Sony was the first to lower their price on the PS2. MS just followed. I don't know where they are losing money, but they are not losing much.
MS could sell the XBox for $49 without breaking a sweat... why aren't they? They are selling their console at a price slightly higher than the competition. Surely this shouldn't be illegal!
In fact, if they did lower the price to $49, Sony could too, and so could Nintendo. They would all lose money... so what would be the point?
When Arby's offers five roast beef sandwiches for $5, they are losing money (i.e. selling below cost) in the hopes that people will spend money on fries or drinks (where they make tons of money). They also hope to attract business from their competitors... should this be illegal?
I agree with you... I personally hate MS and their software, but being quite familiar with economics, I do not believe they are a monopoly.
This is how all sucessful companies work. Windows and Office are just about their oldest products. They need to make enough money on these to pay for R&D an losses for newer products.
There are plenty of operating systems and office suites. MS has no monopoly. They may be close, but one could argue that is because of copyright law with our tax dollars being used to protect MS's business model.
Linux is not a system of government... but parallels could be drawn between it and communism. The big difference is that it is *voluntary*. Governments (and, in practice, particularly communism) are not voluntary.
Please, we have enough laws here. I don't wish laws on you. Just be glad the law in Belgium doesn't apply (or so it is theorized) as then it would cost more... and I'm sure they wouldn't lower the cost of the games to compensate.
Great post... this is why/. readers disappoint me many times.
When the government does something they like, the praise it and ask for more. When the government does something they don't like, the chastize it and cry foul. What they don't realize is that there is somebody else, somewhere in the country, that is exactly their opposite... and is happy when they are mad, and is upset when they are happy.
They just don't realize that the honorable and just thing to do is to simply stop supporting government coercion, whether they personally like it or not.
Many people are already subject to such covenants, but they agree to them *before* they build/buy their home. With the government, they can dictate what you can and can't do at their whim... maybe 30 years after you built the home.
Libertarians are responsible enough to build their own safety net... they don't need, nor expect, one from the government.
Capitalism will not be operating very efficiently if there are not paved streets... so it will find a way to pave them. If I owned a mall, I would have to make sure that customers could get to my mall. If I own a house, I would have to make sure that I could get to my house.
In general, a Libertarian government would sell off most assets of any current government, and the new owners could do what they wish with the property.
When somebody benefits from a local service, it means there will be competition and a desire to serve and please the consumers.
This is the whole idea of democracy. They are operating within the structure of the laws of this land. They are not rushing in and taking over the state with military force. They will not impose anything on the previous residents, but may cause the state to stop paying for things that it shouldn't be paying for, but some people might like.
They don't think all monopolies are bad... but if a monopoly is ideal in a specific situation, then it will form on its own. The government shouldn't sanction it or destroy it.
Obviously they wouldn't team up, but if one group moved to a state and was sucessful, it would open up the possibility of the other group moving to another state and trying the same thing. I would applaud such a thing, as I would love to see a state living the Green ideal... and watch its self destruction. I'd give them about a year before they'd be begging for more money from the Federal government to support all of their socialist agenda.
This was the whole point of the 10th ammendment... each state should be able to go its own way and there should be a state that more or less fits everybody...
...what are they going to do about the kind of programs that help poor old people afford heat during the winter? I'm sure they have a plan, but I didn't see it mentioned anywhere.
The will (rightly so) not force anybody to pay for this and leave it up to the poor people and charity to work it out. Their hope will be that higher levels of charitous giving can be re-established after many years of just letting the government do it.
It is the courts' job to decide what is constitutional, right?
It may be their job, but it doesn't mean they are doing it correctly or that Libertarians agree with them.
Are these folks backed by a cartel? Want to see drugs and guns in one place? Visit Columbia or Jamaica.
No, those would be countries with drugs and guns and a government that either can not or does not protect all of their citizen's rights and property... the primary function expected of a government.
Privitization can be great. Just ask California how they like privatized electric utilities.
Just ask anybody knowledgeable about business and/or economics in California and you'll see that what took place there was a long way from privatization. Just because politicians call something "privatization" doesn't make it so.
This is the biggest warping of history I have seen in a while. AT&T wanted regulation to keep any possible competitors from taking away its business... effectively using the government to become a monopoly.
I'll admit I'm not too familiar with Standard Oil, however.
If you think that private services will cost more than government services, then you are saying that private companies are less efficient than the government. In my experience, this is never the case.
That's fine... but how many monopolies can you name? I would guess not many... and I would guess zero that don't have government support.
So, you support an opressive government that you fear because you are afraid that, without that opressive government, there may be corporations that you would fear more.
I say we should give it a try... I don't deal with corporations I don't like any more than I have to. I deal with the government *much* more. The only companies I'm forced to deal with are utilities and the like that are aided by the government in their monopoly.
You are absolutely wrong about most of what you said. The military budget used to be in the 15% to 20% range in the late 1990s (but it may be higher now), so your figure of $750 million might be more or less accurate.
The rest of the post is not. You can take a look at the numbers published by the US Budget Office if you like (too lazy to post a link). In any case, last I looked (again, late 1990s), 20% of the budget went to interest, and 50-60% went to entitlements (not counting Social Security).
As a libertarian, I can say that (assuming they remain part of the union) they would like the Federal government to provide military protection from foreign invaders, a supreme court to resolve issues, as well as a national currency. These are exactly what the Federal government is supposed to do, according to the constitution. They also have no problem paying for these things... but they don't want to pay for everything else (the things mentioned here use up *at most* 30% of the annual federal budget).
They definitely do *not* want the government to prevent their utility companies from gouging them. In every area in the country, utility companies are either run by the government, government-forced monopolies, or have strict government restrictions that produce difficult barriers of entry. I'm sure their plan is to privatize the utilities and not have to worry about all of this.
Oh, and I'm sure they would be more than happy to pave their own highways at their own expense and avoid all of the strings attached to federal highway funds. They would not, of course, be interested in paying the associated federal gasoline taxes since they won't be taking any of the money.
This is stupid. If your cell phone rings, somebody should be standing by to kick you out of the theater. Some people have *silent* ringers and *must* be on call at all times. These people could no longer see a movie if cell phones are disabled.
I don't think you read my original post. Corporations can be just as corrupt and inefficient as the government, no doubt. But can they really be just as tyrannical without government support? The government can take as much money of mine as they like... if I don't give it to them, I go to jail. Microsoft can charge whatever they want for their software, but I don't have to pay them! Microsoft can't put me in jail for not giving them money (unless I have an illegal copy and they use the government to put me in jail, which is a whole other issue).
One thing is clear. The world has never seen laissez-faire capitalism. So, I don't see how you assume the result will be slavery, sweat shops, etc, etc. You can form unions without the governemnt, you know. Sure, most companies don't like it... but if you get enough members in your union the companies will have to accept you, without government coercion.
The closest thing the world has seen to true laissez-faire capitalism is the older US. Sure we had some sweat shops and other problems... but nobody even said it was perfect. We also saw these same problems in all developing industrial countries... even ones with much less freedom. For one thing, times were different back then. For another thing, the world was poorer and couldn't take the effort to care about some of these things.
But, the more successful a capitalist economy becomes, the better it gets for everybody. As companies and techniques become more and more efficient, people can work less hours for more money. In early industrialization, the men worked 12-hour days, and maybe the kids and wife worked. Today, most people can easily support a family by working 40 hours per week. Many people choose to spend more and then both people have to work, but their standard of living is way higher than anything we have ever seen before.
Freedom and government deregulation is the same thing... you don't want the government telling you what to do but you have no problem having the government telling business owners what they can do? This is called hypocrisy and it's not surprising from the likes of you. Unless you don't care about any freedoms? At least you would be consistent then.
Big companies like Enron are only possible with support from the government. There was so much regulation and cooperation between the government and Enron that it is no example of what could happen under laissez-faire capitalism.
Whether laissez-faire capitalism naturally leads to monopolies is not a fact... in fact, we have never had laissez-faire capitalism anywhere in the world, so we really don't know for sure what would happen. I think that monopolies are not possible without government coercion... here are a few monopolies I can think of off the top of my head (note that some of them aren't really monopolies either):
Railroads: highly regulated and given free land from the government
Microsoft: flawed copyright law along with the police force of the government to enforce it
AT&T: highly regulated industry and it was impossible for new companies to enter the field due to government regulation
There is always more than one source for everything. Even if you can't get the same thing from somebody else, you can get a substitute good. Freedom decentralizes power. Each person has as much or as little power over their own lives as they desire. Any power somebody else has over them is by their choice, not government coercion.
Remember -- only the government (and criminals) can force you to do something against your will. The governments most important job is to prosecute those criminals... that's about it.
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are supporting that party. Sure, if you voted for the Harry Browne the last election he didn't win... but the other parties notice these votes that they have lost. If the Libertarians keep getting more and more votes, the parties will have to try to make those voters happy to get those votes. When the parties move closer to what you want, then you vote for them... until then, keep voting Libertarian.
That is ridiculous. I am a definite libertarian and here is the list of things I distrust/hate (in order):
The government
Dishonest companies (big and small)
People who try to force their way of life on others
People who are hypocrites (most people when it comes to political topics)
Most big companies (they are usually uncaring, tough to deal with, and inefficient)
I like honest people and good companies... that's about it. The important thing, however, is that the only entry in that list that can force anything on me is the government. People can only force their way of life on me through the government (such as drug laws, sodomy laws, other "bible belt" laws, etc). Some big companies can force themselves on me using the government (government induced monopolies such as utility companies).
I don't trust the government, people, or corporations. But, if the government has very little power, then none of these groups can force things on me like they can today.
I hate big corporations as much as the next Slashdotter... but think about this -- rank the companies that you hate the most and then rank them by their amount of goverment regulation/support... the lists will usually be very similar.
Companies that suck that are usually highly regulated... such as airlines, utilities, etc. Others are supported by the government (such as Microsoft and others that get too much copyright protection from the government). I can't control others and I can't control companies (and I shouldn't, as they should be free to do what they want to). But I can (supposedly) control the government and limit how much power over my life it grants to itself and others.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony was the first to lower their price on the PS2. MS just followed. I don't know where they are losing money, but they are not losing much.
MS could sell the XBox for $49 without breaking a sweat... why aren't they? They are selling their console at a price slightly higher than the competition. Surely this shouldn't be illegal!
In fact, if they did lower the price to $49, Sony could too, and so could Nintendo. They would all lose money... so what would be the point?
When Arby's offers five roast beef sandwiches for $5, they are losing money (i.e. selling below cost) in the hopes that people will spend money on fries or drinks (where they make tons of money). They also hope to attract business from their competitors... should this be illegal?
I agree with you... I personally hate MS and their software, but being quite familiar with economics, I do not believe they are a monopoly.
This is how all sucessful companies work. Windows and Office are just about their oldest products. They need to make enough money on these to pay for R&D an losses for newer products.
There are plenty of operating systems and office suites. MS has no monopoly. They may be close, but one could argue that is because of copyright law with our tax dollars being used to protect MS's business model.
Linux is not a system of government... but parallels could be drawn between it and communism. The big difference is that it is *voluntary*. Governments (and, in practice, particularly communism) are not voluntary.
Please, we have enough laws here. I don't wish laws on you. Just be glad the law in Belgium doesn't apply (or so it is theorized) as then it would cost more... and I'm sure they wouldn't lower the cost of the games to compensate.
Great post... this is why /. readers disappoint me many times.
When the government does something they like, the praise it and ask for
more. When the government does something they don't like, the chastize
it and cry foul. What they don't realize is that there is somebody
else, somewhere in the country, that is exactly their opposite... and is
happy when they are mad, and is upset when they are happy.
They just don't realize that the honorable and just thing to do is to
simply stop supporting government coercion, whether they personally like
it or not.
Many people are already subject to such covenants, but they agree to them *before* they build/buy their home. With the government, they can dictate what you can and can't do at their whim... maybe 30 years after you built the home.
Libertarians are responsible enough to build their own safety net... they don't need, nor expect, one from the government.
Capitalism will not be operating very efficiently if there are not paved streets... so it will find a way to pave them. If I owned a mall, I would have to make sure that customers could get to my mall. If I own a house, I would have to make sure that I could get to my house.
In general, a Libertarian government would sell off most assets of any current government, and the new owners could do what they wish with the property.
When somebody benefits from a local service, it means there will be competition and a desire to serve and please the consumers.
Technology always finds a way... even if foreign or local governments try to stop it...
This is the whole idea of democracy. They are operating within the structure of the laws of this land. They are not rushing in and taking over the state with military force. They will not impose anything on the previous residents, but may cause the state to stop paying for things that it shouldn't be paying for, but some people might like.
They don't think all monopolies are bad... but if a monopoly is ideal in a specific situation, then it will form on its own. The government shouldn't sanction it or destroy it.
Obviously they wouldn't team up, but if one group moved to a state and was sucessful, it would open up the possibility of the other group moving to another state and trying the same thing. I would applaud such a thing, as I would love to see a state living the Green ideal... and watch its self destruction. I'd give them about a year before they'd be begging for more money from the Federal government to support all of their socialist agenda.
This was the whole point of the 10th ammendment... each state should be able to go its own way and there should be a state that more or less fits everybody...
The will (rightly so) not force anybody to pay for this and leave it up to the poor people and charity to work it out. Their hope will be that higher levels of charitous giving can be re-established after many years of just letting the government do it.
It is the courts' job to decide what is constitutional, right?
It may be their job, but it doesn't mean they are doing it correctly or that Libertarians agree with them.
Are these folks backed by a cartel? Want to see drugs and guns in one place? Visit Columbia or Jamaica.
No, those would be countries with drugs and guns and a government that either can not or does not protect all of their citizen's rights and property... the primary function expected of a government.
Privitization can be great. Just ask California how they like privatized electric utilities.
Just ask anybody knowledgeable about business and/or economics in California and you'll see that what took place there was a long way from privatization. Just because politicians call something "privatization" doesn't make it so.
I hope the succeed... maybe the politicians (and other people) will realize that some people want more freedom in America.
I hope this was a joke... as shooting a gun at somebody would still be illegal even if "most gun control laws" were repealed...
If a corporation uses guns to get what it wants, the y *should* be punished, and this is one of the few proper duties of government.
When the government uses guns to get what it wants, there is nothing anybody can really do about it.
All of the government's powers from from coercion, and that is the one thing that corporations should not (and are not allowed to) use.
This is the biggest warping of history I have seen in a while. AT&T wanted regulation to keep any possible competitors from taking away its business... effectively using the government to become a monopoly.
I'll admit I'm not too familiar with Standard Oil, however.
If you think that private services will cost more than government services, then you are saying that private companies are less efficient than the government. In my experience, this is never the case.
That's fine... but how many monopolies can you name? I would guess not many... and I would guess zero that don't have government support.
So, you support an opressive government that you fear because you are afraid that, without that opressive government, there may be corporations that you would fear more.
I say we should give it a try... I don't deal with corporations I don't like any more than I have to. I deal with the government *much* more. The only companies I'm forced to deal with are utilities and the like that are aided by the government in their monopoly.
You are absolutely wrong about most of what you said. The military budget used to be in the 15% to 20% range in the late 1990s (but it may be higher now), so your figure of $750 million might be more or less accurate.
The rest of the post is not. You can take a look at the numbers published by the US Budget Office if you like (too lazy to post a link). In any case, last I looked (again, late 1990s), 20% of the budget went to interest, and 50-60% went to entitlements (not counting Social Security).
As a libertarian, I can say that (assuming they remain part of the union) they would like the Federal government to provide military protection from foreign invaders, a supreme court to resolve issues, as well as a national currency. These are exactly what the Federal government is supposed to do, according to the constitution. They also have no problem paying for these things... but they don't want to pay for everything else (the things mentioned here use up *at most* 30% of the annual federal budget).
They definitely do *not* want the government to prevent their utility companies from gouging them. In every area in the country, utility companies are either run by the government, government-forced monopolies, or have strict government restrictions that produce difficult barriers of entry. I'm sure their plan is to privatize the utilities and not have to worry about all of this.
Oh, and I'm sure they would be more than happy to pave their own highways at their own expense and avoid all of the strings attached to federal highway funds. They would not, of course, be interested in paying the associated federal gasoline taxes since they won't be taking any of the money.
The gun laws in Nevada are already among the most permissive in the nation. Plenty of people visit there. I don't see how this would have any effect.
This is stupid. If your cell phone rings, somebody should be standing by to kick you out of the theater. Some people have *silent* ringers and *must* be on call at all times. These people could no longer see a movie if cell phones are disabled.
I don't think you read my original post. Corporations can be just as corrupt and inefficient as the government, no doubt. But can they really be just as tyrannical without government support? The government can take as much money of mine as they like... if I don't give it to them, I go to jail. Microsoft can charge whatever they want for their software, but I don't have to pay them! Microsoft can't put me in jail for not giving them money (unless I have an illegal copy and they use the government to put me in jail, which is a whole other issue).
One thing is clear. The world has never seen laissez-faire capitalism. So, I don't see how you assume the result will be slavery, sweat shops, etc, etc. You can form unions without the governemnt, you know. Sure, most companies don't like it... but if you get enough members in your union the companies will have to accept you, without government coercion.
The closest thing the world has seen to true laissez-faire capitalism is the older US. Sure we had some sweat shops and other problems... but nobody even said it was perfect. We also saw these same problems in all developing industrial countries... even ones with much less freedom. For one thing, times were different back then. For another thing, the world was poorer and couldn't take the effort to care about some of these things.
But, the more successful a capitalist economy becomes, the better it gets for everybody. As companies and techniques become more and more efficient, people can work less hours for more money. In early industrialization, the men worked 12-hour days, and maybe the kids and wife worked. Today, most people can easily support a family by working 40 hours per week. Many people choose to spend more and then both people have to work, but their standard of living is way higher than anything we have ever seen before.
Freedom and government deregulation is the same thing... you don't want the government telling you what to do but you have no problem having the government telling business owners what they can do? This is called hypocrisy and it's not surprising from the likes of you. Unless you don't care about any freedoms? At least you would be consistent then.
Big companies like Enron are only possible with support from the government. There was so much regulation and cooperation between the government and Enron that it is no example of what could happen under laissez-faire capitalism.
Whether laissez-faire capitalism naturally leads to monopolies is not a fact... in fact, we have never had laissez-faire capitalism anywhere in the world, so we really don't know for sure what would happen. I think that monopolies are not possible without government coercion... here are a few monopolies I can think of off the top of my head (note that some of them aren't really monopolies either):
There is always more than one source for everything. Even if you can't get the same thing from somebody else, you can get a substitute good. Freedom decentralizes power. Each person has as much or as little power over their own lives as they desire. Any power somebody else has over them is by their choice, not government coercion.
Remember -- only the government (and criminals) can force you to do something against your will. The governments most important job is to prosecute those criminals... that's about it.
Thank you!
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are supporting that party. Sure, if you voted for the Harry Browne the last election he didn't win... but the other parties notice these votes that they have lost. If the Libertarians keep getting more and more votes, the parties will have to try to make those voters happy to get those votes. When the parties move closer to what you want, then you vote for them... until then, keep voting Libertarian.
I like honest people and good companies... that's about it. The important thing, however, is that the only entry in that list that can force anything on me is the government. People can only force their way of life on me through the government (such as drug laws, sodomy laws, other "bible belt" laws, etc). Some big companies can force themselves on me using the government (government induced monopolies such as utility companies).
I don't trust the government, people, or corporations. But, if the government has very little power, then none of these groups can force things on me like they can today.
I hate big corporations as much as the next Slashdotter... but think about this -- rank the companies that you hate the most and then rank them by their amount of goverment regulation/support... the lists will usually be very similar.
Companies that suck that are usually highly regulated... such as airlines, utilities, etc. Others are supported by the government (such as Microsoft and others that get too much copyright protection from the government). I can't control others and I can't control companies (and I shouldn't, as they should be free to do what they want to). But I can (supposedly) control the government and limit how much power over my life it grants to itself and others.