Capitalism and monopolism

[Adam Back]

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.

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.

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.

Adam

On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 09:03:00PM -0700, Andy Lopata wrote:
> Simply put, markets lead to consolidation.  Consolidation leads to
> monopoly.  Monopoly leads to control from above, with no
> accountability.  Is this better than gov't?  I certainly see the
> dangers of gov't: state terrorism, state ineptitude, state racism
> and xenophobia, but I see market control as at least as dangerous
> since corporations are not accountable to any sort of democratic
> control - and I don't think the people with the most capital
> necessarily make the best decisions.