Capitalism and monopolism

[Andy Lopata]

On Sunday, May 04, 2003 3:18 PM, Adam Back wrote:

>Well I guess Microsoft and Intel aren't quite monopolies.  At least
>with Intel there are viable competitors selling compatible products:
>AMD, transmeta, VIA, etc.  And AMD processor are some of the time at
>the top of the heap performance-wise, and most of the time offer the
>best value for money processors (best performance/$).

>Anyway my view is that what props up software virtual monopolies is
>the current IP laws.  If they were revised to remove copyright, and
>patents I think it would help level the playing field.

Removing patents would undercut your argument for the market working well in
the processor markets.  Removing patent and copyright protection for
software would be great, but politically unrealistic (because of the power
of the copyright content cartels among Congress).  However if Freenet, or
some other technology, makes untraceable anonymous file-sharing effective
and wide-spread, it could mean the effective end of copyright for digital
materials.  On the other hand, if the anti-copy technology produced through
agreement between MS, the processor producers and the copyright cartel,
becomes a reality, it could severely hamper, marginalize, or effectively
destroy any type of anonymous file-sharing technology.  I think that IP in
general is a bad idea, especially when there are other methods of
compensating creator's for their works.  Those who argue that the market is
the best way to produce innovation and a better world rely on the false
gov't stamp of "property" on these non-rivalrous goods.

>As to virtual monopolies being worse than government: I disagree
>businesses aim to maximise profit margin and this places a limit on
>the depths of unethical and bad for the individual behavior they can
>do.  They won't do it becaues it's not profitable: unhappy customers
>are not good business.

Maximization of profits does not create moral results.  It creates the
greatest short-term gain for the enterprise and low prices for the consumer
at the expense of any other considerations about how the enterprise's
operation affects other people or businesses or the environment.  Of course
when business interests butt up against each other, there is usually a
compromise.  But when poor people or the environment gets shit on, it's an
up-hill battle to force business to consider these effects as "costs" worth
punching in to there business model calculations.  Customers are happy with
low prices and good service, but who else suffers?

Monopoly control and collusion among huge corporations takes the danger a
step further since this results in artificial manipulation of  market forces
for further consolidation and control.  These conglomerates make decisions
for us.  If there is essentially no alternative and consumers have no choice
and no effect on markets.

Fortunately there is Linux as an alternative to MS and Apple, but if the
hardware has built-in copy controls, this may not be enough.

>Current governments on the other hand are almost universally bad for
>the economy, liberty and freedoms.  They have no competition and are
>so corrupt that it's difficult for them to act anywhere near as
>efficiently or sanely as a company.

Any huge organization of people is bound to be corrupt and inept.  I am a
constant critic of the gov't, but think there is at least some chance of
democratic control or influence which is completely missing in the corporate
setting.  The capitalism oligarchy and our government have never been more
closely aligned.  Both represent dangers to the economy (of all people),
liberty and freedoms.

-Andy Lopata

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal well-meaning but without understanding."
- Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis