I recommend you do a little brushing up on your economics. Gold, silver -- any commodity for that matter -- are not immune to inflation .
The Mercantilist philosophy of the 16h and 17th centuries, which dominated international trade in Europe, proved that any monetary instrument experiences inflation if its supply increases at a rate faster than the rate at which it's demanded.
If we were to attempt to switch to a currency system based on any precious metal, the exact opposite would occur: immense deflation. There simply isn't enough supply for demand.
I've been spammed by this company 3 times over the past few months, and I can't believe slashdot would advertise for such a low-life company (Anonymous Coward posts should be more heavily scrutinized/researched).
Assuming this product is real (which I highly doubt it is given its capabilities and low, low cost), its illegal use of un-licensed intellectual property from Sega is just plain unacceptable. Breaking patent laws is no way to start a movement against them - its how people get thrown in jail (or fined beyond belief).
I hope all of you (and slashdot ) will start taking these sorts of products with a grain of salt...if they were feasible, and legal, they would either (a) cost a hell of a lot more or (b) be developed by a larger company with more money to spend on R&D.
However outlandish and even ridculous some of the claims in the aforementioned paper appear to be, there is some core economic truth behind what the professor from Texas is writing about.
It's basically a matter of "monopoly power" and the concept of "monopoly pricing". Current (and widely accepted) economic theory has a lot to say about monopolies and the purpose of anti-trust legislature. First of all, it divides monopolies into two categories: 1.) Natural; and 2.) Anti-competitive. There is also a third near-monopoly situation known as "oligopoly", in which a handful of firms control a market rather than just one (note: this is not a cartel like OPEC, in which the firms coopoerate. Competition still exists in oligopoly markets).
"Natural" monopolies will form in a perfectly competitve market when 1 firm is able to produce more efficiently than >1 (I don't know if these actually exist, but utilities often fall into this category). Historically, "natural" monopolies have been regulated like mad by the U.S. gov't. But the recent deregulation of the telecommunication, airline, and utility industies are marking a policy theory change in favor of a less-bureaucratic sytem (mostly because these markets aren't yielding the "natural" monopolies the gov't thought they would, and instead take on more oligopoly-like market structures). It is thought that "natural" monopolies will lead to the exploitation of consumers via "monolopy pricing", meaning that the monopoly firm will price above its production cost in order to increase profit. This also causes a reduction in efficiency, because under "monopoly pricing" a firm doesn't have to produce as much in order to profit as much. Its all gain for the monopoly at the consumers' expense. This all occurs under the premise that entry into the given market is very difficult, and that the monopoly does not have to worry about competing firms coming in and pricing at the more efficient level (there-by earning market share), and that even if one does the monopoly can always begin using "anti-competitive" practices to regain its monopoly power (and thus becoming an "anti-competitive" monopoly, the evil of all evils).
"Anti-competitive" monopolies are formed when a firm uses its dominant market share to force others out of business (read: uses "anti-competitive" practices). This usually happens through price under-cutting. "Monopoly pricing" still occurs in this situation, as does inefficient operation. In addition, these markets are assumed to be better off when they operate with >1 firm, and because of this the gov't opts to enforce anti-trust policies rather than regulate.
The basis of the Liebowitz paper is this theory of "monopoly pricing", and the presupposition that a monopoly (whether "natural" or "anti-competitive") must first exist in order for it to occur. His data, as well as most I've seen, suggests that M$ prices well below the "monopoly price" for Windows. His suggested "monopoly price" of $1000 (however silly it seems)is based on the current demand data (which is used to calculate the product's elasticity - a partial derivative of demand with respect to price). Whether anyone would really pay $1000 for a copy of Windows (analyzed using basic human rationale) isn't of interest here. What's important is the data, and the data undoubtedly shows that M$ is pricing below the "monopoly price" that it *could* use if it truly had "monopoly power". Obviously, without "monopoly power" there can be no "anti-competitive" monopoly practices, and the DOJ loses its right to prosecute on the basis of anti-trust laws.
Of course this doesn't say anything about M$'s pricing of its other products (such as its Office suite), or the discounts offered when purchased along with a new PC (and the Windows OS). If anything, I think M$ is using its OS market share to proliferate its other products. This, in my opinion, isn't a bad thing, or at least it isn't as long as the prices stay where they are. Because as long as they do there is opportunity for a competing firm to take market share using good ol' competitive practices (such as marketing, which seems to matter a lot more than the usefullness of the product itself).
Just to let you know, I'm a 3 year computer science/EE major turned economics major (still in college) who dual-boots LinuxPPC and MacOS 9 (and soon the public beta of MacOS X, whenever it gets to my apartment).
"If there is something to pardon in everything, there is also something to condemn."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
Why aren't slot-loading CD mechanisms the standard yet?
This thing looks pretty cool, but I HATE the flip-top lid. Can anybody tell me why they haven't yet proliferated (like in laptops)? Are they expensive? Do they take up a lot of space? Require a lot of power? I know Sony has a Discman with one, so I know any of these can be overcome....
Does anyone else feel this way, or am I just a ranting, maniacal fool with too much time on his hands reading about Nintendos when I should be working?
2 years post surgery I am seeing 20/20 and 20/30 in my right and left eye, respectively. I was extremely myopic (-6.0 and -9.5 diopters) and had an astigmatism in both eyes. I had the surgery performed in San Bernidino, CA by a group known as The Laser Center. They have centers all over the U.S. and a research headquarters in Vancouver, BC. Visit them at http://www.lzr.com
I highly recommend this group, and the LASIK procedure. It is a little pricey ($2000/eye when I had it done), but in my opinion it's well worth it. The entire surgery took all of 15 minutes, and 3 hours later I began seeing more clearly. I could drive the next day. Do yourself a favor and look further into this - it offers an amazing opportunity to live without corrective lenses.
(My father also had a LASIK procedure performed for his far-sightedness. Being 52 years old his results aren't quite as fantastic as mine - his far-sightedness also proved harder to correct - but he's still happy).
Newspapers, television, and now the Internet. All are extremely prosperous business mediums. With e-commerce growing at an unprecedented rate, e-businesses (be they entertainment, products and services, or news related) will unboubtedly enjoy the fruits of this new era. And regarding your Nasdaq comment: the day the world stops computing is the day the Nasdaq dies, and I guarantee you that won't happen any time soon. Congrats to Rob and Jeff. Best of luck to the both of you and your new venture.
Slashdot Mirror
Sir:
I recommend you do a little brushing up on your economics. Gold, silver -- any commodity for that matter -- are not immune to inflation .
The Mercantilist philosophy of the 16h and 17th centuries, which dominated international trade in Europe, proved that any monetary instrument experiences inflation if its supply increases at a rate faster than the rate at which it's demanded.
If we were to attempt to switch to a currency system based on any precious metal, the exact opposite would occur: immense deflation. There simply isn't enough supply for demand.
Peace.
Listen:
I've been spammed by this company 3 times over the past few months, and I can't believe slashdot would advertise for such a low-life company (Anonymous Coward posts should be more heavily scrutinized/researched).
Assuming this product is real (which I highly doubt it is given its capabilities and low, low cost), its illegal use of un-licensed intellectual property from Sega is just plain unacceptable. Breaking patent laws is no way to start a movement against them - its how people get thrown in jail (or fined beyond belief).
I hope all of you (and slashdot ) will start taking these sorts of products with a grain of salt...if they were feasible, and legal, they would either (a) cost a hell of a lot more or (b) be developed by a larger company with more money to spend on R&D.
Besides, spamming companies suck.
PLEASE READ:
However outlandish and even ridculous some of the claims in the aforementioned paper appear to be, there is some core economic truth behind what the professor from Texas is writing about.
It's basically a matter of "monopoly power" and the concept of "monopoly pricing". Current (and widely accepted) economic theory has a lot to say about monopolies and the purpose of anti-trust legislature. First of all, it divides monopolies into two categories: 1.) Natural; and 2.) Anti-competitive. There is also a third near-monopoly situation known as "oligopoly", in which a handful of firms control a market rather than just one (note: this is not a cartel like OPEC, in which the firms coopoerate. Competition still exists in oligopoly markets).
"Natural" monopolies will form in a perfectly competitve market when 1 firm is able to produce more efficiently than >1 (I don't know if these actually exist, but utilities often fall into this category). Historically, "natural" monopolies have been regulated like mad by the U.S. gov't. But the recent deregulation of the telecommunication, airline, and utility industies are marking a policy theory change in favor of a less-bureaucratic sytem (mostly because these markets aren't yielding the "natural" monopolies the gov't thought they would, and instead take on more oligopoly-like market structures). It is thought that "natural" monopolies will lead to the exploitation of consumers via "monolopy pricing", meaning that the monopoly firm will price above its production cost in order to increase profit. This also causes a reduction in efficiency, because under "monopoly pricing" a firm doesn't have to produce as much in order to profit as much. Its all gain for the monopoly at the consumers' expense. This all occurs under the premise that entry into the given market is very difficult, and that the monopoly does not have to worry about competing firms coming in and pricing at the more efficient level (there-by earning market share), and that even if one does the monopoly can always begin using "anti-competitive" practices to regain its monopoly power (and thus becoming an "anti-competitive" monopoly, the evil of all evils).
"Anti-competitive" monopolies are formed when a firm uses its dominant market share to force others out of business (read: uses "anti-competitive" practices). This usually happens through price under-cutting. "Monopoly pricing" still occurs in this situation, as does inefficient operation. In addition, these markets are assumed to be better off when they operate with >1 firm, and because of this the gov't opts to enforce anti-trust policies rather than regulate.
The basis of the Liebowitz paper is this theory of "monopoly pricing", and the presupposition that a monopoly (whether "natural" or "anti-competitive") must first exist in order for it to occur. His data, as well as most I've seen, suggests that M$ prices well below the "monopoly price" for Windows. His suggested "monopoly price" of $1000 (however silly it seems)is based on the current demand data (which is used to calculate the product's elasticity - a partial derivative of demand with respect to price). Whether anyone would really pay $1000 for a copy of Windows (analyzed using basic human rationale) isn't of interest here. What's important is the data, and the data undoubtedly shows that M$ is pricing below the "monopoly price" that it *could* use if it truly had "monopoly power". Obviously, without "monopoly power" there can be no "anti-competitive" monopoly practices, and the DOJ loses its right to prosecute on the basis of anti-trust laws.
Of course this doesn't say anything about M$'s pricing of its other products (such as its Office suite), or the discounts offered when purchased along with a new PC (and the Windows OS). If anything, I think M$ is using its OS market share to proliferate its other products. This, in my opinion, isn't a bad thing, or at least it isn't as long as the prices stay where they are. Because as long as they do there is opportunity for a competing firm to take market share using good ol' competitive practices (such as marketing, which seems to matter a lot more than the usefullness of the product itself).
Just to let you know, I'm a 3 year computer science/EE major turned economics major (still in college) who dual-boots LinuxPPC and MacOS 9 (and soon the public beta of MacOS X, whenever it gets to my apartment).
"If there is something to pardon in everything, there is also something to condemn."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
Why aren't slot-loading CD mechanisms the standard yet?
This thing looks pretty cool, but I HATE the flip-top lid. Can anybody tell me why they haven't yet proliferated (like in laptops)? Are they expensive? Do they take up a lot of space? Require a lot of power? I know Sony has a Discman with one, so I know any of these can be overcome....
Does anyone else feel this way, or am I just a ranting, maniacal fool with too much time on his hands reading about Nintendos when I should be working?
"Blech."
2 years post surgery I am seeing 20/20 and 20/30 in my right and left eye, respectively. I was extremely myopic (-6.0 and -9.5 diopters) and had an astigmatism in both eyes. I had the surgery performed in San Bernidino, CA by a group known as The Laser Center. They have centers all over the U.S. and a research headquarters in Vancouver, BC. Visit them at http://www.lzr.com
I highly recommend this group, and the LASIK procedure. It is a little pricey ($2000/eye when I had it done), but in my opinion it's well worth it. The entire surgery took all of 15 minutes, and 3 hours later I began seeing more clearly. I could drive the next day. Do yourself a favor and look further into this - it offers an amazing opportunity to live without corrective lenses.
(My father also had a LASIK procedure performed for his far-sightedness. Being 52 years old his results aren't quite as fantastic as mine - his far-sightedness also proved harder to correct - but he's still happy).
This is ridiculous. How in the world could this ever work?
Newspapers, television, and now the Internet. All are extremely prosperous business mediums. With e-commerce growing at an unprecedented rate, e-businesses (be they entertainment, products and services, or news related) will unboubtedly enjoy the fruits of this new era. And regarding your Nasdaq comment: the day the world stops computing is the day the Nasdaq dies, and I guarantee you that won't happen any time soon. Congrats to Rob and Jeff. Best of luck to the both of you and your new venture.