Mumpsimus wrote:

>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.
>
>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.

You are being illogical. 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.

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.

Then again, few tools are "natural", monopoly is no exception.

>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.

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.

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.

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

>  The computer industry has been
>largely left alone ... and we have witnessed ever decreasing prices with
>ever increasing product features.

And ever decreasing competition. The ever-decreasing prices tend to have
that effect. I rang up a dealer today to check out the price of a
relational database package I was fond of. Good news, the company has just
been assimilated and the current version is being given away free until an
expected upgrade comes out. Which tends to confirm Marx's theory that the
average price of commodities in a free market will be the cost of
production. Should I wait till the price falls further I wonder?

Obviously such prices indicates a looming crisis of oversupply in the
industry though, which is hardly surprising given that it costs virtually
nothing to "replicate" software. Only a monopoly, which will allow a
corporation to fix a price somewhat higher than that determined by the free
market will prevent a crisis. Because it is unlikely that for-profit
organisations will be bothered to continue freely distribute stuff. Not
much earnings potential for shareholders in that scenario.

>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.

I stand corrected by my critics. Free competition in the labour market is
something of a myth. Free competition is only "free" if one is free to
withdraw one's labour if the price and conditions are unfavourable. For
most people of course this is not the case, they are essentially slaves of
the market. Work or starve is not freedom. Though many don't even get that
choice.

>Learn some reality and get back to us.
>Microsoft is no more a monopoly than McDonalds.

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. Of course miscarriages of justice are
conceivable, but a miscarriage unfavourable to the world's richest person,
in the heartland  of capitalism? I think not.

Anyhow, welcome to our planet stranger. BTW, is your universe the one where
the Holocaust didn't happen?

Bill bartlett
Bracknell tas