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 prior
      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.
Bill Bartlett wrote:
      You are being illogical.

Actually, no.

Bill Bartlett wrote:
     You say there are two kinds of monopoly, one variety of which you say
     has never existed. So that means that there is only *one* kind of
monopoly.

Nope.
In baseball a pitcher who throws precisely 24 pitches (home) or 27 pitches
(visitor) has pitched a 'perfect game' ... that one has NEVER happened
does not preclude its existence.



Bill Bartlett wrote:
      But I think you are right, all monopolies require coercive
enforcement and
      in that sense there are no "natural" monopolies. All property for that
      matter, since private property is but a monopoly right to use property,
      artificially maintained by force.

All rights are force or the threat of force, but you are attempting to
subject free exchange into this equation which is dishonest.


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.

      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.
Bill Bartlett wrote:
      You misunderstand. I don't deny there is the potential for class mobility
      for a few people. Largely downward mobility of course, evidenced by the
      inexorable increase in disparities of income. The rich are getting fewer
      even as they are getting richer.

This too is false.
You presume a person at the bottom remains there (and vice versa) which
is simply inaccurate.  You further blame the apple for these woes when it
is clearly the banana which is at the core ... most likely because of your
support for the latter or at least the Power it brings.


Bill Bartlett wrote:
      A very few clever people manage to claw their way out of the working
class
      from time to time of course. But if you think that proves that everyone
      can, you are denying the laws of physics and mathematics. If everyone
could
      join the ruling class, then there would be no-one for them to rule and
      no-one to do any work. So obviously not everyone can.  The closest
would be
      a class-less society, where no-one rules over anyone else.

You are confusing concepts and things.


Bill Bartlett wrote:
      But wealth being finite, it is not possible for everyone to to amass the
      same wealth and power as Bill Gates. And no need.

And part of your central premise is thus exposed AND false.
Wealth is NOT distributed but created.


Bill Bartlett wrote:
      I shall have to assume that you hail from some parallel universe
where this
      is actually in doubt. In our dimension though, the fact of Microsoft's
     monopoly has been established by the courts, along with the fact that they
     have abused this monopoly.

Whimsical opinions of Political efforts have no basis in reality.
Microsoft is not a monopoly.


Mumpsimus
_____________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html