Posted on 12/01/2002 9:55:06 AM PST by rs79bm
Let's see, according to the recently released numbers, MSN isn't profitable. MS runs it at a loss, financed by profits from their Windows monopoly.
I wonder how many FReepers are left who understand economics well enough to know what that means?
Microsoft makes the lions share of it's profits on Windows and Office. They have five divisions that are running at a loss. However, they didn't expect them to be profitable yet. Also, Windows and Office were at one time running at a loss. With the huge profits from Windows and Office it enables MS the ability to venture into many research and development projects and joint ventures with far forward goals. It's a vision thing.
Bill Gates is a leftist. And nearly everybody hates Steve Case and AOL.
IE isn't free; its cost is hidden in the cost of Windows.
Well gee wiz, that sure explains why so many Mac users download IE for free.
It's a classic monopolistic practice.
It's a very, very bad thing, to a capitalist (altho granted, there are precious few of us capitalists/conservatives left in modern America). It's specifically called "attacking the free market".
The concern isn't really even AOL/TimeWarner. They're big enough, they can probably hang in there. The real concern is all the little companies that are killed off by this -- like the entrepeneurs who brought the market 'Netscape'.
Innovation is chilled. Competition is eliminated. Barriers to entry are erected.
That is why this kind of behavior so concerns so many of us.
If you disagree, I can respect that. Many R party people feel that since it was Clinton/Reno in power, they would rather side with MS. Altho I feel that's the same error that many Clintonistas made, since they didn't like the people who made the accusations they excused the illegal behavior.
But all I can do is hope that you are able to recognize that I am only concerned about defending capitalism. I am concerned that 'Atlas Shrugged' is being played out in front of our very eyes, with MS in the role of 'Taggart Transcontinental'. I am personally convinced that the US IT industry is where the US auto industry was in the '70s -- headed for a collapse.
Bill Gates and his wife are the largest supporters of Planned Parenthood and international abortion in the world. This is NOT "right thinking."
Further, one cannot deduce from losses that the firm is engaged in predatory pricing. Furthermore, pricing becomes predatory if the price is below the competitors costs, not own ones.>{? It's a very, very bad thing, to a capitalist…It's specifically called "attacking the free market". Actually, the opposite is true: it is in a free market that monopolies emerge naturally. It took anti-trust regulation of the government to prevent that from happening.
Innovation is chilled. Competition is eliminated. Barriers to entry are erected. In the software industry, the barriers to entry are almost nonexistent.
Many R party people feel that since it was Clinton/Reno in power, they would rather side with MS. I agree, uniting with the enemy of an enemy is a poor justification in this case. I personally felt that the gov't was motivated not so much by the questions of principle but by Gates' fortune: in the culture of envy, the politicians are compelled to do something. But all I can do is hope that you are able to recognize that I am only concerned about defending capitalism. I am also, but in the case of MS it is not clear how one to defend it.
I also would like to add that dynamic monopoly may have different concerns than the classic "monopoly is higher prices" result. Another aspect that is economic but less visible and quantifiable with difficulty is the role of standardization provided by a monopolist in a fragmented market (there is an enormous benefit from the standard-setting role of MS, which it is able to play only because of its market position).
He might not have wanted to, but his actions certainly financed the legal work to keep sniper #2 in the country.
My biggest concern is AOL-Time Warner. It's downright weird that the government let that monster merge. It controls so much of our access to information. What I wrote is that if Bill Gates does anything that causes that monster to collapse while offering me a very good service while he loses money on it, at my personal benefit, that's not really a bad thing.
I agree with you that competition and fairness have to be restored. That's why I'm opposed to the porous borders, government take over of so many facets of our life, and lack of job stability, combined with debt levels starting in college which make it very difficult for people to do anything individual.
This is a problem the Repulican Party has...its pro-business contingent is essentially at odds with the pro-US social conservatives that get them elected. It looks like most of the decisions being made by the administration benefit global and corporate interests. Very little of what the "little guy" Republican wants (or needs) is being implemented, unless you want to count the tax cut and mortgage breaks which are generating money which is being used to prop up business rather than to reduce debt.
Except the gobs of XXX-rated spam that was jamming my mailbox...which is why I left them 4 years ago.
AOHell deserves what it gets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.