended for only the minority of companies?

Not quite. A company that is the only one to sell a product is a monopoly, but more importantly, it must be the only one to sell that product or anything similar.
For example, while there's lots of pharmecutical companies, there's only one that can make a given medication-- and if there are no other medications that can treat what it does, then it's a monopoly.

You didn't like my ice cream example, and that's fine, because it was, indeed, flawed. So let's look at another patented product, instead: the wheelbarrow cover. Omar C. Franklin invented a detachable wheelbarrow cover which he owns the patent for, and which only he may build and sell. Does that make Omar C. Franklin a monopoly? More importantly, does it mean that the government must step in to prevent his monopoly of the wheelbarrow cover?

I know your example with life-threatening illness and medication is more dramatic, but what I'd like you to see is that you can't make a general case based on a specific example, particularly when that example is unique in critical ways. Now, your example purports that anyone owning a patent is a monopoly and must be forced to share that patent with other companies so that they can manufacture it as well. I disagree.

However, you'll discover that no one else here seems to think that the federal govenrment is the only power in the USA; for that matter, the evidence seems to be quite the contrary.

Right, and using that basis as evidence, you're wrong about nearly everything you've posted, since no one else agrees with you. Fallacious, silly, moving on.

If you care to discuss rather or not you feel the exact degree of competition is sufficient, feel free. However, don't try and suggest that our government is some sort of monolithic structure with no dissent or competition.

Well, I didn't ever claim that, and I'd appreciate it if you stop putting words in my mouth. I notice you're fond of pointing out that the US isn't monopolistic because it's a collection of governments, so I wonder what you think of, say, Italy? Or Argentina? Or the entire rest of the world, for that matter? And I question, if my government isn't a monopoly, why I can't contract with, say, Indiana for my police services.

In an attempt to not let this thread get further knocked off-course, I will ignore the rest of your post, as it degenerated into name calling, incoherent ranting, and other behavior i find to be far beneath you.

You made up evidence, Cain. You know it, I know it, everyone else knows it. Ignore it as you will, make up whatever excuses you wish, but you have absolutely no credulity in my eyes.

[Salvation122]

However, you'll discover that no one else here seems to think that the federal govenrment is the only power in the USA; for that matter, the evidence seems to be quite the contrary.

Hi.

32 is asserting that there's only one sovereign government in the US, and that that government is the federal one. This is inherently obvious and you're being a dumbass. Translation complete.

However, don't try and suggest that our government is some sort of monolithic structure with no dissent or competition.

It /is,/ Cain. We fought a little war over that back around 1860, remember? The rule of the federal government is superior to /everything else./

[Daki]

Cain, I'll ask again for a response to this, one way or the other, and I would prefer it to be an honest response: did you, or did you not, fabricate an argument with no support in order to prove your point?

My baby's crying right now, and my computer is about ready to crash. I know people who worked for Boeing PR, and people who work for Microsoft PR. Microsoft people make more money for the same job, and there are more of them. If you want solid numbers, you can look them up yourself here and here.

Let me interject something here since it is an area I am very familiar with. I'll start with Microsoft.

Microsoft does not have a very large general PR department. They have broken down PR into smaller dpeartment that handle very specific situations that arrise. A few of these divisions are: Investor Relations, Product Relations, Trade-group Relations, Business Relations, Government Relations, and User Relations. These departments are not all based in their corporate headquarters. They also have similar roles (though reduced in number) for their international operations that are based in the division headquarters overseas.

Boeing is very similar to Microsoft in the fact they do not have a very large "general" PR department. They also have it broken down into specific divisions: FAA, Investor, Public, Labor and Union, International, and Government.

I found this information simply by calling the corporate numbers for both companies and asking for someone in Public Relations who could answer 5 minutes worth of questions for a research project. Neither could give specific numbers on how many people were in each department... /however/ when I mentioned that the research was going to be comparing the deparment to Microsoft, the reply was that there was little doubt Microsoft had a larger PR group. There is something that should be noted that the Boeing rep said to me.

Microsoft is a much larger company with a greater international presence and a leader in a market with ruthless competition and continual advancement/changes. Boeing is in a niche market that sells to a small number of clients. Their PR work is very limited and they focus more on Labor/Unions and dealing with tragedies that involve their craft.

In short, while you can compare their relatives sizes, it is compaying apples to oranges.

[3278]

Gods, I hadn't even thought about relative size; I was just assuming Microsoft and Boeing were exactly the same size. Some days, I wonder where my brain is.

Bravo to you, Daki, for doing research somewhere other than google. Besides calling some phone companies about who owns the line, I've almost never done that. I think it's time to start. Thank you.

[Daki]

Something very interesting that I just found out. Boeing actually employs more people than Microsoft. Three times as many to be exact.

Boeing currently employs 160,600 people (taken from their own homepage)

Microsoft (as of 2002) employs 50,621 (taken from their webpage)

And just as a fun fact, they both pale in comparisson to Walmart. Walmart employs over 1 million people.

Now I am very curious to find a way to get exact numbers on PR people at each company.

[Adam]

Dodgy Research Inc goes to the next level! ;-)

[Cain]

Okay, so would you care to explain why every other type of company needs to be handicapped by legislation intended for only the minority of companies?

Well, because that minority actually owns a majority of the companies across America, for one, at least in terms of dollar values. anti-trust legislation doesn't affect most companies out there-- Mom-and-Pop businesses won't even register on the FTC radar, and they're not affected by anti-trust legislation in the slightest, as well as numerically compromising the majority of companies out there. So, Anti-trust legislation is actuall targeted at the groups that are most likely to be a problem, and doesn't actually handicap the majority of companies.

I know your example with life-threatening illness and medication is more dramatic, but what I'd like you to see is that you can't make a general case based on a specific example, particularly when that example is unique in critical ways. Now, your example purports that anyone owning a patent is a monopoly and must be forced to share that patent with other companies so that they can manufacture it as well. I disagree.

Sort-of and no. A patent only restricts one to a specific product or method of construction. It does not prevent someone from producing something similar. Back in the day, Henry Ford held all the patents on the Model A automobile; that didn't stop people from producing cars, however. Omar Franklin may have owned the patent on *a* wheelbarrow cover, but that doesn't stop others from developing a slightly different wheelbarrow cover. Drugs, however, are different-- a slight change in the composition of an active drug can be fatal. You can't just develop a slightly-different version of a drug, for one.

Your second point is apprarently a misread. No, I do not necessarily think that companies with patents must be forced to share it. I do, however, think that companies with critical patents (drugs being the best example, but certain types of computer technology for another) should accept price controls in exchange for that exclusivity. Again, the law has allowed up to a 2500% markup beyond cost, which IMO should be more than sufficient for a corporation with any degree of business savvy.

32 is asserting that there's only one sovereign government in the US, and that that government is the federal one.

I know several Texans who would disagree.

Cain, I searched both sites and didn't find anything that supported your arguments.

To back up a bit, i did say that I based my original assumption on two factors-- 1, because Boeing has a niche market vs. Microsoft producing directly for consumers; and 2, based off those I knew who worked PR for both companies. The lady I knew who worked for Boeing has since moved to Chicago and is thus unavailiable for comment. However, the evidence that exists can be shown in the number and salary of the PR/Marketing positions vastly favors Microsoft.

[Gunny]

32 is asserting that there's only one sovereign government in the US, and that that government is the federal one.

I know several Texans who would disagree.

you can't seriously be using the swaggering egos of Texans as the basis of your argument...