Well, I have made a number of points in other posts, but I will summarize.
Antitrust law is a vague, arbitrary, and overreaching law. The relevant phrase, I believe, is that Microsoft is guilty of "combinations in restraint of trade." That's it. If that is not vague, I don't know what is. If you look at the history of antitrust laws, you find that the definitions and standards change every couple of decades, to fit the new bad guy. And since the law is so broad, it is possible to nail anyone with a sufficient market share, even if they were doing things that were not crimes at the time they occured. In short, antitrust law is an unjust mess, and it should be repealed. In the meantime, I consider anyone prosecuted under it to be a victim, MS and Intel included.
This does not mean that I think Bill Gates walks on water. In fact I don't like Windoze, and I realize that they have done some pretty sleazy things. it may be that they have broken some legitimate laws, like fraud, patent infringement, or whatever, and in that case, I fully support going after them for that.
But I don't think that having a monopoly is a crime, and I don't think that abusing it (whatever that means) should be either. The merits of the government's case is irrelevant, because Microsoft is being prosecuted using an unjust law.
The only way to define ANYTHING as a monopoly is through market share coupled with market pressure the company can exert. Microsoft has a 90-percent marketshare of the desktop systems (where the case is being tried).
So 90% market share is a monopoly? What about in a very small industry, that cannot support more than a couple of companies? Or in a brand new market that has as yet only one producer? Or in the case of a company whose competition is grossly incompetent? None of these standards can be written into law in a reasonable way. That is my point: basing law on the concept of "monopoly" is extremely arbitrary and makes the system ripe for abuse.
in the USofA (where Microsoft is incorporated), the rights of the individuals are not supposed to be revolked merely at the whim of the majority.
Huh? The rights of corporations are? I certainly don't think so.
As for the marriage example, you are right that limited liability makes the marriage different from a corporation. But I don't think that this is the least bit relevant to the question of whether it has rights. The argument I have heard (yours may be different) is that since corporations are not persons, they have no rights. This applies equally to marriages. And if you don't believe that married couple have joint property, then why is there always a lengthy procedure during a divorce to decide who-gets-what? If the property was seperate, they could go their seperate ways immediately.
I don't remember for sure if this is the argument you made. If you were making a different argument, please correct me. But the essential feature of a corporation in terms of rights--that it is a ficticious entity comprised of more than one individual--applies equally to both marriages and corporations. I don't see what the connection is between limited liability and the lack of rights of corporations.
Predatory pricing is another name for competition
on
RMS on Dealing with MS
·
· Score: 1
Dumping looks good for the customer in the short term... until every player in the market but one is destroyed, and the victor gains back the revenue they lost during the price war by gouging everybody for the next few years or decades.
And what is stopping someone else to enter the market once you start "gouging" me?
There are also a number of other concerns. One is that markets are never as clear-cut as they are in economics books. So no company can ever get 100% of an actual market. There will always be niche players that target small segments that are not served by the monopolist. Any of these niche players will take the opportunity when they start "gouging" and expand their market share. Remember also that demand is elastic. I will have to sell a lot of stuff below cost to drive my competition out of business, and then no one will want to buy from me once I drive prices up.
There is also the issue of definition: at what point does fair competition become "predatory pricing?" In practice, it means pretty much whatever the judge involved says it means, which is very bad law.
What about victims rights and M$ responsibilities?
on
RMS on Dealing with MS
·
· Score: 1
I think the Standard oil monopoly is largely a myth. My understanding was that they never had a complete monopoly, and in any event, they continually *lowered* oil prices and *raised* quality.
And even if one does have a monopoly, it is next to impossible to maintain it except possibly in some very specialized cases like telephones. The moment a monopoly starts to raise its prices very far above the market level, soimebody is gonna start up a competing business. That is what the capital markets are there for: to route funds to potentially profitable companies. The only way to gain a monopoly and keep it is to keep your prices down and your customers happy. And even then, it takes years and lots of hard work.
Somehow when you get a large enough market share, you have to start being nice to your competition, and making sure they have a resonable chance, and that you aren't too compeititive.
This is my point. When you have a small market share, doing things like this is "competing." When you get a large market share, the is is "abusing your monopoly." Companies are supposed to compete. That is what they do. Microsoft should not be penalized for being good at it.
It's called product dumping and most of the U.S. was furious when Japan did that to us. It's no different here except the dumper is the poster boy for American Capitalism.
Anti-dumping laws are really strange. I fail to see how charging too low a price for something or giving it away for free can be a crime. If someone will give us something for free, why should we be forced to pay for it? I am certainly not "outraged" when Japan sends us cheap supercomputers or steel or anything else. "Dumping" is simply a term that inefficient companies use to protect themselves from competition. If Netscape were so great, people would use it even if the alternative was free.
You've said that you don't agree with anti-trust laws, but it bears repeating that the US courts have affirmed them time and time again. And the foundation of those laws is that a company which holds a monopoly is a special case, subject to different rules. The same rights do not apply.
And this is not a problem? It is a very bad thing to arbitrarily deprive a company of its rights because their market share is too high. "Monopoly" is a very fuzzy concept. Technically, Microsoft does not have a monopoly, it has a number of competitors. The only way to define MS as a monopoly is to define some market share threshhold, but then we are using demographics to decide companies' rights, which is a very scary concept.
On the subject of corporations having rights or not: Ever seen a corporation literally imprisoned? Ever meet someone 140 years old who existed on 5 continents simultaneously? My point is that corporations and people are not the same.
So what? If I were to invent an immortality pill and a transporter, would I lose my rights? I could live 140 years, I could be on 5 continents nearly simultaneously, and you couldn't keep me in jail.
But seriously, the rights of corporations are not new rights, and they do not literally lie with the corporation, since the corporation is not a physical entity. The rights of a corporation are only an extension of the rights of its members. Nothing more, nothing less.
But there is no reasonable basis for granting the legal status of a person to a fictitious entity ipso facto.
Not the legal status of a person. Look at marriage. A marriage has many of the characteristics of a corporation: special tax laws, joint property, the ability to be on two continents at once, etc. Does this mean that a marriage is a "ficticious entity" that cannot own property or have free speech rights? If a couple is arrested for something, does the court have an unlimited right to fine them, since their property is owned by a "ficticious entity?" The issue is exactly the same. The same arguments can be made about churches, schools, governments, social clubs, universities, unions, etc. Groups get their right from the rights of the individuals who make up that group.
DrDOS is only one example. It could be argued that everything that MS is is due to their using illegal tactics and is therefore forfeit.
This is my point. I don't know the details of the DrDOS thing, but if they violated the rights of the DrDOS people, then they should be held accountable. But here Microsoft is not being tried for any specific offense. They are being tried for having a monopoly. And the evidence is a whole bunch of things, where any of them by themselves would be perfectly legal. Somehow, however, when you get a large enough market share, you have to start being nice to your competition, and making sure they have a resonable chance, and that they you aren't too compeititive.
To repeat: If Microsoft broke a specific law, one that involves a victim, I wholeheartedly support suing them for that offense and having them compensate the victim. But I oppose prosecuting them for "anticompetitive prractices," even though none of these practices by themselves are illegal.
What about victims rights and M$ responsibilities?
on
RMS on Dealing with MS
·
· Score: 1
No, that's not why. This is a trial. M$ is on trial for breaking the law, the anti-trust, anti-monopoly law. Court cases have penalties for losing defendants.
I suppose I misspoke here. This is the official reason. Still, I get the feeling that the reason that many/.ers are so passionate about this is not a concern for the law but because they see it as an extension of the Linux vs Windows war.
Yes indeedy, and that's exactly what all the discussion is about. All the proposed remedies *are* legal if the judge imposes them and they make it thru appeal.
you missed the second half of my sentence. Laws need to be specific. There are no murder laws that say "someone convicted for murder may gat anything from a $10 fine to the death penalty, at the discretion of the judge." Nor should antitrust law allow a judge to do pretty much whatever he likes as now is the case. Obviously there much be some choice, but too much is an invitation for curruption and injustice.
Because the remedies in anti trust cases are designed to prevent further abuses, just like a 20 year prison sentence is designed to prevent further criminal activity. In this case, the remedy is to prevent them holding a monopoly.
But if their crime is "having a monopoly," then the proper response is an injunction against holding a monopoly and possible punative fines. As an example, if I am convicted of stealing a car, the judge can order me to pay for it, but he is not going to order me to get the money in a specific way. In exactly the same way, the judge can order MS to reduce its market share or whatever, but he has no business micromanaging their activities.
If you commit a crime, and the court confiscates your property as part of the restitution, is that not legal? Again, you are forgetting that M$ is on trial here.
If I am convicted of shoplifting, the judge should not confiscate my computer or order me to stand on my head. The punishment should fit the crime. The patent suggestion has no apparent connection to the monopoly. Every company uses software patents in this way. I see no reason why the patents should be singled out.
The idea that corporations can not be held accountable for breaking laws is baloney.
I agree. However, the "held accountable must be defined specifically in the law.
And I think that the concept of antitrust is baloney, so even if they are convicted, I would consider them victims.
MS deliberately removed one of the fundamental rights of people: freedom of choice.
This is an extraordinarily messy concept. If you want to look at it literally, I have dozens of choices: Mac OS, Linux, Be, the other frreeware unices, Sun, SGI, and many smaller ones. Now it is true that none of these are approriate for some tasks, but I fail to see how one can reasonably draw a brightline between the cases where we do and do not have "enough" freedom of choice. Do you use market share? number of competitors? how agressively the monopolist competes?
I think it is vey dangerous to assert and put into law rights unless they can be clearly defined. It is clear 99% of the time when someone has committed rape, murder, theft, etc. On the other hand, what constitutes a violation of freedom of choice is so arbitrary that it pretty much allows prosecutors to go after any company with a majority market share. And since what constitutes a crime is so vague, it is next to impossible to defend themselves. They are essentially required to prove that they did not attempt to reduce the market share of their competitors in "unfair" ways. But that is what competitors do--they try to beat their competition, and what onstitutes unfair can be changed to fit almost anything.
The result is that Microsoft is being asked to prove that it is not a meanie. And obviously, they have been mean to a number of people, so they are likely to lose. But is this really how we want to make laws? Not on specific actions but on elastic categories of behavior that fit far more people than we can hope to prosecute? I think not.
As an example, let's look at Apple. They hav screwed a *lot* of people over, including cloners, Opendoc developers, Newton users, etc. In fact, Steve Jobs is a downright ruthless competitor, and if anything counts as anticompetitive, their closed-OS, closed-system, change-strategies-every-two-years way of doing business qualifies. The only difference I can see is that they are not as successful as MS. So is it ok to be anticompetitive is you are the underdog, but not if you are successful? That makes no sense to me.
You've already admitted you don't think anti-trust laws apply in this case.
Actually I am opposed to the concept of antitrust law. But the point is the same.
The ban on forcing computer makers to pay for Windows regardless of whether they install it or not (found in the original Microsoft consent decreee) is functionally equivalent to an injunction, but accomplished nothing.
But if in fact Microsoft is obligated to obey the consent decree, (which I don't think it should be) then the court should enforce that obligation. And in that case, if MS continues to flout the consent decree, fines will bring them into line. It is only a matter of how high they have to go.
You are basically arguing that Microsoft should get a slap on the wrist and be sent on its way.
To be honest, yes, that is what I think should happen--because I don't think they have done anything wrong. However, i think that even if you accept the argument that they should be punished, I still think that the rule of law should apply, and that the punishment should fit the crime. Even murderers have rights. If you are convisted of murder, you are still fed, housed, protected from cruel and unusual punishments, allowed to appeal, etc. At no point does the rights of any person or organization become completely irrelevant. The rights forfeit by a particular crime should be comensurate with the nature of the crime. Most of the punishment suggestions I have seen assume that the crimes for which it is convicted are irrelevant, and that all that matters is what we want, regardless of justice. In other words, they re more interested in punihing Microsoft for being evil than in the actual crimes for which they are convicted.
I'd recommend arguing from first principles: namely, stick with your argument that anti-trust laws are bogus.
Well, as you may have noticed, I have done that on a couple of occasions already, and I think we have beat that horse to death. If anyone wants to see those threads, they can probably find them in my user history.
I find it amazing the extent to which people are willing to ignore Microsoft's rights simply because they write bad software. There are arguments (I think bad ones) to be made that Microsoft has committed a crime, and should be punished, but if this is the case, their punishment should be restricted to that provided by law, and the law should be specific. Assuming that antitrust law is acceptable in the first place (which I do not think it is) the acceptable remedies would be along the lines of fines and injunctions against the specific things that they are alleged to have done wrong. This attitude that since Microsoft is a monopolist, then the government has the right to do whatever the hell it pleases is nonsense.
1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all interfaces between software components, all communications protocols, and all file formats.
I see no reason why anyone has a right to know anything about Microsoft's products. The fact that Windows is popular does not make it public domain software, and I see no moral obligation on their part to document or not document any part of it.
2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other fields, those other fields could be included in this requirement, or they could be exempt.)
There is a strong argument to be made against software patents, and I would support revoking all of MS's software patents along with the rest of the industry's patents if it is done in a reasonable way. But until that happens, I see no reason for the courts to make a special exception to Microsoft's lawful property rights. If software patents are bad, the solution is to repeal them, not simply to revoke them if they are "abused." Giving the courts the power to revoke/cripple patents at will is a terrible preceedent.
3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been published, so that any programmer can implement software to support the same hardware.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous. For starters, this is a free speech violation, as it prohibits Microsoft from expressing an opinion on the topic. Furthermore, it seems to me that if this were done it would be a simplistic attempt to use the trial to bludgeon hardware manufacturers into building open systems. Open systems are in most cases a good thing, but computer companies have a right to make closed systems as well, and I see no reason to forbid them from getting MS ceritification.
One response I can anticipate: The idea that corporations do not have rights is baloney. Individuals have rights, and corporations are just associations of individuals. If each of Microsoft's shareholders and employees have rights to free speech, property, etc, why would MS not have that right.
I find it amazing the extent to which people are willing to ignore Microsoft's rights simply because they write bad software. There are arguments (I think bad ones) to be made that Microsoft has committed a crime, and should be punished, but if this is the case, their punishment should be restricted to that provided by law, and the law should be specific. Assuming that antitrust law is acceptable in the first place (which I do not think it is) the acceptable remedies would be along the lines of fines and injunctions against the specific things that they are alleged to have done wrong. This attitude that since Microsoft is a monopolist, then the government has the right to do whatever the hell it pleases is nonsense.
1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all interfaces between software components, all communications protocols, and all file formats.
I see no reason why anyone has a right to know anything about Microsoft's products. The fact that Windows is popular does not make it public domain software, and I see no moral obligation on their part to document or not document any part of it.
2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other fields, those other fields could be included in this requirement, or they could be exempt.)
There is a strong argument to be made against software patents, and I would support revoking all of MS's software patents along with the rest of the industry's patents if it is done in a reasonable way. But until that happens, I see no reason for the courts to make a special exception to Microsoft's lawful property rights. If software patents are bad, the solution is to repeal them, not simply to revoke them if they are "abused." Giving the courts the power to revoke/cripple patents at will is a terrible preceedent.
3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been published, so that any programmer can implement software to support the same hardware.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous. For starters, this is a free speech violation, as it prohibits Microsoft from expressing an opinion on the topic. Furthermore, it seems to me that if this were done it would be a simplistic attempt to use the trial to bludgeon hardware manufacturers into building open systems. Open systems are in most cases a good thing, but computer companies have a right to make closed systems as well, and I see no reason to forbid them from getting MS ceritification.
One response I can anticipate: The idea that corporations do not have rights is baloney. Individuals have rights, and corporations are just associations of individuals. If each of Microsoft's shareholders and employees have rights to free speech, property, etc, why would MS not have that right.
It would force us to re-evaluate our place in the grand scheme of things, and it would hopefully unite us in ways that would allow us to put some of our more petty differences aside. The promotion of global peace and brotherhood would IMHO be the greatest impact that a discovery such as this would bring about. Since we'd know once and for all how insignificant we are on a universal scale, there would be more propensity for us to work with each other, rather than against.
I don't think this is the case. The reason that the world does not have "peace and brotherhood" is not that people are not being nice to each other. There are serious political, economic, philosophical, scientific, and moral issues that divide us, and the existence of life elsewhere will do nothing to solve them. We will still have power-hungry dicatators, overreaching governments, impoliteness, and all our other problems.
The main impact of discovering non-sentient life would be biological. It would allow biologists to do true comparative biology, and discover whih features of life are essaential and which are merely accidents of Earth's conditions.
Now discovery of and communication with sentient life would be literally the most important event in human history. Just the scientific and cultural exchanges that would take place would be incredible. But there is this little thing called the speed of light, and until someone proves Einstien wrong, none of will actually see non-terran life. Even these three planets are too far away for us to ever go there.
I can apply the same logic: people who work for $2 an hour agreed to that wage, and are free to quit. If it is ok to work for nothing, why can't I work for almost nothing?
If people are working for 20-60/hr, what does that tell you about the size and scope of their "welfare state"?
I would say it is too big, and that it has helped impoverish the nation. Big Government causes poverty. It does not cure it.
I write this from the US. Where are you? What is this place whose government is dwarfed by the "large" and "intrusive" governments of Mexico and Indonesia? This year's US defense budget is bigger than Indonesia's total (defense and non-defense) budgets for the last five years combined. Indonesia is a nation of about 220 million people, not some tiny, sparsely populated island. For transnational corporations, it (along with Mexico and the Dominican) is free market heaven.
But what is the percentage of GDP? I suspect it is larger than ours. We have a larger volume of government spending because we have a larger economy. Percentage is a more meaningful figure-- a government that spends 90% of a 1 trillion dollar economy is more socialist than one that spends 50% of an 8 trillion economy. And I would absolutely support cutting our military spending.
You are right. Our government should stop screwing around with other nations' governments. I couldn't agree more. But if this were to occur, this would not instantly solve all their problems. Many would still be run by brutal dictators, and only the people within the countries can ultimately remove those dictators.
Mexico, as I understand it, is practically socialist. They may not have environmental or labor laws, but they have an enourmous wellfare state, and a corrupt one-party-rule government.
Indonesia is run by a corrupt dictatorship, has an extremely unstable currency, and also has an extensive welfare state.
Both governments are much larger and more intrusive than ours.
I know less about the Dominican Republic, but I suspect it is the same.
Governments have been quite happy to sacrifice the freedom of its citizens in order to accomodate the demands of corporations. I'm not just speaking of far-away Third World governments.
This is evidence to me that these governments are not free market. A free market requires freedom--both economic and personal. So if governments are willing to sacrifice the freedoms of their citizens, then they are not a free market.
Free-market economies abound, often without much freedom attached to it.
I don't think so. There are many countries that have some elements of free markets, but a real free market requires minimal taxation and regulation. This does not exist anywhere today.
There are a lot of places where collectivism (what you brand "socialistic") is the cultural norm and has been for centuries.
Actually, this is true in every part of the world if you go back a few centuries: In Europe, Fuedalism was collectivist.In the Americas, the American Indian societies were collectivist. So were most Asian, African, and Aboriginal societies. So what? I see no moral or economic relevance in the "cultural norm" of a given society. What matters is what is right, and what benefits the wellbeing of individuals. Capitalism has done this, in every culture that has tried it.
Seems some in the US need to realise collective society and free enterprise are not mutually exclusive (Sweden, Norway, Canada to name a few close examples).
They are not exactly free markets, as they have ridiculous tax and regulation burdens, but they still have a core of free-market principles: property rights and the rule of law. And they would be doing a lot better economically in a real free market.
Farmers Co-ops and Credit Unions make a lot of money in these countries and they are NOT owned by the government but by the members.
So you are sating that a group of people voluntarily formed a co-op and are making money without government help? I see nothing socialistic about that. As long as no one was forced to join, or to pay for it through taxes, that is prefectly compatible with a free market. The problem comes when the government forces people into collective arrangements.
Unfortunately this doesn't match the property ideas of the US and is therfore COMMUNISM!!!
I don't know what you are talking about, but as long as the property of the members was contributed voluntarily, then it "matches the property ideas of the US" just fine.
The American way is the right way for the US and most "Western" countries...that doesn't mean it's the right economic way for ALL countries.
Does this apply to personal freedoms as well? Is free speech the right way for the US and most "Western" countries but not for ALL countries? If political torture in China is the "clutural norm" does that make it ok?
Capitalism will allow ANY nation to grow wealthy faster than any other social system. I don't see why the people of other countries should sacrifice their interests because the "cultural norms" of their ancestors dictate that they should remain poor.
There have been countries which have been following the US model for a free market , and you don't see any success stories out there.
The only nation I can think of that has anywhere near as free an economy as the US is Hong Kong, and they are much wealthier than their neighbors. Name me one country that has:
-Low taxes -Secure property rights -Stable currencies -Political stability
The IMF is based on it, and has already force-fed it down the throat of all the developing countries that happened to be within the sphere of influence of the west block.
I abhor the IMF, and this is one of the reasons I oppose efforts to "help" third world nations. The IMF did *not* create free markets in the affected countries. They ram policies like raising taxes to balance the budget that actually harms the involved countries, and they saddle those countries with enourmous debt while propping up corrupt regimes. The IMF claimed to be in favor of free markets, but in fact they implemented the least free aspects of the US economy and so worsened conditions.
In reality, the problems that faces these states are very complex, involving great debts,
Caused in large parts by corrupt governments and/or failed social welfare programs.
deficient infrastructures,
Due largely to incessant civil wars and the inability to attract capital thanks to property-hostile laws.
widespread corruptions,
Cause in part by US efforts to prop up anybody who posed as "anti-communist."
the "chicken or egg problem" that widespread poverty makes it difficult to bootstrap wealth-production,
Funny, those nations that are currently wealthy had just this "chicken and egg" problem 150 years ago, and they seem to be doing quite nicely.
a strong dependece on the ritch countries remaining from colonial times.
Which is the result of Western goverments.
See a pattern here? All of these problems are caused by governments, either theirs or ours. Subsidies will only compound the problems.
The problem is that they do not have free market economies. Free markets is what allowed the US and Western Europe to accumulate capital in the last century. Third world nations can do the same thing today much faster with help from the private sector in the west, but only if they have an infrastructure that allows it.
I agree. I should have been more clear about this. The US government has done a great deal of damage in many countries. We should pull our troops, our economic aid, and our restrictive loans out of those countries immediately, and stop propping up petty dictators.
And it's their fault that their economic and social systems are the way they are?
I don't know and I don't think it realloy matters. Whoever's fault it is, it needs to be fixed.
Define "a modern free-market economy". Singapore? Malaysia? ROC?
The US and Hong Kong are the closest things to it today, although neither is really a free market. Turn-of the century US or Britain are better examples.
A country's economic and social systems aren't determined primarily by their government. The smaller the country, the more it has to bend to the pressure of neighbors, religion and large corporate interests.
Would you care to explain why a nation "has to" bend? Certainly operating a third world country is not easy, but I don't see why it is impossible. And the social system is by definition determined by the government, whether they "bend" or not.
Uh-huh. "Low taxes, secure private property and a stable currency". How do we get that without raising our standards of living first?
Simple. You cut taxes, you implement and enforce laws against theft, and see to it that the government respects the rights of its citizens, and you implement a gold standard or something equivalent to make it impossible for politicians to screw around with the money supply. Standard of living had nothing to do with it. The US 150 years ago had an equivalent SOL, and they did all three.
Private property is not secure when rich corporations can move in and grab aboriginal lands by force.
Perhaps you were not reading... I said secure private property. That means that NO ONE, including "rich corporations" can take your property. Why is that hard to understand?
Currency will not stabilize when your economic base is weak enough for a few foreign currency investors to knock it over with a few bank withdrawals.
Not if it is backed by something of value. The reason fiat money is so unstable is that it is backed by nothing. Private investors are simply exposing that inherent instability.
I would like you to explain something, because it makes no sense to me and I hear it a lot: how is it possible for corporations to do all the terrible things you claim they do without government help? and if so, why is this the fault of the corporation and not the government?
You can evade it using variants of the same 'its all their own fault' argument that the rich have used for years, but it does not make the choice any less real.
Let me clarify. Nowhere in my post did I blame the poor for their poverty. I blamed their governments, and the lack of a free economy. The poor in third world countries are definitely victims.
What are you going to do about it ?
I am going to push to institute free markets in those countries, so that those poor peopla have the opportunity to earn a decent living and so that their children and grandchildren will enjoy a higher standard of living. I am going to oppose the intrusions of our government into other countries that does more harm than good, and I am going to oppose bandaid measures that do little more than prop up whoever is in power, without any real benefit to the poor in other nations.
Colonial history (of which the US is certainly much less blameless than you probably think), excessive lending, and ignorant attempts by the west to reform the poor countries all also play their part.
Absolutely. I should have been more clear about this. I abhor many of the things the US government has done. But this does not mean that it is our responsibility to fix those things. These countries must fundamentally reform their social systems, and I don't think there is all that much we can do from outside to accomplish this.
As you say, the West has had a strong influence on the third world, much of it negative. My goal in my original post, however, was not to assign blame but to point out the source of the poverty problem in many cases. Third World countries in general have unstable, socialistic, dictatorial governments. This may be partially the fault of the West. However, the cure to this problem is not simply for us to subsidize them. This will only prolong their lousy social structures and make them more dependent on the West. The solution is for them to develop more productive economies, and this requires a free market, stable government, and stable currency.
I am not saying this is easy, or that there is nothing the West can do to help. What I am saying is that for them to become prosperous and independent, they do have to "get their acts together." And until they do, giving them internet connections, solar energy, or other aid is only a band-aid solution, which will do little more than allow the corrupt regimes in place to maintain their grip on power.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I have made a number of points in other posts, but I will summarize.
Antitrust law is a vague, arbitrary, and overreaching law. The relevant phrase, I believe, is that Microsoft is guilty of "combinations in restraint of trade." That's it. If that is not vague, I don't know what is. If you look at the history of antitrust laws, you find that the definitions and standards change every couple of decades, to fit the new bad guy. And since the law is so broad, it is possible to nail anyone with a sufficient market share, even if they were doing things that were not crimes at the time they occured. In short, antitrust law is an unjust mess, and it should be repealed. In the meantime, I consider anyone prosecuted under it to be a victim, MS and Intel included.
This does not mean that I think Bill Gates walks on water. In fact I don't like Windoze, and I realize that they have done some pretty sleazy things. it may be that they have broken some legitimate laws, like fraud, patent infringement, or whatever, and in that case, I fully support going after them for that.
But I don't think that having a monopoly is a crime, and I don't think that abusing it (whatever that means) should be either. The merits of the government's case is irrelevant, because Microsoft is being prosecuted using an unjust law.
The only way to define ANYTHING as a monopoly is through market share coupled with market pressure the company can exert. Microsoft has a 90-percent marketshare of the desktop systems (where the case is being tried).
So 90% market share is a monopoly? What about in a very small industry, that cannot support more than a couple of companies? Or in a brand new market that has as yet only one producer? Or in the case of a company whose competition is grossly incompetent? None of these standards can be written into law in a reasonable way. That is my point: basing law on the concept of "monopoly" is extremely arbitrary and makes the system ripe for abuse.
in the USofA (where Microsoft is incorporated), the rights of the individuals are not supposed to be revolked merely at the whim of the majority.
Huh? The rights of corporations are? I certainly don't think so.
As for the marriage example, you are right that limited liability makes the marriage different from a corporation. But I don't think that this is the least bit relevant to the question of whether it has rights. The argument I have heard (yours may be different) is that since corporations are not persons, they have no rights. This applies equally to marriages. And if you don't believe that married couple have joint property, then why is there always a lengthy procedure during a divorce to decide who-gets-what? If the property was seperate, they could go their seperate ways immediately.
I don't remember for sure if this is the argument you made. If you were making a different argument, please correct me. But the essential feature of a corporation in terms of rights--that it is a ficticious entity comprised of more than one individual--applies equally to both marriages and corporations. I don't see what the connection is between limited liability and the lack of rights of corporations.
Dumping looks good for the customer in the short term... until every player in the market but one is destroyed, and the victor gains back the revenue they lost during the price war by gouging everybody for the next few years or decades.
And what is stopping someone else to enter the market once you start "gouging" me?
There are also a number of other concerns. One is that markets are never as clear-cut as they are in economics books. So no company can ever get 100% of an actual market. There will always be niche players that target small segments that are not served by the monopolist. Any of these niche players will take the opportunity when they start "gouging" and expand their market share. Remember also that demand is elastic. I will have to sell a lot of stuff below cost to drive my competition out of business, and then no one will want to buy from me once I drive prices up.
There is also the issue of definition: at what point does fair competition become "predatory pricing?" In practice, it means pretty much whatever the judge involved says it means, which is very bad law.
I think the Standard oil monopoly is largely a myth. My understanding was that they never had a complete monopoly, and in any event, they continually *lowered* oil prices and *raised* quality.
And even if one does have a monopoly, it is next to impossible to maintain it except possibly in some very specialized cases like telephones. The moment a monopoly starts to raise its prices very far above the market level, soimebody is gonna start up a competing business. That is what the capital markets are there for: to route funds to potentially profitable companies. The only way to gain a monopoly and keep it is to keep your prices down and your customers happy. And even then, it takes years and lots of hard work.
Repeating myself...
Somehow when you get a large enough market share, you have to start being nice to your competition, and making sure they have a resonable chance, and that you aren't too compeititive.
This is my point. When you have a small market share, doing things like this is "competing." When you get a large market share, the is is "abusing your monopoly." Companies are supposed to compete. That is what they do. Microsoft should not be penalized for being good at it.
It's called product dumping and most of the U.S. was furious when Japan did that to us. It's no different here except the dumper is the poster boy for American Capitalism.
Anti-dumping laws are really strange. I fail to see how charging too low a price for something or giving it away for free can be a crime. If someone will give us something for free, why should we be forced to pay for it? I am certainly not "outraged" when Japan sends us cheap supercomputers or steel or anything else. "Dumping" is simply a term that inefficient companies use to protect themselves from competition. If Netscape were so great, people would use it even if the alternative was free.
You've said that you don't agree with anti-trust laws, but it bears repeating that the US courts have affirmed them time and time again. And the foundation of those laws is that a company which holds a monopoly is a special case, subject to different rules. The same rights do not apply.
And this is not a problem? It is a very bad thing to arbitrarily deprive a company of its rights because their market share is too high. "Monopoly" is a very fuzzy concept. Technically, Microsoft does not have a monopoly, it has a number of competitors. The only way to define MS as a monopoly is to define some market share threshhold, but then we are using demographics to decide companies' rights, which is a very scary concept.
On the subject of corporations having rights or not: Ever seen a corporation literally imprisoned? Ever meet someone 140 years old who existed on 5 continents simultaneously? My point is that corporations and people are not the same.
So what? If I were to invent an immortality pill and a transporter, would I lose my rights? I could live 140 years, I could be on 5 continents nearly simultaneously, and you couldn't keep me in jail.
But seriously, the rights of corporations are not new rights, and they do not literally lie with the corporation, since the corporation is not a physical entity. The rights of a corporation are only an extension of the rights of its members. Nothing more, nothing less.
But there is no reasonable basis for granting the legal status of a person to a fictitious entity ipso facto.
Not the legal status of a person. Look at marriage. A marriage has many of the characteristics of a corporation: special tax laws, joint property, the ability to be on two continents at once, etc. Does this mean that a marriage is a "ficticious entity" that cannot own property or have free speech rights? If a couple is arrested for something, does the court have an unlimited right to fine them, since their property is owned by a "ficticious entity?" The issue is exactly the same. The same arguments can be made about churches, schools, governments, social clubs, universities, unions, etc. Groups get their right from the rights of the individuals who make up that group.
DrDOS is only one example. It could be argued that everything that MS is is due to their using illegal tactics and is therefore forfeit.
This is my point. I don't know the details of the DrDOS thing, but if they violated the rights of the DrDOS people, then they should be held accountable. But here Microsoft is not being tried for any specific offense. They are being tried for having a monopoly. And the evidence is a whole bunch of things, where any of them by themselves would be perfectly legal. Somehow, however, when you get a large enough market share, you have to start being nice to your competition, and making sure they have a resonable chance, and that they you aren't too compeititive.
To repeat: If Microsoft broke a specific law, one that involves a victim, I wholeheartedly support suing them for that offense and having them compensate the victim. But I oppose prosecuting them for "anticompetitive prractices," even though none of these practices by themselves are illegal.
No, that's not why. This is a trial. M$ is on trial for breaking the law, the anti-trust, anti-monopoly law. Court cases have penalties for losing defendants.
/.ers are so passionate about this is not a concern for the law but because they see it as an extension of the Linux vs Windows war.
I suppose I misspoke here. This is the official reason. Still, I get the feeling that the reason that many
Yes indeedy, and that's exactly what all the discussion is about. All the proposed remedies *are* legal if the judge imposes them and they make it thru appeal.
you missed the second half of my sentence. Laws need to be specific. There are no murder laws that say "someone convicted for murder may gat anything from a $10 fine to the death penalty, at the discretion of the judge." Nor should antitrust law allow a judge to do pretty much whatever he likes as now is the case. Obviously there much be some choice, but too much is an invitation for curruption and injustice.
Because the remedies in anti trust cases are designed to prevent further abuses, just like a 20 year prison sentence is designed to prevent further criminal activity. In this case, the remedy is to prevent them holding a monopoly.
But if their crime is "having a monopoly," then the proper response is an injunction against holding a monopoly and possible punative fines. As an example, if I am convicted of stealing a car, the judge can order me to pay for it, but he is not going to order me to get the money in a specific way. In exactly the same way, the judge can order MS to reduce its market share or whatever, but he has no business micromanaging their activities.
If you commit a crime, and the court confiscates your property as part of the restitution, is that not legal? Again, you are forgetting that M$ is on trial here.
If I am convicted of shoplifting, the judge should not confiscate my computer or order me to stand on my head. The punishment should fit the crime. The patent suggestion has no apparent connection to the monopoly. Every company uses software patents in this way. I see no reason why the patents should be singled out.
The idea that corporations can not be held accountable for breaking laws is baloney.
I agree. However, the "held accountable must be defined specifically in the law.
And I think that the concept of antitrust is baloney, so even if they are convicted, I would consider them victims.
MS deliberately removed one of the fundamental rights of people: freedom of choice.
This is an extraordinarily messy concept. If you want to look at it literally, I have dozens of choices: Mac OS, Linux, Be, the other frreeware unices, Sun, SGI, and many smaller ones. Now it is true that none of these are approriate for some tasks, but I fail to see how one can reasonably draw a brightline between the cases where we do and do not have "enough" freedom of choice. Do you use market share? number of competitors? how agressively the monopolist competes?
I think it is vey dangerous to assert and put into law rights unless they can be clearly defined. It is clear 99% of the time when someone has committed rape, murder, theft, etc. On the other hand, what constitutes a violation of freedom of choice is so arbitrary that it pretty much allows prosecutors to go after any company with a majority market share. And since what constitutes a crime is so vague, it is next to impossible to defend themselves. They are essentially required to prove that they did not attempt to reduce the market share of their competitors in "unfair" ways. But that is what competitors do--they try to beat their competition, and what onstitutes unfair can be changed to fit almost anything.
The result is that Microsoft is being asked to prove that it is not a meanie. And obviously, they have been mean to a number of people, so they are likely to lose. But is this really how we want to make laws? Not on specific actions but on elastic categories of behavior that fit far more people than we can hope to prosecute? I think not.
As an example, let's look at Apple. They hav screwed a *lot* of people over, including cloners, Opendoc developers, Newton users, etc. In fact, Steve Jobs is a downright ruthless competitor, and if anything counts as anticompetitive, their closed-OS, closed-system, change-strategies-every-two-years way of doing business qualifies. The only difference I can see is that they are not as successful as MS. So is it ok to be anticompetitive is you are the underdog, but not if you are successful? That makes no sense to me.
You've already admitted you don't think anti-trust laws apply in this case.
Actually I am opposed to the concept of antitrust law. But the point is the same.
The ban on forcing computer makers to pay for Windows regardless of whether they install it or not (found in the original Microsoft consent decreee) is functionally equivalent to an injunction, but accomplished nothing.
But if in fact Microsoft is obligated to obey the consent decree, (which I don't think it should be) then the court should enforce that obligation. And in that case, if MS continues to flout the consent decree, fines will bring them into line. It is only a matter of how high they have to go.
You are basically arguing that Microsoft should get a slap on the wrist and be sent on its way.
To be honest, yes, that is what I think should happen--because I don't think they have done anything wrong. However, i think that even if you accept the argument that they should be punished, I still think that the rule of law should apply, and that the punishment should fit the crime. Even murderers have rights. If you are convisted of murder, you are still fed, housed, protected from cruel and unusual punishments, allowed to appeal, etc. At no point does the rights of any person or organization become completely irrelevant. The rights forfeit by a particular crime should be comensurate with the nature of the crime. Most of the punishment suggestions I have seen assume that the crimes for which it is convicted are irrelevant, and that all that matters is what we want, regardless of justice. In other words, they re more interested in punihing Microsoft for being evil than in the actual crimes for which they are convicted.
I'd recommend arguing from first principles: namely, stick with your argument that anti-trust laws are bogus.
Well, as you may have noticed, I have done that on a couple of occasions already, and I think we have beat that horse to death. If anyone wants to see those threads, they can probably find them in my user history.
I find it amazing the extent to which people are willing to ignore Microsoft's rights simply because they write bad software. There are arguments (I think bad ones) to be made that Microsoft has committed a crime, and should be punished, but if this is the case, their punishment should be restricted to that provided by law, and the law should be specific. Assuming that antitrust law is acceptable in the first place (which I do not think it is) the acceptable remedies would be along the lines of fines and injunctions against the specific things that they are alleged to have done wrong. This attitude that since Microsoft is a monopolist, then the government has the right to do whatever the hell it pleases is nonsense.
1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all interfaces between software components, all communications protocols, and all file formats.
I see no reason why anyone has a right to know anything about Microsoft's products. The fact that Windows is popular does not make it public domain software, and I see no moral obligation on their part to document or not document any part of it.
2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other fields, those other fields could be included in this requirement, or they could be exempt.)
There is a strong argument to be made against software patents, and I would support revoking all of MS's software patents along with the rest of the industry's patents if it is done in a reasonable way. But until that happens, I see no reason for the courts to make a special exception to Microsoft's lawful property rights. If software patents are bad, the solution is to repeal them, not simply to revoke them if they are "abused." Giving the courts the power to revoke/cripple patents at will is a terrible preceedent.
3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been published, so that any programmer can implement software to support the same hardware.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous. For starters, this is a free speech violation, as it prohibits Microsoft from expressing an opinion on the topic. Furthermore, it seems to me that if this were done it would be a simplistic attempt to use the trial to bludgeon hardware manufacturers into building open systems. Open systems are in most cases a good thing, but computer companies have a right to make closed systems as well, and I see no reason to forbid them from getting MS ceritification.
One response I can anticipate: The idea that corporations do not have rights is baloney. Individuals have rights, and corporations are just associations of individuals. If each of Microsoft's shareholders and employees have rights to free speech, property, etc, why would MS not have that right.
I find it amazing the extent to which people are willing to ignore Microsoft's rights simply because they write bad software. There are arguments (I think bad ones) to be made that Microsoft has committed a crime, and should be punished, but if this is the case, their punishment should be restricted to that provided by law, and the law should be specific. Assuming that antitrust law is acceptable in the first place (which I do not think it is) the acceptable remedies would be along the lines of fines and injunctions against the specific things that they are alleged to have done wrong. This attitude that since Microsoft is a monopolist, then the government has the right to do whatever the hell it pleases is nonsense.
1. Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all interfaces between software components, all communications protocols, and all file formats.
I see no reason why anyone has a right to know anything about Microsoft's products. The fact that Windows is popular does not make it public domain software, and I see no moral obligation on their part to document or not document any part of it.
2. Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other fields, those other fields could be included in this requirement, or they could be exempt.)
There is a strong argument to be made against software patents, and I would support revoking all of MS's software patents along with the rest of the industry's patents if it is done in a reasonable way. But until that happens, I see no reason for the courts to make a special exception to Microsoft's lawful property rights. If software patents are bad, the solution is to repeal them, not simply to revoke them if they are "abused." Giving the courts the power to revoke/cripple patents at will is a terrible preceedent.
3. Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have been published, so that any programmer can implement software to support the same hardware.
This is perhaps the most ridiculous. For starters, this is a free speech violation, as it prohibits Microsoft from expressing an opinion on the topic. Furthermore, it seems to me that if this were done it would be a simplistic attempt to use the trial to bludgeon hardware manufacturers into building open systems. Open systems are in most cases a good thing, but computer companies have a right to make closed systems as well, and I see no reason to forbid them from getting MS ceritification.
One response I can anticipate: The idea that corporations do not have rights is baloney. Individuals have rights, and corporations are just associations of individuals. If each of Microsoft's shareholders and employees have rights to free speech, property, etc, why would MS not have that right.
It would force us to re-evaluate our place in the grand scheme of things, and it would hopefully unite us in ways that would allow us to put some of our more petty differences aside. The promotion of global peace and brotherhood would IMHO be the greatest impact that a discovery such as this would bring about. Since we'd know once and for all how insignificant we are on a universal scale, there would be more propensity for us to work with each other, rather than against.
I don't think this is the case. The reason that the world does not have "peace and brotherhood" is not that people are not being nice to each other. There are serious political, economic, philosophical, scientific, and moral issues that divide us, and the existence of life elsewhere will do nothing to solve them. We will still have power-hungry dicatators, overreaching governments, impoliteness, and all our other problems.
The main impact of discovering non-sentient life would be biological. It would allow biologists to do true comparative biology, and discover whih features of life are essaential and which are merely accidents of Earth's conditions.
Now discovery of and communication with sentient life would be literally the most important event in human history. Just the scientific and cultural exchanges that would take place would be incredible. But there is this little thing called the speed of light, and until someone proves Einstien wrong, none of will actually see non-terran life. Even these three planets are too far away for us to ever go there.
I can apply the same logic: people who work for $2 an hour agreed to that wage, and are free to quit. If it is ok to work for nothing, why can't I work for almost nothing?
If people are working for 20-60/hr, what does that tell you about the size and scope of their "welfare state"?
I would say it is too big, and that it has helped impoverish the nation. Big Government causes poverty. It does not cure it.
I write this from the US. Where are you? What is this place whose government is dwarfed by the "large" and "intrusive" governments of Mexico and Indonesia? This year's US defense budget is bigger than Indonesia's total (defense and non-defense) budgets for the last five years combined. Indonesia is a nation of about 220 million people, not some tiny, sparsely populated island. For transnational corporations, it (along with Mexico and the Dominican) is free market heaven.
But what is the percentage of GDP? I suspect it is larger than ours. We have a larger volume of government spending because we have a larger economy. Percentage is a more meaningful figure-- a government that spends 90% of a 1 trillion dollar economy is more socialist than one that spends 50% of an 8 trillion economy. And I would absolutely support cutting our military spending.
You are right. Our government should stop screwing around with other nations' governments. I couldn't agree more. But if this were to occur, this would not instantly solve all their problems. Many would still be run by brutal dictators, and only the people within the countries can ultimately remove those dictators.
Mexico? Indonesia? The Dominican Republic?
Mexico, as I understand it, is practically socialist. They may not have environmental or labor laws, but they have an enourmous wellfare state, and a corrupt one-party-rule government.
Indonesia is run by a corrupt dictatorship, has an extremely unstable currency, and also has an extensive welfare state.
Both governments are much larger and more intrusive than ours.
I know less about the Dominican Republic, but I suspect it is the same.
Governments have been quite happy to sacrifice the freedom of its citizens in order to accomodate the demands of corporations. I'm not just speaking of far-away Third World governments.
This is evidence to me that these governments are not free market. A free market requires freedom--both economic and personal. So if governments are willing to sacrifice the freedoms of their citizens, then they are not a free market.
Free-market economies abound, often without much freedom attached to it.
I don't think so. There are many countries that have some elements of free markets, but a real free market requires minimal taxation and regulation. This does not exist anywhere today.
There are a lot of places where collectivism (what you brand "socialistic") is the cultural norm and has been for centuries.
Actually, this is true in every part of the world if you go back a few centuries: In Europe, Fuedalism was collectivist.In the Americas, the American Indian societies were collectivist. So were most Asian, African, and Aboriginal societies. So what? I see no moral or economic relevance in the "cultural norm" of a given society. What matters is what is right, and what benefits the wellbeing of individuals. Capitalism has done this, in every culture that has tried it.
Seems some in the US need to realise collective society and free enterprise are not mutually exclusive (Sweden, Norway, Canada to name a few close examples).
They are not exactly free markets, as they have ridiculous tax and regulation burdens, but they still have a core of free-market principles: property rights and the rule of law. And they would be doing a lot better economically in a real free market.
Farmers Co-ops and Credit Unions make a lot of money in these countries and they are NOT owned by the government but by the members.
So you are sating that a group of people voluntarily formed a co-op and are making money without government help? I see nothing socialistic about that. As long as no one was forced to join, or to pay for it through taxes, that is prefectly compatible with a free market. The problem comes when the government forces people into collective arrangements.
Unfortunately this doesn't match the property ideas of the US and is therfore COMMUNISM!!!
I don't know what you are talking about, but as long as the property of the members was contributed voluntarily, then it "matches the property ideas of the US" just fine.
The American way is the right way for the US and most "Western" countries...that doesn't mean it's the right economic way for ALL countries.
Does this apply to personal freedoms as well? Is free speech the right way for the US and most "Western" countries but not for ALL countries? If political torture in China is the "clutural norm" does that make it ok?
Capitalism will allow ANY nation to grow wealthy faster than any other social system. I don't see why the people of other countries should sacrifice their interests because the "cultural norms" of their ancestors dictate that they should remain poor.
There have been countries which have been following the US model for a free market , and you don't see any success stories out there.
The only nation I can think of that has anywhere near as free an economy as the US is Hong Kong, and they are much wealthier than their neighbors. Name me one country that has:
-Low taxes
-Secure property rights
-Stable currencies
-Political stability
and is still in poverty
The IMF is based on it, and has already force-fed it down the throat of all the developing countries that happened to be within the sphere of influence of the west block.
I abhor the IMF, and this is one of the reasons I oppose efforts to "help" third world nations. The IMF did *not* create free markets in the affected countries. They ram policies like raising taxes to balance the budget that actually harms the involved countries, and they saddle those countries with enourmous debt while propping up corrupt regimes. The IMF claimed to be in favor of free markets, but in fact they implemented the least free aspects of the US economy and so worsened conditions.
In reality, the problems that faces these states are very complex, involving great debts,
Caused in large parts by corrupt governments and/or failed social welfare programs.
deficient infrastructures,
Due largely to incessant civil wars and the inability to attract capital thanks to property-hostile laws.
widespread corruptions,
Cause in part by US efforts to prop up anybody who posed as "anti-communist."
the "chicken or egg problem" that widespread poverty makes it difficult to bootstrap wealth-production,
Funny, those nations that are currently wealthy had just this "chicken and egg" problem 150 years ago, and they seem to be doing quite nicely.
a strong dependece on the ritch countries remaining from colonial times.
Which is the result of Western goverments.
See a pattern here? All of these problems are caused by governments, either theirs or ours. Subsidies will only compound the problems.
The problem is that they do not have free market economies. Free markets is what allowed the US and Western Europe to accumulate capital in the last century. Third world nations can do the same thing today much faster with help from the private sector in the west, but only if they have an infrastructure that allows it.
I agree. I should have been more clear about this. The US government has done a great deal of damage in many countries. We should pull our troops, our economic aid, and our restrictive loans out of those countries immediately, and stop propping up petty dictators.
And it's their fault that their economic and social systems are the way they are?
I don't know and I don't think it realloy matters. Whoever's fault it is, it needs to be fixed.
Define "a modern free-market economy". Singapore? Malaysia? ROC?
The US and Hong Kong are the closest things to it today, although neither is really a free market. Turn-of the century US or Britain are better examples.
A country's economic and social systems aren't determined primarily by their government. The smaller the country, the more it has to bend to the pressure of neighbors, religion and large corporate interests.
Would you care to explain why a nation "has to" bend? Certainly operating a third world country is not easy, but I don't see why it is impossible. And the social system is by definition determined by the government, whether they "bend" or not.
Uh-huh. "Low taxes, secure private property and a stable currency". How do we get that without raising our standards of living first?
Simple. You cut taxes, you implement and enforce laws against theft, and see to it that the government respects the rights of its citizens, and you implement a gold standard or something equivalent to make it impossible for politicians to screw around with the money supply. Standard of living had nothing to do with it. The US 150 years ago had an equivalent SOL, and they did all three.
Private property is not secure when rich corporations can move in and grab aboriginal lands by force.
Perhaps you were not reading... I said secure private property. That means that NO ONE, including "rich corporations" can take your property. Why is that hard to understand?
Currency will not stabilize when your economic base is weak enough for a few foreign currency investors to knock it over with a few bank withdrawals.
Not if it is backed by something of value. The reason fiat money is so unstable is that it is backed by nothing. Private investors are simply exposing that inherent instability.
I would like you to explain something, because it makes no sense to me and I hear it a lot: how is it possible for corporations to do all the terrible things you claim they do without government help? and if so, why is this the fault of the corporation and not the government?
You can evade it using variants of the same 'its all their own fault' argument that the rich have used for years, but it does not make the choice any less real.
Let me clarify. Nowhere in my post did I blame the poor for their poverty. I blamed their governments, and the lack of a free economy. The poor in third world countries are definitely victims.
What are you going to do about it ?
I am going to push to institute free markets in those countries, so that those poor peopla have the opportunity to earn a decent living and so that their children and grandchildren will enjoy a higher standard of living. I am going to oppose the intrusions of our government into other countries that does more harm than good, and I am going to oppose bandaid measures that do little more than prop up whoever is in power, without any real benefit to the poor in other nations.
Colonial history (of which the US is certainly much less blameless than you probably think), excessive lending, and ignorant attempts by the west to reform the poor countries all also play their part.
Absolutely. I should have been more clear about this. I abhor many of the things the US government has done. But this does not mean that it is our responsibility to fix those things. These countries must fundamentally reform their social systems, and I don't think there is all that much we can do from outside to accomplish this.
As you say, the West has had a strong influence on the third world, much of it negative. My goal in my original post, however, was not to assign blame but to point out the source of the poverty problem in many cases. Third World countries in general have unstable, socialistic, dictatorial governments. This may be partially the fault of the West. However, the cure to this problem is not simply for us to subsidize them. This will only prolong their lousy social structures and make them more dependent on the West. The solution is for them to develop more productive economies, and this requires a free market, stable government, and stable currency.
I am not saying this is easy, or that there is nothing the West can do to help. What I am saying is that for them to become prosperous and independent, they do have to "get their acts together." And until they do, giving them internet connections, solar energy, or other aid is only a band-aid solution, which will do little more than allow the corrupt regimes in place to maintain their grip on power.