I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

What about competitors?

Oh, hi excluded middle! I didn't see you there in between "scary liberal media sources!" and right-wing think tank op-eds. Well, I saw you but Gbaji didn't. You should go introduce yourself.


Because you're trying (and failing) to make an argument about monopolies. You asked for an example and one was given. Then you made some claims about it that you haven't been able to back up. Which is fine, but you probably shouldn't start getting all huffy about it.

Incidentally, the irony wasn't lost on me that you'd get all indignant that people don't take you at your word because "I work in the industry".

Wouldn't this just make you an... "expert"?

Edited, Nov 29th 2011 10:00pm by Jophiel

I'm not sure, really. I don't even know which thread this is. Though I'm all for eliminating government lobbying.

Uh huh. And the LA times is a right-wing think tank? I didn't exclude the middle Joph. You did.



And what does that have to do with your opinion of my sources? Eyes on the ball Joph. Sheesh. You've got the attention span of a tween at a twilight convention.



I asked for an example of a monopoly which came to exist without any government intervention. You gave an answer of Microsoft, which while it was monopolistic, didn't become fully so until after it was sued for anti-trust and then began lobbying to defend itself. MS is a perfect example of the government practically forcing a large corporation into entering into the public/private corruption as a means of protecting and strengthening its monopolistic status.


The point I was trying to get you to grasp is that government rarely actually acts to prevent monopolies from forming. It acts rather to control and use them for political ends. The government acted not to stop Microsoft from becoming a monopoly but to force Microsoft into paying the government the equivalent of protection money in return for letting it keep (and expand) its monopoly. You're missing the forest for the trees here.



I made claims that MS is more of a monopoly today *after* government intervention than it was before. A claim I have supported with two separate sources (and frankly is this actually in doubt?), but which you keep dancing around but have not actually refuted. So it's kinda funny for you to insist that I haven't backed up my claim. Really? Just saying that over and over doesn't make it true, and it certainly doesn't invalidate what I'm saying.

Microsoft is more monopolistic and more powerful now than it was prior to the anti-trust lawsuit in 1998. Massively more so. And that is exactly because of the sort of public/private corruption that I've been talking about (and which is the core of the OWS complaint). Thus, MS supports my original argument that we should lean towards less government regulation and intervention rather than more.


What part of that is so hard for you to follow?



It's not indignation Joph, although I love when you try to make this about me, while refusing to admit that I'm right. It's a pretty clear cause and effect process Joph. MS doesn't spend money lobbying. DoJ launches lawsuit against it. MS loses in court the first couple rounds. Then MS starts spending money lobbying. Few years pass and they get a cushy settlement agreement. Meanwhile, their lobbying gives them huge advantages in the business and engineering industries due to SOX regulations passed in 2002.


And let's not kid ourselves, MS is the best argument you can make for a fully private company becoming a semi-monopoly. Along side are dozens of utility and communication companies operating even more closely under government regulation. But even as an exception the MS story shows that government will force compliance to the system.

Nope. Nor did it say what you claimed it said which is why you went to Source #2 which was indeed from a right-wing think tank.


Erm... what does my opinion of your sources have to do with you using them to convince me of a point?

I'm just going to let that one go


Yeah. You're doing a really shitty job off making it, by the way. Posting links to things that fail to even touch upon the notion that government regulation was responsible for Microsoft becoming the monopoly that it was sued for in the 1990s doesn't really count as making the grade. Insisting that it does also doesn't really count. You linked to an op-ed that actually went against your initial claims and another one that was not only some think tank garbage but still failed to make the connection. Great job.


The irony in that statement is just beautiful. Almost as good as you pouting that people don't take your "expert" opinion.

I kept looking for Alma's posts but didn't find any.

Internet Explorer is the single best browser there is for downloading better browsers.

Gbaji looks at the data, not people's opinions when forming his own!

Maybe opinions are data. Just like anecdotes.

No, I expect you to offer a resource that we'd have any reason to trust. An opinion piece or op-ed article do not provide this.

We want a rigorous report or study. If what you are saying has any basis in fact, that shouldn't be difficult to find.

You have the most selective reading disability ever Joph:




Do I actually have to move your eyes for you so you can read this? It clearly states that before the lawsuit (referring to the big browser suit in 1998), MS had little or no lobbying presence in Washington. Then after they were hit with said lawsuit, they began lobbying heavily.

WTF?

So, once again, you claim that Microsoft started lobbying up in response to previous suits and used that lobbying influence to develop a situation via government regulation where they could establish the monopoly that would eventually lead the 1998 antitrust suit. And, as evidence of this, you point to an article saying that Microsoft started lobbying as a response to that 1998 suit.

lulz

Edited, Nov 30th 2011 5:33pm by Jophiel

So, yet AGAIN, because of the 1998 antitrust suit, Microsoft started lobbying which allowed them to dominate the market via government regulation which led to the widespread domination of IE which... led to the 1998 antitrust suit which led to Microsoft lobbying...



Ah, you. It's cute because you try just ever so hard.

Edit: It seems that what you really want to do here is demand that no one say Microsoft was acting monopolistic (specifically in regards to internet browsers) prior to 1998. Which I don't think anyone is going to go along with but I suppose a No True Scotsman fallacy is all you have left at this point. Your initial question was to name a business where the government acted to end or prevent a monopoly. Can we safely say that Microsoft does not have a monopoly on internet browsers today? I'm not claiming the suit was the sole reason for this but the government did, in fact, act to prevent a monopoly on Microsoft's part in the browser market?

Edited, Nov 30th 2011 6:13pm by Jophiel