Let's put it simply: I suspect someone has been stalking me, and part of that has been here on Slashdot. But not the only part.
But I am NOT saying, or even implying, that this person is that person. That's going too far. Circumstantial evidence only, But there is evidence, that would be a boolean "true".
Do you honestly think -- Saturday night or not -- that Slashdot doesn't have both the IP address of , and the IP address of this "anonymous coward"? Really? The actual comments are public record, and the IPs are in the database. What would you like to bet whether these "anonymous coward" (made real) comments came from an IP that has been around Slashdot a long time?
Having stated that: I know of ways around the usual IP system and perhaps you do as well. I'm not saying it's a foolproof system. But I think I know its ins and outs a bit better then you do. So watch your ass.
By the way, most people on Slashdot consider PRETENDING to be an anonymous coward to be not just your typical "anonymous coward", but a total abandonment of any testicles to which you might previously have laid claim. I use the word "laid" in a pretty loose sense here.
If you are who I think you are, I have made the point to you before that the fact you are educated in one subject does not make you an expert in others.
NOTE TO PUBLIC: I may be wrong about the identity of this person. I think I have a pretty good clue, but don't act on my opinion only... or even if you think you have figured it out. So far his beef seems to be with me. I am happy to wait and let him hang himself, which he will do eventually, and may already have, except that I do not have the present resources to look. But every comment he makes just adds more. So let him.
Correction: "but so far" should have been "so far".
Addendum: When I say my patience has limits, and *IF* you are who I think you are, then you had better start looking up the harassment statutes in your state.
Are you going to make an actual argument based on facts you can produce, or are you just going to continue to make baseless implications disguised as an anonymous coward?
I think I have a pretty good idea who you are, and if I am correct, you are just as ball-less as "anonymous coward" implies, and these kinds of comments (I'm saving them for good luck) do no more than prove it.
Say something people can believe, and base it on real evidence as opposed to just opinion, or fuck off. This may have been fun but so far. But my patience does have limits.
I should probably clarify: it was (is) a working application. But it was originally written a few years ago, and I had the job of reverse-engineering much of it, without access to the original programmer (more than one, but apparently one did most of it).
And in a different language.
And... the existing code maintenance sucked. (Which brings us back to poor engineering.) There were many files (this is a big project... when I say many I mean MANY... several hundred at least) labeled "backup__" or ".old" or pairs of "" and ".new" with no date... etc., etc. And that's all aside from the coding issues, which were all I was criticizing initially. Those are all still there, too.
Sadly, there were sigs in the comments in much of the code. So I don't think it was "too many cooks" in this case. It was too many managers, selling an inferior product at an inflated price based on their corporate name, and putting the responsibility on one or a few employees.
"No, you've made an argument multiple times that this regulation has directly led to fewer major American automobile manufacturers. You've also said you've had reasons to believe this, although the only time you've tried to explain it you just hinted that sometimes correlation actually does mean causation, even if there's no reason to be sure about causation. You even make it again in this post:"
The link I referred to went to the wrong place. That was an error on my part (a copy-paste flub) but the figures are still there if you look at the new link I posted.
I do apologize for any confusion, but that typographical error does not weaken my argument. It does, however, mean that you probably did not actually see the figures, so I won't fault you for your subsequent arguments.
I am not a dude. Please check the name. BUT... I do appreciate that you pointed out my mistake.
You are quite correct. My apologies to everybody for that! I don't mind admitting when I'm clearly wrong.
But it was a simple mistake. If someone had posted earlier that the link was incorrect, much could have been avoided. It must have been a copy-paste error of some kind. Happens to all of us. The guy who wanted to have the big argument with me could have looked at the context and simply said "that link doesn't go where you think". Properly chastised, I would have corrected it. Anyway, enough of that.
Here is the original page to which I referred. Apologies for the confusion, but I could see there was a link there, I just didn't check whether it said "wikipedia" or "slashdot".
"Which is fine, because what they're doing is not engineering."
Yes, it is... in the same way that architects "engineer"... they take known technology and apply art to it. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they don't. Even Frank Lloyd Wright got it wrong from time to time. (His bit cantilever at Falling Water failed, for example. Was on the way to failing, but it was reinforced by others -- for purely historical reasons only -- some years ago.)
"Which is also fine, because whether you like the "quality" (however that may be defined) of code they write has nothing to do with engineering."
Yes, it does. Proper engineering should [A] be done according to appropriate principles, and [B] understandable by others. Otherwise, it [A] cannot be demonstrated to be actual "engineering" at all, and [B] is not maintainable after its initial creation. I mean come on... did you really think I was referring to rarified abstracts here? If your short road bridge over a small body of water has obvious S-curves in it, then unless it's a VERY unusual situation, it's just plain shitty engineering. If your code is badly formatted to the point that it's hardly readable, and obscure forms were used to do straightforward things (and YES, I have seen such from big firms), then it's still shitty engineering.
A mechanical engineer will usually recognize a well-built bridge. A software engineer will usually recognize good programming.
"Can similar rigor be applied to software? Of course. Is it? Rarely. Is anybody in this thread who seems to be advocating that they should be able to call themselves an engineer doing it? It seems highly doubtful from the statements being made that they would even know what it entailed, let alone how to do it."
That's because traditional "software engineering" is largely a failed discipline. Old-school "software engineering" is what led to the famous "Waterfall" method of project organization and design, that was woefully slow and error-prone. That is where the famous "7 lines of workable code per day per person" came from. And often, in the long run, they turned out to be not very workable. Like the baggage system for the new Denver airport, for example. That's a classic example of the utter failure of what many older folks call "software engineering".
It's pretty clear that the top-down idea of programming has pretty much turned out to be a crock of shit. That has been pretty well-known now for... what? 15 years maybe? Other methodologies have proven to give better results in most circumstances. I can appreciate that you don't like that, but not liking it has little to do with the facts.
And if you really think "software engineering" is merely "lifting the beam that holds up the bridge", then you just don't know much about it. Somebody had to figure out what the proper beam material and dimensions were, given the underlying conditions, and the connection methods, and the fit with the rest of the project, and so on.
To be blunt, I find your arguments to be not just uncompelling, but either disingenuous or ignorant. I won't guess as to which.
In fact I think you are much like many people who tried to hire me, and whom I turned down.
"Also makes me wonder, if bridge builders or aerospace engineers require an ethics test, shouldn't the guy who writes the software that guides the rocket also require a similar test?"
I have recently worked at re-writing some software that was created probably around 8 years ago by a BIG corporation. After seeing this pile of... well, I'll be polite and just call it "stuff"... I have to wonder whether anybody in the corporation ever took an ethics test.
Don't get me wrong... it's mostly working code, as far as I know. But it's old technology, the formatting is all over the place, and some things are just plain done in weird ways with no apparent reason. How a major corporation could come up with this mess is a mystery to me.
"Sadly, the answer is no to all of these. The person who cuts your hair has more certification than the person who writes pacemaker software."
Yes, I have read about issues with pacemakers... but I've also had bad haircuts. Certification by the State is no guarantee that you will be good at your job.
"I would have to satisfy all the academic requirements of an undergrad engineer, work as a supervised engineer-in-training for between 2-4 years and pass a professional practice exam to qualify."
I have nothing against the experience, but personally I am against certification of programmers (your "practice exam"). Of course maybe it's still a question of terminology, because what you think of as a Software Engineer may be somewhat different than what the average person in the U.S. thinks.
Still: I know developers who lean more to the artistic side, and do well in that niche designing and coding interfaces, etc. even though they might have trouble passing such an exam. I know some who are more on the engineering side who might pass the exam with flying colors, but not be able to pump out very good code.
For example, I know at least one guy who is so smart that he often writes code that is concise and works well, but that just about nobody else understands (possible in many modern languages). For an individual project that's great, but in a collaborative effort that's just not going to cut it.
I know others who are educated as heck, but their code is so inefficient and spaghetti-like that it's amazing it works at all. And often poorly formatted (if at all) on top of that.
"It doesn't make sense that a software engineer would need a degree in computer science. They are two different domains."
It seems to me that the page referenced is little more than a very long and half-baked attempt to explain the difference between science and technology.
I've also worked under both the title Software Engineer and Developer (and not even in that order). It depends largely on who you are working for, and sometimes how they are organized.
"Seriously, I've worked in states where it's illegal to give someone without an engineering degree the title "Engineer", but I've worked with engineers who didn't finish college and found them every bit as good (sometimes much better) than the ones who didn't."
Personally, I might be more comfortable in a state where it was illegal to call some people who DO have engineering degrees "Engineers".
I wasn't "appealing to authority". I was simply pointing out to you that causes of monopoly were widely recognized more than 230 years ago... and they aren't always what you say. Although sometimes they are.
" Let's look at the data instead... Every single monopoly to in existence today is a government granted monopoly."
Cherry-picking your data does not impress. Even if you were correct (and you aren't), it wasn't always that way.
For example, Standard Oil was not a "government-granted monopoly"... although it definitely became a near-monopoly. It was the government that helped to break their monopolistic hold. Ignore history all you want, but as I say, it doesn't impress.
"Railroads... Granted Right-of-way everywhere they wanted by the Federal government."
Not all of them. Read what historians actually have to say about the matter, like Thomas E. Woods, for one example. The railroads that were NOT Federally subsidized tended to do better and be more profitable. Not all of them, but many. Same with ferries, and other transportation companies. In fact, in some cases the private, non-government-subsidized businesses drove the Government-sponsored ones out of business.
Another example: the American Letter Mail Company, run by Lysander Spooner, was kicking the government-sponsored United States Postal Service's ass until Congress passed a non-compete law in 1851 that put them out of business.
"Granted perpetual copyright monopolies."
Not really. If you want to make a good argument, don't exaggerate so much. Yes, the terms are ridiculously too long. But they are not monopolies. You are welcome to get your own copyrights on your own original works, and they would last just as long.
I will grant you that cable companies and other conglomerates are getting to the point that we are in danger of having worse than just monopoly (oligopoly actually), but horizontal ones as well: companies that control, content creation AND distribution AND communication. A very bad situation indeed. But the fact that these are being allowed by government does not prove that all all.
Here's an example on my side of the argument: Microsoft. At one time, it controlled approximately 90% of the OS market around the world. But their monopoly was not created by government... on the contrary: the free market has helped to bring them down. There's another example where the government (rather ineffectually) actually fought their monopoly rather than "allowing" or "creating" it. European governments were somewhat more effective in that regard.
"However, if it decides to take advantage of it's status as a single provider, in a free market it becomes beneficial to everyone around that company, before and after in the supply chain, to force it back in line or bypass it."
But that's not an argument against monopoly. It's an argument against unfair trade practices. Not (quite) the same thing.
I'm not trying to be snide or sarcastic, but if you want to make the kind of argument you are making here, you should really read up a bit on your history first.
"That's because almost anything that comes to one's mind is more dangerous that terrorist attacks (e.g.: cars, coal power plant emissions, nicotin, alcohol...) "
I think there should be an official name for this, like there is for Godwin's Law: "If government wants something, sooner or later it will invoke terrorism."
"Well, I guess alien invasion is slightly less risky."
Gets riskier every year. Well... I guess it depends on what kind of aliens you're talking about.
"They were certainly antitrust laws, which deal with more than monopolies."
Yes, they do, but again you miss my point.
If there are 14 or so major auto manufacturers in the United States (as there were some decades ago when most states passed these regulations), how can that be called monopoly, or even unfair trade? Looks like healthy competition to me.
I didn't write that. I was replying to someone else. Are you sure you're replying to the right person?
"The classic monopoly case, the one that created the antitrust laws, was Standard Oil: Rockefeller would move into an area, sell at a loss until all of his smaller competition was out of business, then jack up the price once he had a local monopoly (or local... something, if I'm not allowed to use the word monopoly)."
You are using "anti-trust" in a very narrow sense here. The term came into use then, but that sort of law did not. Anti-monopoly laws go back to English common law and before. And we had them in the United States, too, long before they were called "anti-trust".
I was using the term in its modern sense, which is not just specifically "anti-trust" but anti-monopoly, and anti-unfair-trade-practices. Smith did in fact write about this, he just didn't refer to it specifically as "anti-trust".
"Pie-in-the-sky idealism aside, the laws in question (about car resale) were certainly not failures. They were clearly aimed at maintaining a functioning independent dealership marketplace, and the fact that independent dealerships exist shows that that objective has been at least partially fulfilled."
But at what cost? My whole point was not about whether the dealerships were successful, but what affect these regulations have had on manufacturers.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn. I'm just full of typing errors today.
Let's put it simply: I suspect someone has been stalking me, and part of that has been here on Slashdot. But not the only part.
But I am NOT saying, or even implying, that this person is that person. That's going too far. Circumstantial evidence only, But there is evidence, that would be a boolean "true".
Do you honestly think -- Saturday night or not -- that Slashdot doesn't have both the IP address of , and the IP address of this "anonymous coward"? Really? The actual comments are public record, and the IPs are in the database. What would you like to bet whether these "anonymous coward" (made real) comments came from an IP that has been around Slashdot a long time?
Having stated that: I know of ways around the usual IP system and perhaps you do as well. I'm not saying it's a foolproof system. But I think I know its ins and outs a bit better then you do. So watch your ass.
By the way, most people on Slashdot consider PRETENDING to be an anonymous coward to be not just your typical "anonymous coward", but a total abandonment of any testicles to which you might previously have laid claim. I use the word "laid" in a pretty loose sense here.
If you are who I think you are, I have made the point to you before that the fact you are educated in one subject does not make you an expert in others.
NOTE TO PUBLIC: I may be wrong about the identity of this person. I think I have a pretty good clue, but don't act on my opinion only... or even if you think you have figured it out. So far his beef seems to be with me. I am happy to wait and let him hang himself, which he will do eventually, and may already have, except that I do not have the present resources to look. But every comment he makes just adds more. So let him.
I admit that sometimes I can be a bit scatter-brained. I meant to say not just the harassment statutes, but the stalking statutes as well.
Have a nice day.
Correction: "but so far" should have been "so far".
Addendum: When I say my patience has limits, and *IF* you are who I think you are, then you had better start looking up the harassment statutes in your state.
Did you REALLY miss my point? Haha.
Are you going to make an actual argument based on facts you can produce, or are you just going to continue to make baseless implications disguised as an anonymous coward?
I think I have a pretty good idea who you are, and if I am correct, you are just as ball-less as "anonymous coward" implies, and these kinds of comments (I'm saving them for good luck) do no more than prove it.
Say something people can believe, and base it on real evidence as opposed to just opinion, or fuck off. This may have been fun but so far. But my patience does have limits.
Hell, I didn't even mean transvestite. I meant hermaphrodite. That just goes to show what I know about gender-bending issues.
"Your anonymous pseudonym, you mean? For all we know, you're a dude posing as a woman on Slashdot."
And for all we know, you are a transvestite posing as an "anonymous coward" (and might actually BE one) on Slashdot.
If you have reason to raise an issue, then do it. But this comment was indeed worth of an "anonymous coward".
Ah... Slashdot still hasn't come up to the modern world of UTF-8, has it?
That was supposed to read " 'backup_#filename#_[date]' or '#filename#.old' or pairs of '#filename#' and '#filename.new' with no dates... etc."
Where "#filename#" represents the base file name, of course.
I should probably clarify: it was (is) a working application. But it was originally written a few years ago, and I had the job of reverse-engineering much of it, without access to the original programmer (more than one, but apparently one did most of it).
And in a different language.
And... the existing code maintenance sucked. (Which brings us back to poor engineering.) There were many files (this is a big project... when I say many I mean MANY... several hundred at least) labeled "backup__" or ".old" or pairs of "" and ".new" with no date... etc., etc. And that's all aside from the coding issues, which were all I was criticizing initially. Those are all still there, too.
Sadly, there were sigs in the comments in much of the code. So I don't think it was "too many cooks" in this case. It was too many managers, selling an inferior product at an inflated price based on their corporate name, and putting the responsibility on one or a few employees.
"No, you've made an argument multiple times that this regulation has directly led to fewer major American automobile manufacturers. You've also said you've had reasons to believe this, although the only time you've tried to explain it you just hinted that sometimes correlation actually does mean causation, even if there's no reason to be sure about causation. You even make it again in this post:"
The link I referred to went to the wrong place. That was an error on my part (a copy-paste flub) but the figures are still there if you look at the new link I posted.
I do apologize for any confusion, but that typographical error does not weaken my argument. It does, however, mean that you probably did not actually see the figures, so I won't fault you for your subsequent arguments.
I am not a dude. Please check the name. BUT... I do appreciate that you pointed out my mistake.
You are quite correct. My apologies to everybody for that! I don't mind admitting when I'm clearly wrong.
But it was a simple mistake. If someone had posted earlier that the link was incorrect, much could have been avoided. It must have been a copy-paste error of some kind. Happens to all of us. The guy who wanted to have the big argument with me could have looked at the context and simply said "that link doesn't go where you think". Properly chastised, I would have corrected it. Anyway, enough of that.
Here is the original page to which I referred. Apologies for the confusion, but I could see there was a link there, I just didn't check whether it said "wikipedia" or "slashdot".
Mea culpa.
"Which is fine, because what they're doing is not engineering."
Yes, it is... in the same way that architects "engineer"... they take known technology and apply art to it. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they don't. Even Frank Lloyd Wright got it wrong from time to time. (His bit cantilever at Falling Water failed, for example. Was on the way to failing, but it was reinforced by others -- for purely historical reasons only -- some years ago.)
"Which is also fine, because whether you like the "quality" (however that may be defined) of code they write has nothing to do with engineering."
Yes, it does. Proper engineering should [A] be done according to appropriate principles, and [B] understandable by others. Otherwise, it [A] cannot be demonstrated to be actual "engineering" at all, and [B] is not maintainable after its initial creation. I mean come on... did you really think I was referring to rarified abstracts here? If your short road bridge over a small body of water has obvious S-curves in it, then unless it's a VERY unusual situation, it's just plain shitty engineering. If your code is badly formatted to the point that it's hardly readable, and obscure forms were used to do straightforward things (and YES, I have seen such from big firms), then it's still shitty engineering.
A mechanical engineer will usually recognize a well-built bridge. A software engineer will usually recognize good programming.
"Can similar rigor be applied to software? Of course. Is it? Rarely. Is anybody in this thread who seems to be advocating that they should be able to call themselves an engineer doing it? It seems highly doubtful from the statements being made that they would even know what it entailed, let alone how to do it."
That's because traditional "software engineering" is largely a failed discipline. Old-school "software engineering" is what led to the famous "Waterfall" method of project organization and design, that was woefully slow and error-prone. That is where the famous "7 lines of workable code per day per person" came from. And often, in the long run, they turned out to be not very workable. Like the baggage system for the new Denver airport, for example. That's a classic example of the utter failure of what many older folks call "software engineering".
It's pretty clear that the top-down idea of programming has pretty much turned out to be a crock of shit. That has been pretty well-known now for... what? 15 years maybe? Other methodologies have proven to give better results in most circumstances. I can appreciate that you don't like that, but not liking it has little to do with the facts.
And if you really think "software engineering" is merely "lifting the beam that holds up the bridge", then you just don't know much about it. Somebody had to figure out what the proper beam material and dimensions were, given the underlying conditions, and the connection methods, and the fit with the rest of the project, and so on.
To be blunt, I find your arguments to be not just uncompelling, but either disingenuous or ignorant. I won't guess as to which.
In fact I think you are much like many people who tried to hire me, and whom I turned down.
I agree. I did not feel that was what GP actually meant, but I have no argument with what you have written here.
"Also makes me wonder, if bridge builders or aerospace engineers require an ethics test, shouldn't the guy who writes the software that guides the rocket also require a similar test?"
I have recently worked at re-writing some software that was created probably around 8 years ago by a BIG corporation. After seeing this pile of... well, I'll be polite and just call it "stuff"... I have to wonder whether anybody in the corporation ever took an ethics test.
Don't get me wrong... it's mostly working code, as far as I know. But it's old technology, the formatting is all over the place, and some things are just plain done in weird ways with no apparent reason. How a major corporation could come up with this mess is a mystery to me.
"Sadly, the answer is no to all of these. The person who cuts your hair has more certification than the person who writes pacemaker software."
Yes, I have read about issues with pacemakers... but I've also had bad haircuts. Certification by the State is no guarantee that you will be good at your job.
"I would have to satisfy all the academic requirements of an undergrad engineer, work as a supervised engineer-in-training for between 2-4 years and pass a professional practice exam to qualify."
I have nothing against the experience, but personally I am against certification of programmers (your "practice exam"). Of course maybe it's still a question of terminology, because what you think of as a Software Engineer may be somewhat different than what the average person in the U.S. thinks.
Still: I know developers who lean more to the artistic side, and do well in that niche designing and coding interfaces, etc. even though they might have trouble passing such an exam. I know some who are more on the engineering side who might pass the exam with flying colors, but not be able to pump out very good code.
For example, I know at least one guy who is so smart that he often writes code that is concise and works well, but that just about nobody else understands (possible in many modern languages). For an individual project that's great, but in a collaborative effort that's just not going to cut it.
I know others who are educated as heck, but their code is so inefficient and spaghetti-like that it's amazing it works at all. And often poorly formatted (if at all) on top of that.
"It doesn't make sense that a software engineer would need a degree in computer science. They are two different domains."
It seems to me that the page referenced is little more than a very long and half-baked attempt to explain the difference between science and technology.
I've also worked under both the title Software Engineer and Developer (and not even in that order). It depends largely on who you are working for, and sometimes how they are organized.
"Seriously, I've worked in states where it's illegal to give someone without an engineering degree the title "Engineer", but I've worked with engineers who didn't finish college and found them every bit as good (sometimes much better) than the ones who didn't."
Personally, I might be more comfortable in a state where it was illegal to call some people who DO have engineering degrees "Engineers".
"Do you sit down and bang out code a few hours before the deadline..."
Your argument was saved by:
"without adhering to a well-defined method of designing the system"
because Agile Development definitely includes the first half as (a non-ideal) part of its paradigm, but not the second.
"I don't think your appeal to authority matters."
I wasn't "appealing to authority". I was simply pointing out to you that causes of monopoly were widely recognized more than 230 years ago... and they aren't always what you say. Although sometimes they are.
" Let's look at the data instead... Every single monopoly to in existence today is a government granted monopoly."
Cherry-picking your data does not impress. Even if you were correct (and you aren't), it wasn't always that way.
For example, Standard Oil was not a "government-granted monopoly"... although it definitely became a near-monopoly. It was the government that helped to break their monopolistic hold. Ignore history all you want, but as I say, it doesn't impress.
"Railroads... Granted Right-of-way everywhere they wanted by the Federal government."
Not all of them. Read what historians actually have to say about the matter, like Thomas E. Woods, for one example. The railroads that were NOT Federally subsidized tended to do better and be more profitable. Not all of them, but many. Same with ferries, and other transportation companies. In fact, in some cases the private, non-government-subsidized businesses drove the Government-sponsored ones out of business.
Another example: the American Letter Mail Company, run by Lysander Spooner, was kicking the government-sponsored United States Postal Service's ass until Congress passed a non-compete law in 1851 that put them out of business.
"Granted perpetual copyright monopolies."
Not really. If you want to make a good argument, don't exaggerate so much. Yes, the terms are ridiculously too long. But they are not monopolies. You are welcome to get your own copyrights on your own original works, and they would last just as long.
I will grant you that cable companies and other conglomerates are getting to the point that we are in danger of having worse than just monopoly (oligopoly actually), but horizontal ones as well: companies that control, content creation AND distribution AND communication. A very bad situation indeed. But the fact that these are being allowed by government does not prove that all all.
Here's an example on my side of the argument: Microsoft. At one time, it controlled approximately 90% of the OS market around the world. But their monopoly was not created by government... on the contrary: the free market has helped to bring them down. There's another example where the government (rather ineffectually) actually fought their monopoly rather than "allowing" or "creating" it. European governments were somewhat more effective in that regard.
"However, if it decides to take advantage of it's status as a single provider, in a free market it becomes beneficial to everyone around that company, before and after in the supply chain, to force it back in line or bypass it."
But that's not an argument against monopoly. It's an argument against unfair trade practices. Not (quite) the same thing.
I'm not trying to be snide or sarcastic, but if you want to make the kind of argument you are making here, you should really read up a bit on your history first.
Monopoly is not "an unhampered economy".
Seriously, dude, read your Smith. Obviously you haven't.
"That's because almost anything that comes to one's mind is more dangerous that terrorist attacks (e.g.: cars, coal power plant emissions, nicotin, alcohol...) "
I think there should be an official name for this, like there is for Godwin's Law: "If government wants something, sooner or later it will invoke terrorism."
"Well, I guess alien invasion is slightly less risky."
Gets riskier every year. Well... I guess it depends on what kind of aliens you're talking about.
"They were certainly antitrust laws, which deal with more than monopolies."
Yes, they do, but again you miss my point.
If there are 14 or so major auto manufacturers in the United States (as there were some decades ago when most states passed these regulations), how can that be called monopoly, or even unfair trade? Looks like healthy competition to me.
"Monopolies don't exist in a free market system."
I didn't write that. I was replying to someone else. Are you sure you're replying to the right person?
"The classic monopoly case, the one that created the antitrust laws, was Standard Oil: Rockefeller would move into an area, sell at a loss until all of his smaller competition was out of business, then jack up the price once he had a local monopoly (or local... something, if I'm not allowed to use the word monopoly)."
You are using "anti-trust" in a very narrow sense here. The term came into use then, but that sort of law did not. Anti-monopoly laws go back to English common law and before. And we had them in the United States, too, long before they were called "anti-trust".
I was using the term in its modern sense, which is not just specifically "anti-trust" but anti-monopoly, and anti-unfair-trade-practices. Smith did in fact write about this, he just didn't refer to it specifically as "anti-trust".
"Pie-in-the-sky idealism aside, the laws in question (about car resale) were certainly not failures. They were clearly aimed at maintaining a functioning independent dealership marketplace, and the fact that independent dealerships exist shows that that objective has been at least partially fulfilled."
But at what cost? My whole point was not about whether the dealerships were successful, but what affect these regulations have had on manufacturers.