> Bill Bartlett wrote:
> The writer points out that capitalism, which is predicated on and
justified
> by free competition, inevitably trends toward increased monopoly, simply
by
> the development of increasingly sophisticated machinery of production.

Mumpsimus:
> This is nonsense.
> There are two types of monopoly; coercive and natural.  Natural is
> a desired variety as the best product is produced at the best
> price -- such has never existed.  A coercive monopoly requires the
> Government to enforce.

What aspect of the claim cited by Bill is nonsense? What aspect of it is any
more of a nonsense than the 'natural' monopoly that 'has never existed'? And
why, assuming such a thing to be possible, is a 'natural monopoly'
particularly desirable?

> Bill Bartlett wrote:
> Free competition under capitalism is a wonderful thing to behold, but as
> the article points out, the vast majority of the population simply don't
> have the necessary tools and have little chance of acquiring them.

Mumpsimus:
> This too is nonsense.  If it were true no one in this country would rise
> above his current 'place' which is hardly evident with 90% plus of current
> millionaires beginning at or close to zero -- even with the convoluted
> mixed economy in which we suffer.  The computer industry has been
> largely left alone ... and we have witnessed ever decreasing prices with
> ever increasing product features.

Again why? The vast majority are not among the '90% plus of current
millionaries' - the vast majority are on the other side of the education /
wealth / possibility divide (and a sizable chunk are locked away, too). I
always forget the American figures on wealth distribution - they move so
fast, but it's impossible to forget how the vaccum cleaner of capitalism
continues unabated, and has even accelerated, over the last 20 years.

> Bill Bartlett wrote:
> The only free competition they can engage in is the race to sell
> their labour at the cheapest price to those who do own the tools.
>
> Bullshit.
> Learn some reality and get back to us.
> Microsoft is no more a monopoly than McDonalds.

Bullshit? - I guess it depends on what one considers to be sufficient in
terms of market domination - is it 100%? is it 95%, but with the other 5%
having no hope of improving? And what's with the McDonalds thing? McD's,
offensive as it is, competes with countless other restaurants and outlets
owned by countless other individuals and organisations. The situation with
Microsoft, regardless of whether or not M is to be adjudged a monopoly, is
obviously very different.

b

bruce sandford
Hamilton 2001
Aotearoa - New Zealand

ICQ: 20816964