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@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------