December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: odd comment
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sounds like a potential urban legend or at least a misnaming of some comprehensible system. > A friend of mine works in an IT department > for a major tech company. Three of the people in > his department were just transfered to their new contract. > > They are rewiring some of the network for a highway system > in California that monitors for explosives. > What are the techniques that could be used for detecting conventional materials? I can't think of anything likely to work through a vehicle panel on a highway at 65 mph. Doesn't mean there isn't such a system. I guess a neutron counter or other radiation detector might be useful for spotting the scary new SUPERTERRORISTS. > On top of the poles are two > metal boxes about the size large bread boxes. > > Now any idea what those boxes are? > If they have plastic windows they could be speed measurement devices. I'd be interested in driving by some, are there some examples that are closer to Pleasanton? You can always ask your highway department representative - they might talk before thinking even if it's something TOP SECRET. Mike

1 0

RE: Another potential flaw in current economic theory... (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate > Wrong. Socialism is the belief that property is best managed > and owned by the government. Utopian socialism/communism believed that property is best managed and owned by the people -- the people as some abstract collective entity aka proletariat aka BORG. The dictatorial government is the agent of the proletariat to abolish individual rights and transition to communist utopia where government is no longer needed. Of course actual socialism in mixed economies and communism in command economies bear little resemblance to Marx's delusions. Matt

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > Remember, you can't dominate a market that can't be saturated > and you can't saturate a local market unless you find a > mechanism to keep outside competition from moving in. Currently > this is only possible in very strongly regulated markets in > control economies. By golly Jim you almost got it. The only problem is your statement that one can dominate "saturable" markets without some artificial "mechanism." If you mean dominate by market share, then sure that is possible. But that in itself is not bad, ALCOA dominated via low prices and high efficiency. Domination in the bad sense is to be immune from the laws of supply and demand, and hence have arbitrary power over the market -- that is the definition of a coercive monopoly. You will find that that is not possible without an artificial barrier to competition. > Though, it does occur to me that the fact that OS/2 has a > stronger faction in Europe than in N. and S. America in > relation to Microsoft may be an indication that continental > saturation is possible. The conclusions I would draw from that are IBM as the former market giant had a very strong International infrastructure, channels and reputation. Since the US market is the principle industry producer, it was more competitive and less dominated by IBM. Microsoft, therefore, had an easier time in an already competitive US market than breaking in overseas. They also had the underdog phenomenon going for them here, the local competitive market wanting to break IBM's dominance. The fact that OS/2 utterly flopped in the US and found some adopters overseas is credit to IBMs international reputation and little else. Matt

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Brown, R Ken wrote: > Jim can look after himself, but the aircraft industry is > certainly monopolistic. There are only 2 serious players > in the market for large long-haul airliners, Airbus..and > Boeing First of all the majority of the market to which they are selling is anything but free. Each government has a monopoly on their military, and many have a monopoly on their commercial airlines as well. Government aren't bound by the same survival rules as consumers, they are able to irrationally spend as the can simply extort more money. Despite this very strong market distortion, competition for defense contracts had been rather competitive in the US, with the recent consolidation due to shrinking demand (note they cannot seek other markets freely to compensate). And despite the strong market distortions, Boeing makes a very slim profit margin on commercial aircraft (~3%) competing with Airbus. The private aircraft industry has had a terrible time not for lack of demand, but because of rampant irrational and overzealous liability claims. This has created a very limited number of vendors and highly inflated prices. Again, none these are natural effects of the free market. > The real problem with monopoly or cartel is not high prices > - many monopolies choose to charge low prices - it is lack > of freedom. So you would force people to pay higher prices so can have more choices? You would force people to support inefficient competitors? > A monopolisitic supplier of some good has a measure > of political power. Political power gums at the mean end of a gun, what political power do monopolies have and how? Matt

1 0

RE: Another question about free-markets...
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: [govt subsidies to transcontinental railroads] > Only *after* it was clear that these companies could not > do it themselves because of a lack of sufficient traffic > to support the business. So if the market could not support it, who paid for it and how, who benefited from the distortion and who paid the price? The market demands the most efficient distribution of capital resources, when the government screws with that and screws with the market, the resulting problems (arbitrary coercive power of Western railroads, and severe lack of quality and safety) are because of that distortion, not the market. The government should have *not* intervened. Which is not my point though, my point is the judgements of an uneducated populace and corrupted government to blame this as a natural effect of a free market should not be carried forward, it needs to be exposed and corrected. [oil mineral rights] >> The placement (ownership) of these rights, their value, >> restrictions and enforcement are the result of a free >> market? No, government intervention. > > Actualy no, try buying a piece of land and enforcing the > title *without* registering it at the country seat or its > likes. Which is not a market instrument, it is a government instrument. Government intervention does not necessarily have to be direct and purposeful. Matt

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Brown, R Ken 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Petro wrote: [...snip...] > Other than the Railroads, which have already been shown to > be a government CREATED monopoly, how was the Aircraft > Industry a monopoly? The GARMENT INDUSTRY? > Come on Jim, "Put Up Or Shut Up". Jim can look after himself, but the aircraft industry is certainly monopolistic. There are only 2 serious players in the market for large long-haul airliners, Airbus (explicitly founded and subsidised by government) and Boeing (probably now turning a real profit but in the past cross-subsidised from military spending). Whether or not either of these firms would now exist without government subsidy is unknowable. Whether or not the monopolistic situation would exist if there had been no government subsidy is also unknowable. I do have trouble with the idea of the garment industry being monopolistic. About 2 miles from where I'm typeing this, in Whitechapel and Spitalfields in the East End of London, street after street is packed with small sweatshops, "import export" businesses, tiny fashion houses [...snip...] >>All working for about 5 or 6 companies who actlualy marketed and >> distributed the items. Just get a Dallas Texas phone book for >> that period (it's a distribution hub for the clothing/garment industry >> even today). > That is still 5 or 6 companies in competition. It looks as if the only monopolies you recognise are global ones where one big company supplies most of the market for some good, worldwide. At that level there are damn few monopolies - MS, Boeing, the Murdoch empire. But a monopolistic situation develops when one supplier, or a group of suppliers in cartel can control the market in some locality. Like the breweries in Britain a few years back - there were (and are) hundreds of breweries but the "big six" had carved up large areas of the country between them. So if you went to a bar in one area you got Watney's beer, in another, Bass. The real problem with monopoly or cartel is not high prices - many monopolies choose to charge low prices - it is lack of freedom. A monopolisitic supplier of some good has a measure of political power. They can make people behave in ways they might not otherwise behave. A monopolisitic employer of labour has *huge* political power.

1 0

FINAL REMINDER: DCS-NY: October 13 Meeting: Stu Feldman of IBM
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text To: "recipient list suppressed" <perry(a)piermont.com> Subject: FINAL REMINDER: DCS-NY: October 13 Meeting: Stu Feldman of IBM Reply-To: dcs-ny-rsvp(a)piermont.com Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> Date: 06 Oct 1998 15:03:08 -0400 Lines: 105 Sender: owner-cryptography(a)c2.net [If you know of people who may be interested in this meeting, please feel free to forward this message to them.] FINAL REMINDER: The second luncheon meeting of the Digital Commerce Society of New York (DCS-NY), will be held on Tuesday, October 13th at 12:00. If you are interested in attending, please RSVP and send in your check (as explained below) IMMEDIATELY. If we don't _receive_ your check by Friday, we cannot guarantee that we can seat you. (Normally I wouldn't be sending out a reminder this late, but we've had a large influx of inquiries in the last 24 hours.) This Month's Luncheon Speaker: Stuart Feldman, IBM Institute for Advanced Commerce, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Topic: Future Directions in Electronic Commerce Stuart Feldman will delve into a half dozen major themes for long-term research in electronic commerce. These areas will take years to resolve at a research level and even longer to achieve full impact in the world economy. They include privacy, the evolving marketplace on several time scales, the rise of dynamic businesses and electronic haggling, improved relationships to customers, and the systems underpinnings needed to support the vast new opportunities and capabilities of electronic commerce. Stuart Feldman is Director of IBM's Institute for Advanced Commerce. The Institute is dedicated to creating new technologies for support of e-commerce as well as pursuing fundamental issues in e-commerce. He is also the author of the original "make" and "f77." WHAT IS DCS-NY? As some of you probably know, Robert Hettinga has been running a group called the Digital Commerce Society of Boston for over three years. DCSB meets once a month for lunch at the Harvard Club in Boston to hear a speaker and discuss the implications of rapidly emerging internet and cryptographic technologies on finance and commerce -- "Digital Commerce", in short. The Digital Commerce Society of New York (DCS-NY) is a spin-off of DCSB. We intend to meet the second Tuesday of each month for lunch at the Harvard Club in New York, and conduct meetings much like those of DCSB. Our organizing meeting in September was attended by a wide variety of professionals involved in the business, technical and legal sides of the emerging world of digital commerce. If you are interested in attending our next luncheon meeting, please follow the directions located below. If you merely wish to be added to our e-mail meeting announcements list, you may send your e-mail address to "dcs-ny-rsvp(a)piermont.com". Perry PS We would like to thank John McCormack for his invaluable assistance in procuring the venue for our meetings. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- HOW TO RSVP: The meeting will start at 12:00 noon on October 13th at the Harvard Club, which located at 27 West 44th St. in Manhattan. The cost of the luncheon is $49.00. To RSVP, please: A) Send a check for $49.00 (payable to "The Harvard Club of New York") to: Harry S. Hawk DCS-NY LUNCHEON Piermont Information Systems, Inc. 175 Adams St., #9G Brooklyn, New York 11201 Please include along with your check: 1) The name of the person attending 2) Their daytime phone number 3) Their e-mail address B) Send an email message to dcs-ny-rsvp(a)piermont.com indicating that you have sent your check, so that we can inform the Harvard Club of the number of people who will be attending. Please note that the Harvard Club dress code requires jacket and tie for men and comparable attire for women. If you have special dietary requirements, please check with us by email before you RSVP. Making final arrangements for our room requires that we have a good idea of how many attendees we will have. Because of this, it is very important that you RSVP quickly so that we will be able to get a larger room if necessary. We are looking forward to seeing you! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Perry --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Garment industry.....
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Sorry, I'm going to have to back out for the next few days because of work load (I've barely had time to read all the traffic), but ... To answer a qeuestion about the garment industry being monopolistic. Go back, read the original post on that issue *AGAIN*. Pay particular attention to the *PERIOD OF TIME I SPECIFICALY MENTIONED*. If you actualy read it all the way through, and slowly so you can comprehend it, you will find that your protestations about the industry being monopolistic *today* are irrelevant. My point was focused on 60-80 years *IN THE PAST*. In particular the 1920's and 30's. (If you're going to scream "foul", at least be at the correct yard line on the field) My mention of the phone book implied you'd have to go to the library and get a *PERIOD* phonebook (that was my mistake, any true anarcho-capitalist or free-market maven is not likely to actualy use real-world examples - they're so messy). And yes, they had phones then, you could even have them in any color as long as it was black. Though the point *CAN* be made that even today sweatshops are continouly being found in places like Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, etc. Just check your local newspaper. The reason that these are important is that they are indicators of a tendency of manufacturers to cut costs/overhead to the bone when left to their own wiles. This is a *VERY* negative indicator for those who feel that even an unregulated garment industry can exist in a regulated market, let alone a free-market. Again, businesses are run by people with the express intent of making money, in many cases at whatever cost to their employees and society as a whole. With this sort of psychological tendency the argument that free-markets will work is flawed. A commen comment in business classes and boardrooms today is to 'dominate the market'. That means *eliminate competition*. *THAT* means create a monopoly if at all possible and the laws to the contrary (which I hae yet to see anyone bring up a priori in these situations) be damned. Of course it should be pointed out that it's good legal and business practice *NOT* to mention these so that it can't be used against one as a premeditated intent. Something Microsoft seems to have forgotten in their raft of internal memo's about specificaly kludging DrDos. Another point I made several weeks to a couple of months ago regarded companies who *help* their competition in order to limit their ability to enter into specific markets as competitors seems to have born fruit. Over the last few weeks several internal documents from Microsoft were released (check the CNN and other archives) which seem to indicate a clear intent by Microsoft to *help* Novell and Apple with technology with the express intent of keeping them out of niche or target markets as competitors. Economic slight of hand... Course that isn't going to stop you from wailling for the dead (though could you keep it down so I can sleep since the temperature around here has finaly broken and it's not 90F at midnite). ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Free Market Monopolization Theory...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Here is the note that I made regarding the saturation of free market economies. Note that this is several months old and I haven't been diligent in keeping it fully up to date... Forwarded message: > X-within-URL: http://einstein/ravage/free.market.monopolization.html > This is the theory in its current working version: > > An unregulated (free-market) economy will inherently monopolize when, but > not necessarily only if, the following are present: > > - the commen assumption by current free market models that consumers > are rational is irrational. A consideration of succesful marketing > mechanisms and human psychology will clearly demonstrate that > consumers are at best partialy rational. This is the fault in all > anarchy models (eg crypto-anarchy), they assume in an axiomatic > fashion that all participants will cooperate for not only their > individual best interest but the cooperatives best interest without > sufficient recognition that these may in many cases be in conflict. > It is the same failing every form of government without a clear and > proscribed list of individual and state rights and limits has, the > assumption that some minimal set of behaviours or goals will satisfy > all participants in all cases. The theory 'What is best for all is > best for the one' is false. > > - the importance of cooperation for mutual benefit that is axiomatic > in current free market theories is false. Mathematicaly the prisoners > paradox provides maximum payoff when defection occurs at a relatively > high rate and in a random pattern. A primary goal of any business is > not to ensure the survival of itself and it competitors but rather to > eliminate competition through more succesful strategies. A rational > consumer will act irrationaly at times because it is in their long > term best interest. Therefore the distinction between rational and > irrational consumers is false. > > - the market is saturated, in other words the number of consumers at > any given time are equal to or less than the service providers ability > to provide that service (or resource). This means the long-term survival > of firms is a function of retained market share and raw resource share > control/ownership. > > - the technology and/or start-up costs are high in material and > intellectual factors. This minimizes the potential for new providers > to start up. Providers will also require non-disclosure and other > mechanisms to reduce sharing of information and cross-communications > except under controlled conditions. Expect an increase in certifications > and implimentation standards required to do business with the more > succesful of these providers. > > - an individual or small group of service providers have a small but > distinct efficiency advantage in technology, manufacturing, or > marketing. Over a long-enough time this market advantage will grow > and as a result widen the 'technology gap' between firms. > > - expect the most efficient firms to share their profit with the > critical intellectual contributors. This further reduces the > problem of cross-communication and new provider start-up. > > - expect to see the more successful providers to join in co-ops with > the less succesful providers. This will be under the surreptitous > goal of 'developing technology'. It's actual goal will be to cause > these smaller firms to commit resources to such enterprises. As soon > as it is strategicaly advantagous the primary providers will break-off > the co-op. This has the effect of further reducing the ability of the > smaller providers to react in a timely manner to market changes or > develop new technology due to resource starvation. > > - expect to see the less efficient providers to combine in an effort > to reap the benefits of shared market share and resources. Unless > this partnering provides a more efficient model and there is sufficient > time for that efficiency to develop these new providers will eventualy > fail or be joined with other providers. > > - expect to see the primary provider buy those less efficient providers > that don't fail completely. These purchases will be as a result of > some new or unexpected technology that will significantly increase > the market share of the primary provider -or- it will be with the > goal of eliminating this secondary technology and forcing those > market shares to do without or use the primary providers technology. > > - initialy prices for services will be low to promote purchasing but > as providers obtain larger market shares their prices will increase > over time and out of step with inflation and other market forces in > order to widen the profit gap. The strategy is one of 'use it or > starve'. > ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "Brown, R Ken" <brownrk1(a)texaco.com> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 06:37:43 -0500 > I do have trouble with the idea of the garment industry being > monopolistic. About 2 miles from where I'm typeing this, in Whitechapel > and Spitalfields in the East End of London, street after street is > packed with small sweatshops, "import export" businesses, tiny fashion > houses This is perfect if you don't mind being a participant... Could you get a phonebook and make a list of the sweatshops. Enumerate them and then select 10% (if that isn't too many) and find out how many and to whom they sew their garments for? > It looks as if the only monopolies you recognise are global ones where > one big company supplies most of the market for some good, worldwide. > At that level there are damn few monopolies Remember, you can't dominate a market that can't be saturated and you can't saturate a local market unless you find a mechanism to keep outside competition from moving in. Currently this is only possible in very strongly regulated markets in control economies. This implies that, at least today because of communications and transportation improvement, only markets that are global (though it might also work on a national level) can be dominated. That is an interesting aspect I hadn't hit on so far. I'll add it to the mix and see what brews up... Though, it does occur to me that the fact that OS/2 has a stronger faction in Europe than in N. and S. America in relation to Microsoft may be an indication that continental saturation is possible. Might be explained by the fact that most businesses are continental and not international in scope of sales. I've got to go back to work now...I'll check in as I get the chance... ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1