Capitalist dilemma, what would you choose?

[Pei]

Here is the scenario:

Company X holds a virtual monoply in it's market space. It gained that monopoly via means that were no worse or better than any other company: i.e. it more or less out competed the opposition.
It now uses that monopoly to force itself into related markets and dominate those as well, among other abuses.

The choices
A) The company got there more or less fair and square: It should be allowed to keep what it earned.
B) The monopoly should be broken up to encourage competition and hence gain all the benefits of a competitive market (or some other form of intervention should be used to create competition).

B requires goverment intervention in the market, however if A is chosen there is no free market because there is no competition.

Which would you choose and why?

[CyranoAH]

I'd take over the world and make them pay handsome ransoms in exchange of not letting my faithful legion of killer monkeys wreak havoc among their stockholders.

Either that or option B.

Daniel

[Lizking]

There are no monopolies anymore.

[weaselsan]

Their in Violation for "Taft Hartley" They would have to sell off some of the company.

[vorticon]

B...either that or have a mafia kingpin take "special interest"

[ra]

C) shoot Bill Gates.

[Boroda]

US judicial system have chosen "A" in Microsoft case...

It's funny you call it "justice".

[ZOSO]

Did Company X help me buy my political office?  How am I supposed to make a decision without knowing that information?

[Capt. Pork]

First of all, name one company, in history, that's maintained an actual monopoly by fair means, EI, without crossing any boundaries not crossed by their competition.

If this magical company can supply a good product, for competative prices, maintaining a well-paid workforce and not wronging anybody(which, again, is impossible, because actual monopolies always end up screwing somebody) then why break up the company? Just for the sake of giving 'the other guy' a shot? Why? Let the 'other guy' be smarter and win fairly.

This question presents an impossible hypothetical. IN reality, government intervention becomes inevitable because monopolies generally don't get there by playing on an level field.

[Pei]

Originally posted by Capt. Pork
First of all, name one company, in history, that's maintained an actual monopoly by fair means, EI, without crossing any boundaries not crossed by their competition.

If this magical company can supply a good product, for competative prices, maintaining a well-paid workforce and not wronging anybody(which, again, is impossible, because actual monopolies always end up screwing somebody) then why break up the company? Just for the sake of giving 'the other guy' a shot? Why? Let the 'other guy' be smarter and win fairly.

This question presents an impossible hypothetical. IN reality, government intervention becomes inevitable because monopolies generally don't get there by playing on an level field.

As is said Company X is abusing it's monopoly. How did it get there? Through business practices that while they may not be fair, are at least no worse than any other big company.
These situations exist today: Microsoft is an obvious example.

[vorticon]

microsoft's OS does not hold a monopoly...right off the top of my head i can think of

linux-at least 3 major versions currently in use

os/x

and for server use

novell

unix

freebsd

etc. etc.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Pei
Here is the scenario:

Company X holds a virtual monoply in it's market space. It gained that monopoly via means that were no worse or better than any other company: i.e. it more or less out competed the opposition.
It now uses that monopoly to force itself into related markets and dominate those as well, among other abuses.

The choices
A) The company got there more or less fair and square: It should be allowed to keep what it earned.
B) The monopoly should be broken up to encourage competition and hence gain all the benefits of a competitive market (or some other form of intervention should be used to create competition).

B requires goverment intervention in the market, however if A is chosen there is no free market because there is no competition.

Which would you choose and why?

Microsoft is not a monopoly.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by vorticon
microsoft's OS does not hold a monopoly...right off the top of my head i can think of

linux-at least 3 major versions currently in use

os/x

and for server use

novell

unix

freebsd

etc. etc.

So how many different pre installed o/s are sold on home computer systems from department stores, or specialist computer stores (or places like DELL)?

 Tronsky

[NUKE]

Originally posted by -tronski-
So how many different pre installed o/s are sold on home computer systems from department stores, or specialist computer stores (or places like DELL)?

 Tronsky

That doesnt define Microsoft as a monopoly. Nobody is preventing manufacturers from placing whatever OS they want on the computers they sell....PLENTY of choices out there for an OS.

[-tronski-]

There maybe plenty of other choices for an o/s, but no-one sells them with home computers.....windows 9x/XP (for better or worse) has been given the market, and there is no way around that...

 Tronsky