There's a flaw in deregulating corporations

[Voluntary Man]

Corporations are, by definition, regulated by government, since they are created by government.

 

[HigherVision]

It is kind of hard to discuss corporations without going Kinsella on everyone, isn't it.
IP is a pretty large piece of this puzzle.....

That's true. Intellectual property is what should be contested, not 'deregulation'. Besides government enforcement of IP monopoly laws, the only way for a company to have a monopoly in a free market would be to literally offer the product at a loss. And it's funny how the establishment seem to think that cheap and free stuff is bad for the economy. Like how Greenspan said that they should actually burn down excess houses built during the housing boom in order to drive the prices of houses up. Or how FDR's administration paid farmers to burn and destroy their crops and livestock. Keynesian inspired economics is all about wasting resources that people in need could use, yet it's somehow sold as the compassionate economic philosophy. As opposed to us greedy capitalists who would have poor people be able to purchase necessities for cheap rather than destroy them.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Yes, but as a larger entity, they're more capable of keeping prices low and service at high quality, especially if they outsource their actual production (and as a large entity they're more capable of doing so).

False. What makes you think this BS? Smaller entities can provide better service and keep quality high. A sole proprietor can discount his labor and make pricing decisions without consulting anybody. The smaller business with have lower overhead, more flexibility, and will react far more quickly to changing market conditions. If the local saw mill just ceased production, they will adjust on the same day workers get their pink slips. Larger entities may take months to realize that the branch near the saw mill is underperforming. Then they may take years to actually do something about it.

Also, a lot of business is done based on loyalty and trust. Price is not always the primary consideration. It is the difference between going to your favorite restaurant with the food and service you trust versus and unknown location run by a-holes.

The problem is that the capitalistic model falls apart when smaller entities are unable to compete, because then the company that has the monopoly can do whatever they want and people will still buy from them because there's nowhere else to go.

What makes you think a monopoly can do "whatever they want"? Unless it is a government created monopoly, there will be oodles of choices. Even if it is a government monopoly (like many utilities), there exists alternatives. Take electricity. You can do countless things to use less or buy a generator or add insulation to your house or a solar water heater (or solar/wind power) or go without as much as possible. You can also waste their time with complaints to politicians, media, utility boards, and there is not much they can do about it. If they piss off too many locals, expect a rash of backhoe "accidents".

More importantly, what makes you think you have the right to government favors to compete? Am I allowed even ground to compete with Wal*Mart? If my store is 1000 square feet and they are 200,000 square feet, why should there exist some entity that hobbles them to my advantage?

I think you're living in a dream world. Yes, I agree that the government can create monopolies, however in an unregulated market, monopolies can still emerge by virtue of being big enough (and therefore better since they have more minds working for them) to outcompete smaller local businesses.

It is not about size. Standard Oil is a close example where economies of scale are important but in most instances, size is a cost disadvantage. Also, if you are a Standard Oil, it means you have lowered prices to the benefit of all. That your competitors are behind is likely a good thing if they are inefficient. Energy is obsessed with efficiency, to our benefit.

Whaaaaaaat. Where do you live? Around here, Wal-mart has beaten not just local supermarkets into the ground, but also smaller corporations.

To the benefit of consumers. Why do you want to hobble Wal*Mart so K-Mart or Mom & Pop can compete without changing? Other businesses whether small or large should have to build a better mousetrap that is superior to whatever Wal*Mart is doing. If they can't - oh well. The era of the small general store is mostly long gone. Consumers demand access to so much stuff that you need a large footprint and distribution chain. Until someone figures out something better.

 

[The Free Hornet]

It is kind of hard to discuss corporations without going Kinsella on everyone, isn't it.
IP is a pretty large piece of this puzzle.....

If I knew what "going Kinsella" meant, I'd agree 110%! I fear IP is a growing piece of the puzzle too and one that people are most likely to confuse with capitalism when it is 100% pure undiluted statism.

 

[fisharmor]

If I knew what "going Kinsella" meant, I'd agree 110%! I fear IP is a growing piece of the puzzle too and one that people are most likely to confuse with capitalism when it is 100% pure undiluted statism.

Enjoy!
http://mises.org/books/against.pdf

 

[Black Flag]

it's kind of hard to escape the idea that the only reason MS manages to hang on to its market share is because it's a large corporation

Anyone who believes this is a fool or ignorant or both.

People pay Microsoft because Microsoft delivers.
No one throws money at these guys because they fail.

If it was possible to get a media player on Linux that had all the necessary codecs already installed (without getting into jackassery like compiling from source, anyway), maybe Linux would have more market share.

They own the hobbyist - and MS owns the corp. market - because a hobbyist can be down for a week repairing his OS screw up, but a company cannot.

 

[fisharmor]

Anyone who believes this is a fool or ignorant or both.

People pay Microsoft because Microsoft delivers.
No one throws money at these guys because they fail.

No, as I already insinuated, I only use MS products because other products which I actually want only work on their operating system.
Windows is a fucking joke compared to other OSes.
When I want to "upgrade" to an operating system that completely eliminates my ability to search a hard drive for a file by filename, I'll go with Windows.
When I want an operating system that is capable of running continuously for over a year at a time and has a 40 year reliability track record, I'll go elsewhere.
Knowing the difference between POSIX and GNU standards has earned me a living.
Having to fuck around with registry editors has only gotten in the way of it.
The only thing MS delivers is electronic crack that was developed by third parties. Crack that is only on Windows because of bullshit IP laws.

They own the hobbyist - and MS owns the corp. market - because a hobbyist can be down for a week repairing his OS screw up, but a company cannot.

Right, which is why companies either
a) Use real operating systems because the number of times they screw up will be few
b) Use Windows because when they pay money they can hold MS accountable for the screw up instead of having to fix it themselves.

Windows is nothing more than an unquenchable appetite for processor cycles which for ten years has delivered nothing more than translucent windows.
In the footprint taken up by 7 home you could be running your own webserver.
It's literally a joke at this point. It had something going for it in the 90's but it's gone. Gone.
And that war chest they built up in the 90's (and the IP BS) is the only reason why people get Windows now.

 

[Black Flag]

Windows is a fucking joke compared to other OSes.

Given they earn billions, your opinion does not carry.

And that war chest they built up in the 90's (and the IP BS) is the only reason why people get Windows now.

Because Microsoft has money is the reason people pay them money.
Egads.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Anyone who believes this is a fool or ignorant or both.

People pay Microsoft because Microsoft delivers.
No one throws money at these guys because they fail.

What does Microsoft deliver that has people lining up to buy? Nothing since 1995. Who is it that fails and doesn't have money getting thrown at them? Lots of dough is tossed around in the open source arena. Not only do they deliver, the products are available prior to release and downloaded freely and willingly. They aren't bundled onto a desktop or auto-updated into our lives.

If I owned MSFT stock the last 8 to 14 years, I wouldn't be too happy with them as a company. Very little dividend, crap investments, and they have had their clock cleaned by Apple who know has way more cash on hand and could buy Microsoft.

They own the hobbyist - and MS owns the corp. market - because a hobbyist can be down for a week repairing his OS screw up, but a company cannot.

Linux has hobbyists but I doubt they own that market given the number of homemade gaming machines designed to play games that support Windows (it is not vice versa, Microsoft is a competitor of gaming companies that decide to support Microsoft). But the more critical the application, the less likely it will run Windows. That is what Unix and Unix-like OSs are for including Linux and BSD. Finance (NASDAQ and Londen Exchange) uses Linux. If you had some whiz-bang program to make millisecond trades, it is highly unlikely you would put that at the mercy of Windows doing what it wants, when it wants.

Also, the desktop market is not where growth is likely to be found. I expect PCs to make a mass exodus from home markets and small businesses or never penetrate in some cases. People will be able to use their smart phones, tablets, or even TVs with embedded web access. I doubt many people can continue to justify spending money on Microsoft Office. Even at work, people don't use it much and LibreOffice more than suffices. It is not worth the time to carefully type in MSFT's 25 digit security codes. Nor is it worth the time to do software audits to avoid the wrath of the BSA. I can have most free software installed faster than you can buy the non-free shit online. And I'm someone who has built over two dozen Windows 7 PCs from scratch to run in Microsoft Server (2008) network. In most cases, MSFT could give me their wares for free, and I wouldn't want them.

Windows has a lot of symbiotic relationships in the business world which will continue to make them money. That said, it is hardly necessary, rather it is convenient for those involved not to disturb relationships too much (like Dell and Microsoft).

When you think Linux, if a hobbyist comes to mind first, you are mistaken. Think IBM and Google (not just Android but their nexus of servers and search software). I'm just as likely now to check email on my Android (Linux) phone at home than on my PC (also Linux) at home.

 

[Black Flag]

What does Microsoft deliver that has people lining up to buy? Nothing since 1995.

Your opinion, again.

The fact that people are lining up and buying means Microsoft delivers.

 

[Voluntary Man]

Your opinion, again.

The fact that people are lining up and buying means Microsoft delivers.

What MS delivers is consumers. Consumers "buy" MS because it's pre-installed on their hardware. Because it's ubiquitous, more software is compatible with this OS. Because of compatibility, consumers stick with MS. It's a self-perpetuating cycle.

It's false to assume that the superior product always dominates the market; it seldom/never does. What dominates the market is superior marketing. Build a better mousetrap, and........you will be bullied, bought-out, or buried.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Your opinion, again.

The fact that people are lining up and buying means Microsoft delivers.

Nobody is lining up and they haven't lined up since 1995 (when Windows 95 was a big hit).

You may not care about the above pic, but it is a guarantee the execs at Apple and Microsoft and Google do care.

I am curious as to whether you own Microsoft stock and do you think they are a good buy? Will this guy (Steve Ballmer) lead Microsoft to future success?

I don't doubt that Microsoft was successful, but where do they fit into the future? What market will they take by storm?

To log into windows 8, you need to click and drag your mouse from the bottom of the screen upwards, emulating a finger action. JUST TO LOG IN! It doesn’t end there. Metro apps have no traditional close buttons, instead the apps are designed for mobile computing, and using it on a desktop feels awkward.

http://readmystuff.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/why-windows-8-sucks/

Most likely, I'll be Windows 8 user (installer, fixer, tweaker) due to work. I just don't see in them an admirable company or one with a potential. Most of the business they have from us is not due to bundling of their OS with a Dell/HP PC but rather because our accounting system only runs on it (even though it is relatively trivial for them to be cross-platform and in their best interest as MSFT competes in their arena).


View attachment 1337

 

[Black Flag]

It's false to assume that the superior product always dominates the market

It is a superior product if it dominates the market.

You merely have not measured all the qualities of such a product, and focused perhaps on only one or two specific qualities to make your judgement.

It's like saying the best car in the world is Veyron because it is the fastest.

Yet, the most sold car in the world is the Toyota Corolla - obviously, it provides the highest value for more people - thus, as a measure of units sold, total earnings and profits it is #1.

; it seldom/never does. What dominates the market is superior marketing. Build a better mousetrap, and........you will be bullied, bought-out, or buried.

Marketing does not make a product.
It helps, but if the goods are not satisfactory, no amount of marketing can save it.

Ask "New Coke" about that....

 

[Black Flag]

Nobody is lining up and they haven't lined up since 1995 (when Windows 95 was a big hit).

This is not a debate on the merits and opinions you have about MSoft.

The claim was MSoft was a monopoly.

You demonstrate very well that it is not.

where do they fit into the future? What market will they take by storm?

People for decades have underestimated Gates.

Time after time he has eaten their lunch.

 

[Zippyjuan]

It is a superior product if it dominates the market.

...

Not necessarily. I will be showing my age a bit but I look at the competition between VHS and Betamax or more recently HDDVD vs BluRay. Betamax and HDDVD were technically superior but lost out to better marketing and policy decisions. In the case of Beta, Sony was so confident that they were the best and they wanted all the revenues they refused to allow others to produce their product (like Apple today Sony had been on a long string of succesful products and had a very strong market impact). VHS on the otherhand allowed others to make their product as long as they paid a marketing fee.

 

[Black Flag]

technically superior but lost out

You fall into the same trap as Voluntary Man - you merely take one quality of a product as a measure of "being the best", and ignore everything else.

The fact that VHS dominates means that it was -for most people - the best product.

It combined enough features at a price that satisfied most people. Beta did not. VHS "won".

 

[angelatc]

It is a superior product if it dominates the market.

You merely have not measured all the qualities of such a product, and focused perhaps on only one or two specific qualities to make your judgement.

It's like saying the best car in the world is Veyron because it is the fastest.

Yet, the most sold car in the world is the Toyota Corolla - obviously, it provides the highest value for more people - thus, as a measure of units sold, total earnings and profits it is #1.



Marketing does not make a product.
It helps, but if the goods are not satisfactory, no amount of marketing can save it.

Ask "New Coke" about that....

I think Paypal proves that the OP is certainly true in some cases too though. ANd you can't discount marketing while touting sales and earnings. The whole point of marketing is improving those numbers.

 

[angelatc]

This is the best answer I have seen, allow fraud laws to be enforced against the people who commit crimes, not against the legal entities.

[video=youtube;56T-jAO-Swg]http://www.youtube.com/wa-Swg[/video]

I've seen lots of executives being led away in handcuffs, yet the liberals keep telling me it doesn't happen.

 

[Black Flag]

I think Paypal proves that the OP is certainly true in some cases too though.

Huh?

How so?

There are hundreds of payment processors.

Just because you may be the largest does not make you a monopoly.

ANd you can't discount marketing while touting sales and earnings. The whole point of marketing is improving those numbers.

The whole point of marketing is letting consumers know about your product, its qualities and its ability to solve a human problem.

Marketing is education.
It uses many different forms - from fear to humor - to provide that education.

If your product does not solve the problem particularly well, it will not sell, no matter how much marketing.

But if it can solve the problem, the more people who know about it, the more who will buy.

 

[Black Flag]

I've seen lots of executives being led away in handcuffs, yet the liberals keep telling me it doesn't happen.

Doesn't happen enough.