My Dinner With Andreessen
=========================
Billionaires I have known: Part One of a three-part series
by Rick Perlstein
April 24, 2024
Marc Andreessen and Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen arrive at the tenth Breakthrough Prize Ceremony on April 13, 2024, at the Academy Museum
of Motion Pictures in Los Angeles.
Recently, I read about venture capitalist Marc Andreessen putting his 12,000-square-foot mansion in Atherton, California, which has seven fireplaces, up for sale for $33.75 million. This was done to spend
more time, one supposes, at the $177 million home he owns in Paradise
Cove, California; or the $34 million one he bought beside it; or the
$44.5 million one in a place called Escondido Beach. Upon reading
this, I realized it was time to stop procrastinating and tell you all
a story I've been meaning to set down for a long time now about the
time I visited that house (the cheap $33.75 million one, I mean).
Strictly on a need-to-know basis. Because you really need to know how
deeply twisted some of these plutocrats who run our society truly are.
<https://www.businessinsider.com/see-inside-investor-marc-andreessens- 33-million-house-for-sale-2024-3>
<https://traded.co/deals/california/single-family-residence/sale/ 27724-pacific-coast-highway/>
It was 2017, and a YIMBY activist invited me to talk about my book
Nixonland with his book club, which also happened to be Marc
Andreessen's book club. They offered a free flight and hotel; I
accepted. We met in that house. I was vaguely aware of Andreessen as
the guy who invented the first web browser, a socially useful
accomplishment by any measure and a story I had long kept in the back
of my mind as an outstanding proof text that useful invention often flourishes best when government subsidizes it, socialism-style--given
that Andreessen had created it while a student at a public
institution, the University of Illinois. Then I boned up on what he
was up to now, courtesy of a gargantuan 13,000-word profile from two
years earlier in The New Yorker.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape_Navigator>
<https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/18/tomorrows-advance-man>
Andreessen, I learned, was "Tomorrow's Advance Man." He superintended
the "newest and most unusual" venture capital firm on Menlo Park's
Sand Hill Road. He "seethes with beliefs" and is "afire to reorder
life as we know it." His enthusiasms included replacing money with cryptocurrency; replacing cooked food with a scheme called, yes,
"Soylent," and boosting the now-invisible Oculus virtual reality
headset.
Zero for three when it comes to picking useful inventions to reorder
life as we know it, that is to say, though at no apparent cost to his
power or net worth, now pegged at an estimated $1.7 billion. Along
the way, I also learned he was a major stockholder in Facebook and a
member of the civilian board that helped oversee the Central
Intelligence Agency. Much later, it was in a tweet of his that I
first saw the phrase "woke mind virus." (He's not a fan.)
Last year, a manifesto he published on the website of his VC firm
Andreessen Horowitz got a good deal of attention. It includes lines
like "Technology is the glory of human ambition and achievement, the spearhead of progress, and the realization of our potential." (The
residents of Nagasaki and Hiroshima might once have wished to
disagree.) "For hundreds of years, we properly glorified this--until recently." (Really? I only wish I could escape the glorification for
one goddamned day.) "We believe everything good is downstream of
growth." (Everything?) And "there is no material problem--whether
created by nature or by technology--that cannot be solved with more technology."
<https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/>
The big idea: "Our enemy is the Precautionary Principle." Normal
people define that as the imperative of seeking to prevent and
contain certain potentially civilization-ending potentialities like
nuclear holocaust and pandemic. Andreessen, conversely, calls
precaution "perhaps the most catastrophic mistake in Western society
in my lifetime ... deeply immoral, and we must jettison it with
extreme prejudice."
What ought be embraced in its stead, naturally, is markets, because
"they divert people who otherwise would raise armies and start
religions into peacefully productive pursuits." (The opening of
markets, as all students know, having everywhere and always been the
most peaceful pursuit known to humanity.)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts>
<https://asiapacificcurriculum.ca/learning-module/opium-wars-china>
What stands in the way of the recognition of this so self-evident
truth? Ideas like "sustainability," "stakeholder capitalism," "social responsibility," "tech ethics," "trust and safety," and "risk
management," which must be eliminated--"with extreme prejudice."
According to the logic of the piece, I suppose, this must happen in
order to nip in the bud the armies we can expect the avatars of
ethics and responsibility to raise any day now.
Basically, the manifesto is an argument, dressed up in the raiment of morality, about power: Andreessen and people like him should get to
make decisions to reorder life as we know it without interference
from anyone else. Which will be quite relevant to know for the saga
ahead, once you see the style of moral judgment this most powerful of
human actors displays behind closed doors.
IT WAS A NICE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA DAY. I saw from the map that a
rideshare trip from San Francisco to Atherton would be a good bit
cheaper if I embarked from a freeway entrance a mile or so from where
I was. I set off on one of those glorious walks that remind you why
you can't help loving cities, in all their unplanned and unplannable
charm. I strolled across one of the remaining shabby parts of San
Francisco, untouched by the gentrifiers, and my stops included a
glorious junk shop stuffed stem to stern with ghosts of San Francisco
past, including a pile of wooden chairs tangled from floor to ceiling
like they came from some ancient Gold Rush; and a street corner where
a clutch of elderly Black men were singing doo-wop.
I arrived at my destination in a good mood, electric with a writer's observant curiosity. The first detail I noted in Atherton was the
gate where I was dropped off; it informed me that an armed guard was
on duty 24 hours a day. The second was the hulking object standing by
the front door: a sculpture by the French modernist master Jean
Dubuffet (1901–1985), a smaller version of a massive, beloved
downtown public monument Chicagoans call "Snoopy in a Blender."
<https://blockclubchicago.org/2023/07/25/snoopy-in-a-blender- sculpture-moving-from-thompson-center-to-art-institute>
That certainly made an impression: not the sort of thing one usually
finds on front lawns.
I rang the bell; an Asian man in khakis and a sweater answered. I
snapped into guest mode, introducing myself enthusiastically. He
responded with an odd coldness. Then I realized he was not a fellow
guest but, I guess you'd say, the butler. A hundred years ago, he
might have been referred to as "houseboy" and greeted me in a tux.
I met Andreessen's wife. Laura Arrillaga-Andreessen is the daughter
of a sharp fellow who began scooping up commercial real estate in the bedraggled lands around Stanford University that became Silicon
Valley, becoming its pre-eminent landowner, which is kind of how aristocracies start in the dim mists of time. I reflected, perhaps
unfairly, that marrying off their daughters to young men of talent
and fortune is often how such families institutionalize their power.
She showed me around her art collection. I tried not to gawk, and
failed. "That's an Agnes Martin! ... A Claes Oldenburg maquette! He's
one of my favorites!" And so on. I later learned that
Arrillaga-Andreessen made a project of classing up the "cultural
desert" of Silicon Valley--the "pop-up gallery" she organized with a Manhattan powerhouse art dealer at her father's Tesla dealership was
covered in the art press as something like a philanthropic venture.
But progress was apparently sluggish; Arrillaga-Andreessen seemed
absurdly grateful to finally have a guest who knew who these artists
were. Quietly, I reflected upon how odd it is that people who claim
to love art, and sharing it with the world, would lock masterpieces
away for only themselves and their guests to enjoy. Among
aristocrats, I suppose, it has ever been thus.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=%22pace+gallery%22 +tesla+Arrillaga-Andreessen>
There were also lots of books on many subjects, piled up in
skyscraper-like stacks. Andreessen, you see, is an intellectual. That
was why I was there.
Andreessen wasn't, yet. I waited at the dining room table. A chef in
starched whites (was there a toque?) served me something delicious.
Then arrived in the room a "cranium so large, bald, and oblong that
you can't help but think of words like ‘jumbo' and ‘Grade A'" (The
New Yorker's words, not mine); and, one by one, his guests. My first impression of them came of their response to my small-talk
description of my delightful afternoon. Jaws practically dropped,
like I had dared an unaccompanied, unarmed stroll through Baghdad's
Sadr City in the spring of 2004.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sadr_City>
I had been told, via email, a little about the people I would meet:
mostly fellow investment magnates, but also an extra person added at
the last minute. She was a woman researching life extension,
something that, at the time, the world was just learning was a Valley plutocrat obsession. A woman, it was subtly emphasized. The times
we're living in: you know.
I can be slow, but I got it. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick was enmeshed in
a scandal over endemic sexism, and it had suddenly seemed imperative
to de-bro-ify the local culture a bit. Thus, this late-breaking
ringer. She was young, very pretty, and seemed to have practically no
spoken English.
<https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-reckless-rise-and-fall-of- ubers-ceo-travis-kalanick-sml9p3q2k>
The chef served us a lovely meal. I couldn't help but notice that he
was treated rather like a pizza delivery guy.
I see from a follow-up email that among the things discussed were
David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in
America, on the geographic patterns of American political culture and
their persistence; the anti-Enlightenment philosopher Julius Evola (I
had just begun exploring the explicit anti-liberalism of those close
to Trump, like Steve Bannon); 1970s New Left historiography on
regulatory capture; Corey Robin's The Reactionary Mind; Jimmy
Carter's embrace of austerity; the magnificent volume Strange Rebels:
1979 and the Birth of the 21st Century (I was hard at work then on my
book about the 1976–1980 period); and Jonathan Haidt on personality
type and ideology (someone else must have brought him up; I can't
stand him). I don't remember much of the discussion at all. But
certain telling sociological details will always stick with me. My
close friends have frequently heard me tell the tale.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion%27s_Seed>
<https://www.amazon.com/Strange-Rebels-1979-Birth-Century-ebook/ dp/B00H6UMGVI>
ONE PARTICIPANT WAS A BRITISH FORMER JOURNALIST become computer
tycoon who had been awarded a lordship. He proclaimed that the
Chinese middle class doesn't care about democracy or civil liberties.
I was treated as a sentimental naïf for questioning his blanket
confidence.
Another attendee seemed to see politics as a collection of
engineering problems. He kept setting up strange thought experiments,
which I did not understand. I recall thinking it was like talking to
a creature visiting from another solar system that did not have
humans in it. I later conveyed my recollection of this guy to an
acquaintance who once taught history at Stanford. He noted a
similarity to a student of his who insisted that all the age-old
problems historians worried over would soon obviously be solved by
better computers, and thus considered the entire humanistic
enterprise faintly ridiculous.
I also remember I raised an objection to Silicon Valley's fetish for "disruption" as the highest human value, noting that healthy
societies also recognize the value of preserving core values and institutions, and feeling gaslit in return when the group came back
heatedly that, no, Silicon Valley didn't fetishize disruption at all.
The subject of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) came up. They rose up in thunderous hatred at her for blocking potential "innovation in the
banking sector." (She'll make a similar cameo in Part Two of this
series.) I suffered an epic case of l'esprit d'escalier at that.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27esprit_de_l%27escalier>
I thought it was pretty much universally understood by then that the
fetish for "innovation in the banking sector" was what collapsed the
world economy in 2008. Had I not been stunned into silence, I could
have quoted Paul Volcker that the last useful innovation in banking
was the automatic teller machine, and pointed out that it was only by strangling "innovation in the banking sector" that (as Elizabeth
Warren always points out) the New Deal ushered in the longest period
of financial stability in American history, and the golden age of
global capitalism to boot. It was only when deregulation broke down
banking's vaunted "3-6-3" rule (take deposits at 3 percent, lend them
at 6 percent, and be on the golf course by 3 o'clock in the
afternoon) that financial collapses returned as a regular feature of
our lives. Silicon Valley, alas, would never learn.
<https://nypost.com/2009/12/13/the-only-thing-useful-banks-have- invented-in-20-years-is-the-atm/>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley_Bank#Collapse>
Anyhoo.
The evening progressed. The man with or without the toque cleared the
plates. This is when, as I've learned at hyper-elite confabs I've
attended, things tend to get down to brass tacks. Come with me, then,
inside that $33 million manse and hear what this extraordinarily
powerful individual who helped oversee the CIA and one of the most
powerful instruments of communication in human history (Facebook,
whose decisions the previous year had helped make Donald Trump
president) said when the subject turned to rural America. It was like
the first scene in an episode of Black Mirror.
I KNEW FROM THE NEW YORKER THAT ANDREESSEN had grown up in an
impoverished agricultural small town in Wisconsin, and despised it.
But I certainly was not prepared for his vituperation on the subject.
He made it clear that people who chose not to leave such places
deserved whatever impoverishment, cultural and political neglect, and alienation they suffered.
It's a libertarian commonplace, a version of their pinched vision of
why the market and only the market is the truly legitimate response
to oppressive conditions on the job: If you don't like it, you can
leave. If you don't, what you suffer is your own fault.
I brought up the ordinary comforts of kinship, friendship, craft,
memory, legend, lore, skills passed down across generations, and
other benefits that small towns provide: things that make human
beings human beings. I pointed out that there must be something in
the kind of places he grew up in worth preserving. I dared venture
that it is always worth mourning when a venerable human community
passes from the Earth; that maybe people are more than just figures
finding their proper price on the balance sheet of life ...
And that's when the man in the castle with the seven fireplaces said
it.
"I'm glad there's OxyContin and video games to keep those people
quiet."
I'm taking the liberty of putting it in quotation marks, though I
can't be sure those were his exact words. Marc, if you're reading,
feel free to get in touch and refresh my memory. Maybe he said
"quiescent," or "docile," or maybe "powerless." Something, certainly,
along those lines.
He was joking, sort of; but he was serious--definitely. "Kidding on
the square," jokes like those are called. All that talk about human
potential and morality, and this man afire to reorder life as we know
it jokingly welcomes chemical enslavement of those he grew up with,
for the sin of not being as clever and ambitious as he.
There is something very, very wrong with us, that our society affords
so much power to people like this.
From: <https://prospect.org/power/2024-04-24-my-dinner-with-andreessen/>
I was vaguely aware of Andreessen as the
guy who invented the first web browser, a socially useful accomplishment
by any measure and a story I had long kept in the back of my mind as an outstanding proof text that useful invention often flourishes best when government subsidizes it, socialism-style--given that Andreessen had
created it while a student at a public institution, the University of Illinois.
My Dinner With Andreessen
=========================
Billionaires I have known: Part One of a three-part series
by Rick Perlstein
April 24, 2024
Anyone surprised? My theory is that you don't become a billionaire by
being cute and cuddly.
My Dinner With Andreessen
=========================
Billionaires I have known: Part One of a three-part series
by Rick Perlstein
April 24, 2024
Ben Collver wrote:
My Dinner With Andreessen
=========================
Billionaires I have known: Part One of a three-part series
by Rick Perlstein
April 24, 2024
Rick Perlstein needs to STFU, as he's a left-wing kike.
That said, Andreessen needs to become an advocate of Throne, Altar and Freehold.
Markets are all well and good, but you need something to defend them,
such as a solid religion that fighting men can march under. I propose old-style Christianity.
I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for people
to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.
Rick Perlstein needs to STFU, as he's a left-wing kike.
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for people
to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.
Almost as though free markets cannot remain free without regulators to
keep them free.
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 00:15:03 -0400, Anonymous wrote:
Rick Perlstein needs to STFU, as he's a left-wing kike.
Where are the righteous right-wingers who can contribute to Free software
as well as expound opinions on it? There don’t seem to be any.
On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for people >>> to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.
Almost as though free markets cannot remain free without regulators to
keep them free.
Free markets ten ro become oligopols, if not regulated.
That is not gard to priive under some mild conditions.
Go read about it, if zou can understand the math behind that.
'Andreas
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for people
to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.
Almost as though free markets cannot remain free without regulators to
keep them free.
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Andreas Eder wrote:
On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for people >>>> to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.
Almost as though free markets cannot remain free without regulators to
keep them free.
Free markets ten ro become oligopols, if not regulated.
That is not gard to priive under some mild conditions.
Go read about it, if zou can understand the math behind that.
Nope, actually governments tend to create oligopolies due to being such
big actors on the market that work according to politics and not according
to profit motive. FANG profit handsomely by government protection.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Andreas Eder wrote:
On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for people >>>>> to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.
Almost as though free markets cannot remain free without regulators to >>>> keep them free.
Free markets ten ro become oligopols, if not regulated.
That is not gard to priive under some mild conditions.
Go read about it, if zou can understand the math behind that.
Nope, actually governments tend to create oligopolies due to being such
big actors on the market that work according to politics and not according >> to profit motive. FANG profit handsomely by government protection.
Both of these statements are true and they are in no way contradictory. --scott
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Andreas Eder wrote:
On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for people >>>>>> to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.
Almost as though free markets cannot remain free without regulators to >>>>> keep them free.
Free markets ten ro become oligopols, if not regulated.
That is not gard to priive under some mild conditions.
Go read about it, if zou can understand the math behind that.
Nope, actually governments tend to create oligopolies due to being such
big actors on the market that work according to politics and not according >>> to profit motive. FANG profit handsomely by government protection.
Both of these statements are true and they are in no way contradictory.
--scott
Nope, they are contradictory.
The act of regulation decreases freedom, hence increases
oligopoly/monopoly. It is of course a spectrum and not binary, but
the more regulation, the more monopoly and the end station is
socialism where the government is the monopoly with all the power,
and the citizens being slaves.
Only less regulation and more free markets can counter that. Johan
Norbergs book, The capitalist manifesto also proves conclusively that less regulation and more freedom is the only thing that leads to increase
quality of life.
the overall competition. If the specific market has large market
specific capitol costs for entry (i.e., must build a $5Bn or more >semiconductor chip fab in order to enter and compete) then, over time, >consolidation (largest competitor purchasing up smaller competitors)
can happen faster than new entrants such that, in the limit, the result
will also be monopoly.
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Where are the righteous right-wingers who can contribute to FreeEither they are outspoken and are shunned and net-hated ...
software as well as expound opinions on it? There don’t seem to be any.
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:Of course they can.
I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for
people to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.
Almost as though free markets cannot remain free without regulators to
keep them free.
Free markets ten ro become oligopols, if not regulated.
On Fri, 05 Jul 2024 10:56:20 +0200, Andreas Eder wrote:
Free markets ten ro become oligopols, if not regulated.
Case in point: the introduction of mobile phones. The Europeans decided
that there had to be a common standard, rather than having every carrier build its own proprietary network. So they came up with a Government- mandated spec called "GSM". Yes, it was a complex. bureaucratic spec, but
it was a proper spec, with compliance tests and everything. So you had
proper interoperability. The only thing that tied you to a particular
carrier was that you got your SIM card from them. So switching carriers
was as easy as getting a new SIM card.
Ahh, except that the spec included SIM Locking, with which all that compatiblity can be made irrelevent for a user with a network-locked
phone:
In article <v69fbp$3d8jk$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
Yes, and no. You may be overlooking that in a totally free market, the
competitors are also completely free to purchase each other, reducing
the overall competition. If the specific market has large market
specific capitol costs for entry (i.e., must build a $5Bn or more
semiconductor chip fab in order to enter and compete) then, over time,
consolidation (largest competitor purchasing up smaller competitors)
can happen faster than new entrants such that, in the limit, the result
will also be monopoly.
It goes beyond this. It is in the clear best interest of any business
to have a monopoly or to at least reduce competition. This being the
case, people in an existing business do the most they can to keep the
market from being free.
It is true that one of the things they do is to lobby for regulation
to control the market, and in this regard it's true that the government
is often involved in reducing competition.
But with hands taken completely off the market, dominant businesses (especially in a market with a lot of initial capital required, such
as telecoms or chip fab as described above) will do to most they can
to squelch competition and the government can also prevent that to increase competition. There's nothing that -can- stop it short of regulation.
Copyrights and patents can also reduce competition but they can also
increase competition by promoting innovation. Too short a patent
duration and it does little to promote innovation, too long a patent
duration and it suppresses competition. So once again there's a fine
line to be treaded.
It's not as simple as Adam Smith made it out to be anymore.
--scott
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 11:40:44 +0200, D wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Where are the righteous right-wingers who can contribute to FreeEither they are outspoken and are shunned and net-hated ...
software as well as expound opinions on it? There don’t seem to be any. >>>
But nobody can stop them distributing their software, can they? It will
still manage to stand or fall on its merits, just like everything in Open Source.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote::wq
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Andreas Eder wrote:
On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for people
to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.
Almost as though free markets cannot remain free without regulators to >>>>>> keep them free.
Free markets ten ro become oligopols, if not regulated.
That is not gard to priive under some mild conditions.
Go read about it, if zou can understand the math behind that.
Nope, actually governments tend to create oligopolies due to being such >>>> big actors on the market that work according to politics and not according >>>> to profit motive. FANG profit handsomely by government protection.
Both of these statements are true and they are in no way contradictory.
--scott
Nope, they are contradictory.
The statements are not contradictory.
The act of regulation decreases freedom, hence increases
oligopoly/monopoly. It is of course a spectrum and not binary, but
the more regulation, the more monopoly and the end station is
socialism where the government is the monopoly with all the power,
and the citizens being slaves.
You are correct.
Only less regulation and more free markets can counter that. Johan
Norbergs book, The capitalist manifesto also proves conclusively that less >> regulation and more freedom is the only thing that leads to increase
quality of life.
Yes, and no. You may be overlooking that in a totally free market, the competitors are also completely free to purchase each other, reducing
the overall competition. If the specific market has large market
specific capitol costs for entry (i.e., must build a $5Bn or more semiconductor chip fab in order to enter and compete) then, over time, consolidation (largest competitor purchasing up smaller competitors)
can happen faster than new entrants such that, in the limit, the result
will also be monopoly.
On Fri, 05 Jul 2024 10:56:20 +0200, Andreas Eder wrote:
Free markets ten ro become oligopols, if not regulated.
Case in point: the introduction of mobile phones. The Europeans decided
that there had to be a common standard, rather than having every carrier build its own proprietary network. So they came up with a Government- mandated spec called “GSM”. Yes, it was a complex. bureaucratic spec, but it was a proper spec, with compliance tests and everything. So you had
proper interoperability. The only thing that tied you to a particular
carrier was that you got your SIM card from them. So switching carriers
was as easy as getting a new SIM card.
Meanwhile, in the USA, the prevailing ideology was “let the market decide”. So each carrier created its own proprietary network, and its customers were locked into that network.
And so you had the interesting situation where, in Europe, you could buy
your phone first, then decide which carrier to sign up to, whereas in the USA, you first chose your carrier, and then you had to buy your phone from them.
And not only was the European system successful in Europe, it became
popular in most of the rest of the world, too. So you had the situation,
in the early days of Android, where a new model from Samsung or HTC or whomever would be available across the entire GSM-using world within a
matter of days, while customers in the US had to wait another couple of weeks, for carrier-specific versions to come out for their particular carriers.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Andreas Eder wrote:
On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for people
to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.
Almost as though free markets cannot remain free without regulators to >>>>>> keep them free.
Free markets ten ro become oligopols, if not regulated.
That is not gard to priive under some mild conditions.
Go read about it, if zou can understand the math behind that.
Nope, actually governments tend to create oligopolies due to being such >>>> big actors on the market that work according to politics and not according >>>> to profit motive. FANG profit handsomely by government protection.
Both of these statements are true and they are in no way contradictory.
--scott
Nope, they are contradictory.
The statements are not contradictory.
The act of regulation decreases freedom, hence increases
oligopoly/monopoly. It is of course a spectrum and not binary, but
the more regulation, the more monopoly and the end station is
socialism where the government is the monopoly with all the power,
and the citizens being slaves.
You are correct.
Only less regulation and more free markets can counter that. Johan
Norbergs book, The capitalist manifesto also proves conclusively that less >> regulation and more freedom is the only thing that leads to increase
quality of life.
Yes, and no. You may be overlooking that in a totally free market, the competitors are also completely free to purchase each other, reducing
the overall competition. If the specific market has large market
specific capitol costs for entry (i.e., must build a $5Bn or more semiconductor chip fab in order to enter and compete) then, over time, consolidation (largest competitor purchasing up smaller competitors)
can happen faster than new entrants such that, in the limit, the result
will also be monopoly.
They are. One sentence says that free markets become oligopolies (which is >not true) while the other says that government regulated markets (non-free >markets) become oligopolies.
Either free markets create them, or non-free markets. If both create them, >this discussion is meaningless. Needless to say, I do not believe so, but
if someone does believe it, I see no point in continuing talking.
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Andreas Eder wrote:
On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
This is for instance the situation between Lawrence and myself, so
every time he writes about his socialist theories, I just laugh and
write some nonsense back, since I cannot even take him seriously.
On 6 Jul 2024 13:00:23 +1000, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Ahh, except that the spec included SIM Locking, with which all that
compatiblity can be made irrelevent for a user with a network-locked
phone:
All the jurisdictions I'm aware of had consumer-protection regulators who
saw to it that unlocking a locked phone was available at a reasonable
charge. Basically, customers got a discount off buying a SIM-locked phone (compared to an unlocked one), and they had to repay some part of that discount when it was unlocked, depending on how long before this was done.
Compare this to the US system, where there was no option to unlock the
SIM, because there was no SIM.
Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can
be used as an example.
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 11:37:56 +0200, D wrote:Incorrect. Read this [useless article].
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:Of course they can.
I find it tragic that something like that should be necessary for
people to lift a finger when it comes to protecting markets.
Almost as though free markets cannot remain free without regulators
to keep them free.
No they can’t. Left to themselves, they fall prey to anticompetitive
practices, deceptive advertising, price-fixing, and just plain fraud.
That’s why we need laws, and a Government to enforce them. Freedom
requires order; anarchy is not freedom.
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 11:40:44 +0200, D wrote:I am not talking about distributing their software.
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Where are the righteous right-wingers who can contribute to FreeEither they are outspoken and are shunned and net-hated ...
software as well as expound opinions on it? There don’t seem to be
any.
But nobody can stop them distributing their software, can they? It will
still manage to stand or fall on its merits, just like everything in
Open Source.
If they raise the price, competitors will form, or alternatives will be developed.
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
They are. One sentence says that free markets become oligopolies (which is >> not true) while the other says that government regulated markets (non-free >> markets) become oligopolies.
But they BOTH can become oligopolies.
Either free markets create them, or non-free markets. If both create them, >> this discussion is meaningless. Needless to say, I do not believe so, but
if someone does believe it, I see no point in continuing talking.
The natural state of the system is oligopoly. A government can resist this, or it can accelerate it. This is why a government controlled by an informed electorate is so important.
--scott
with <335ed481-557d-7d19-949a-fadba2016d2f@example.net> D wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Andreas Eder wrote:
On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
*SKIP* [ 37 lines 6 levels deep]
This is for instance the situation between Lawrence and myself, so
every time he writes about his socialist theories, I just laugh and
write some nonsense back, since I cannot even take him seriously.
Do you realize that you both are not distinguishable from chatgpt?
D wrote:
In terms of european failure we can just compare european GDP (PPP) per
capita according to IMF (58,838 USD) with the US (85,373 USD) to see
that a more free society is a richer and more ethical society.
Are you actually claiming that higher GDP equals more ethical? So Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, as well as various European nations are more ethical then America as well as China's increasing GDP is based on becoming more ethical.
Dave
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:28:05 +0200, D wrote:
Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can
be used as an example.
The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US continued
to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries used the Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just “let the market decide”.
Coincidence? You be the judge.
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:21:32 +0200, D wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 11:40:44 +0200, D wrote:I am not talking about distributing their software.
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Where are the righteous right-wingers who can contribute to FreeEither they are outspoken and are shunned and net-hated ...
software as well as expound opinions on it? There don’t seem to be >>>>> any.
But nobody can stop them distributing their software, can they? It will
still manage to stand or fall on its merits, just like everything in
Open Source.
If their software contributions *are* being accepted and distributed, then how would you say they are being “shunned”?
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:18:57 +0200, D wrote:
If they raise the price, competitors will form, or alternatives will be
developed.
There are ways to stifle competition, if there are no laws to prevent it. Deceptive advertising, predatory pricing, cornering the market on
important components, buying out competitors ... the history of capitalism
is littered with examples of all of these.
Remember the phrase: “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. An economic monopoly is something pretty close to “absolute power”.
D wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
D wrote:
In terms of european failure we can just compare european GDP (PPP) per >>>> capita according to IMF (58,838 USD) with the US (85,373 USD) to see
that a more free society is a richer and more ethical society.
Are you actually claiming that higher GDP equals more ethical? So
Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, as well as various European
nations are more ethical then America as well as China's increasing
GDP is based on becoming more ethical.
Dave
Yes, because they steal less from me in terms of taxes. Tax is theft. In
terms of violence, war, theft etc. governments are all bad. The
difference is the type of criminal activity, and if it is successfully
hidden. So yes, from a tax point of view, that is my opinion.
One thing to note though, is that I say more ethical, and not _ethical.
No government is ethical. And all governments can become more and more
ethical as they strive to abolish themselves. So no, arabia is not
"ethical" but since they engage in less theft than for instance, sweden,
then yes, they are more ethical than sweden.
Why do you pay taxes if you consider it unethical? There's country's you could move to with little government and no taxes such as Haiti, or simply stop paying taxes by not taking the fruits of those taxes.
Dave
Tax is theft.
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:28:05 +0200, D wrote:That is incorrect.
Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can
be used as an example.
The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US
continued to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries used
the Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just “let the market
decide”.
Coincidence? You be the judge.
Ahh... so you did not read?
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:34:21 +0200, D wrote:
Tax is theft.
Tax pays for law enforcement.
Tax pays for the roads leading to your
house. Tax pays for keeping your water clean and your air breatheable, against the depredations of corporations who would happily pass on such
costs as an “externality”.
As for the natural state of the system in a free market, it is not
oligopoly. It is a diverse set of millions and millions of companies.
One company governing all of earth would collapse the same way as big governments (and I'm thinking world government) collapses due to
inefficient organization.
The free market is self organizing and decentralised, and that is the
natural state of it, without government creating and helping the
behemoths we have today.
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:36:20 +0200, D wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:28:05 +0200, D wrote:That is incorrect.
Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can >>>> be used as an example.
The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US
continued to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries used
the Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just “let the market >>> decide”.
Coincidence? You be the judge.
That’s what really happened. This is all a matter of public record, that
no amount of ranting polemic, no matter how loudly shouted, can erase.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:34:21 +0200, D wrote:
Tax is theft.
Tax pays for law enforcement.
"Law enforcement" prevents us white people from organizing collective
defense of our neighborhoods against blacks. They also enforce the
current anarcho-tyranny we're forced to live under here in America.
Tax pays for the roads leading to your
house. Tax pays for keeping your water clean and your air breatheable,
against the depredations of corporations who would happily pass on such
costs as an “externality”.
A small amount compared to just Medicare and Medicaid. Oh wait, tax
doesn't pay for the majority of those, as they are currently some 80
percent unfunded by tax receipts, and account for the vast majority,
if not ALL of the deficit.
Stop with your bait-and-switch.
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:31:05 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in <7896d979-7348-9c9c-d5a1-db664baa32fc@example.net>:
As for the natural state of the system in a free market, it is not
oligopoly. It is a diverse set of millions and millions of companies.
One company governing all of earth would collapse the same way as big
governments (and I'm thinking world government) collapses due to
inefficient organization.
The free market is self organizing and decentralised, and that is the
natural state of it, without government creating and helping the
behemoths we have today.
We should also do away with referees on soccer pitches, because the games will self organize.
Seriously, I have just 2 comments:
1) The bigotry from "Anonymous" was uncalled for, and
2) "free markets" are not to be desired. _FAIR_ markets, are.
You can't have a fair market without fair referees...and there's the rub. _Some_ regulation is necessary.
For example: Microsoft was adjudicated to be a monopoly at one point,
the question was if they were using that status unfairly in the market.
How does that look today?
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:37:07 +0200, D wrote:
Ahh... so you did not read?
Appealing to such a questionable authority who has done such a good job of telling you what to think is convincing others only of how gullible you
are.
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with <335ed481-557d-7d19-949a-fadba2016d2f@example.net> D wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Andreas Eder wrote:
On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
I did not realize that. Thank you very much Eric for pointing thatThis is for instance the situation between Lawrence and myself, soDo you realize that you both are not distinguishable from chatgpt?
every time he writes about his socialist theories, I just laugh and
write some nonsense back, since I cannot even take him seriously.
out. ;)
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
D wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
D wrote:
Sadly I have family commitment which are leveraged against me. If IOne thing to note though, is that I say more ethical, and notWhy do you pay taxes if you consider it unethical? There's country's
_ethical. No government is ethical. And all governments can become
more and more ethical as they strive to abolish themselves. So no,
arabia is not "ethical" but since they engage in less theft than for
instance, sweden, then yes, they are more ethical than sweden.
you could move to with little government and no taxes such as Haiti,
or simply stop paying taxes by not taking the fruits of those taxes.
could just stop paying taxes without jeopardising those family
commitments and without risking violence I definitely would.
So what do I do instead?
I fight with lawyers and aggressive tax planning. I'm down to about 9%
to 14% in taxes, which is much better than the 60+% or so I used to
pay, but the journey towards 0% continues! =) Once my family
commitments are not holding me back, I think, as you say, that it
should be quite possible to shave off some additional couple of % from
that figure! =)
with <c221af53-c952-60e8-d1b8-12539a759688@example.net> D wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
D wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
D wrote:
*SKIP* [ 17 lines 5 levels deep]
Sadly I have family commitment which are leveraged against me. If IOne thing to note though, is that I say more ethical, and notWhy do you pay taxes if you consider it unethical? There's country's
_ethical. No government is ethical. And all governments can become
more and more ethical as they strive to abolish themselves. So no,
arabia is not "ethical" but since they engage in less theft than for
instance, sweden, then yes, they are more ethical than sweden.
you could move to with little government and no taxes such as Haiti,
or simply stop paying taxes by not taking the fruits of those taxes.
could just stop paying taxes without jeopardising those family
commitments and without risking violence I definitely would.
News flash! You've bee *brainwashed* into "family commintments". Move
to Haiti while you can!
So what do I do instead?
I fight with lawyers and aggressive tax planning. I'm down to about 9%
to 14% in taxes, which is much better than the 60+% or so I used to
pay, but the journey towards 0% continues! =) Once my family
commitments are not holding me back, I think, as you say, that it
should be quite possible to shave off some additional couple of % from
that figure! =)
And that lawyering isn't taxation how?
Also, you forgot to add "Contact me to learn more". Your lawyer is
already disappointed.
with <adfeb857-31b4-142b-03f5-9d38aeb803f7@example.net> D wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with <335ed481-557d-7d19-949a-fadba2016d2f@example.net> D wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jul 2024, Andreas Eder wrote:
On Do 04 Jul 2024 at 23:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2024 12:42:22 +0200, D wrote:
I did not realize that. Thank you very much Eric for pointing thatThis is for instance the situation between Lawrence and myself, soDo you realize that you both are not distinguishable from chatgpt?
every time he writes about his socialist theories, I just laugh and
write some nonsense back, since I cannot even take him seriously.
out. ;)
Unability to withhold comments. This is so chatgpt thing to do.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:games
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:31:05 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
<7896d979-7348-9c9c-d5a1-db664baa32fc@example.net>:
As for the natural state of the system in a free market, it is not
oligopoly. It is a diverse set of millions and millions of companies.
One company governing all of earth would collapse the same way as big
governments (and I'm thinking world government) collapses due to
inefficient organization.
The free market is self organizing and decentralised, and that is the
natural state of it, without government creating and helping the
behemoths we have today.
We should also do away with referees on soccer pitches, because the
somewill self organize.
You have never played football without a judge? I've played plento of self-organized football games. Some games self-organize with a judge
without.
Seriously, I have just 2 comments:
1) The bigotry from "Anonymous" was uncalled for, and
2) "free markets" are not to be desired. _FAIR_ markets, are.
See the article I sent, that shows why 1 and 2 are wrong.
rub.You can't have a fair market without fair referees...and there's the
_Some_ regulation is necessary.
Incorrect. I've made 100s of thousands if not more without judges and referees. Let me guess... you are not running your own company, right?
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:28:05 +0200, D wrote:
Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can
be used as an example.
The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US continued
to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries used the >Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just “let the market >decide”.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:22:16 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in <1da9000c-47f2-06ff-3bab-9ebad5d2e6ba@example.net>:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:games
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:31:05 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
<7896d979-7348-9c9c-d5a1-db664baa32fc@example.net>:
As for the natural state of the system in a free market, it is not
oligopoly. It is a diverse set of millions and millions of companies.
One company governing all of earth would collapse the same way as big
governments (and I'm thinking world government) collapses due to
inefficient organization.
The free market is self organizing and decentralised, and that is the
natural state of it, without government creating and helping the
behemoths we have today.
We should also do away with referees on soccer pitches, because the
somewill self organize.
You have never played football without a judge? I've played plento of
self-organized football games. Some games self-organize with a judge
without.
Seriously, I have just 2 comments:
1) The bigotry from "Anonymous" was uncalled for, and
2) "free markets" are not to be desired. _FAIR_ markets, are.
See the article I sent, that shows why 1 and 2 are wrong.
So you condone the bigotry. Ad hominem fallacy #1.
rub.
You can't have a fair market without fair referees...and there's the
_Some_ regulation is necessary.
Incorrect. I've made 100s of thousands if not more without judges and
referees. Let me guess... you are not running your own company, right?
So you refer to my personal circumstances as if it had any bearing on
my arguments. Ad hominem fallacy #2.
Now, it's true that my business partner and I started a company in 1994
that is still going strong after 30 years, one with over 750 employees
last time I checked. And it's true that I speak from experience,
because we are an ISP fighting two "elephants" in the market that
continue their regulatory capture -- where we have fought for a
fairer market.
But again, referring to my personal circumstances only means you
have a loose grasp of logic, and are prone to logical fallacies.
I'll let you try again to make an argument without your disgusting
bigotry or logical fallacies -- if you dare.
And I'm not even going to approach a discussion of natural monopolies
with respect to last-mile Internet or operating system
standards -- at least, not with you, until you recognize
your logical lapses.
with <92b78f54-c980-13f9-8eb6-37385e3349a3@example.net> D wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with <c221af53-c952-60e8-d1b8-12539a759688@example.net> D wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
D wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
D wrote:
*SKIP* [ 30 lines 5 levels deep] # connectivity is lost
Lawyering is not taxation, correct.
Are you talking to yourself that early?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:28:05 +0200, D wrote:
Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can
be used as an example.
The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US continued
to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries used the
Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just ???let the market
decide???.
It's true that the cellphone companies in the US lobbied congress for a number of regulations that stifled competition and stifled the growth
of the industry, such as the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 which remains a stumbling block for all kinds of things.
--scott
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with <c221af53-c952-60e8-d1b8-12539a759688@example.net> D wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
D wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024, Dave Yeo wrote:
D wrote:
Lawyering is not taxation, correct.
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:22:16 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
<1da9000c-47f2-06ff-3bab-9ebad5d2e6ba@example.net>:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:games
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:31:05 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
<7896d979-7348-9c9c-d5a1-db664baa32fc@example.net>:
As for the natural state of the system in a free market, it is not
oligopoly. It is a diverse set of millions and millions of
companies.
One company governing all of earth would collapse the same way as
big governments (and I'm thinking world government) collapses due to >>>>> inefficient organization.
The free market is self organizing and decentralised, and that is
the natural state of it, without government creating and helping the >>>>> behemoths we have today.
We should also do away with referees on soccer pitches, because the
somewill self organize.
You have never played football without a judge? I've played plento of
self-organized football games. Some games self-organize with a judge
without.
Seriously, I have just 2 comments:
1) The bigotry from "Anonymous" was uncalled for, and 2) "free
markets" are not to be desired. _FAIR_ markets, are.
See the article I sent, that shows why 1 and 2 are wrong.
So you condone the bigotry. Ad hominem fallacy #1.
rub.You can't have a fair market without fair referees...and there's the
_Some_ regulation is necessary.
Incorrect. I've made 100s of thousands if not more without judges and
referees. Let me guess... you are not running your own company, right?
So you refer to my personal circumstances as if it had any bearing on
my arguments. Ad hominem fallacy #2.
Now, it's true that my business partner and I started a company in 1994
that is still going strong after 30 years, one with over 750 employees
last time I checked. And it's true that I speak from experience,
because we are an ISP fighting two "elephants" in the market that
continue their regulatory capture -- where we have fought for a fairer
market.
But again, referring to my personal circumstances only means you have a
loose grasp of logic, and are prone to logical fallacies.
I'll let you try again to make an argument without your disgusting
bigotry or logical fallacies -- if you dare.
And I'm not even going to approach a discussion of natural monopolies
with respect to last-mile Internet or operating system standards -- at
least, not with you, until you recognize your logical lapses.
Sorry, you are incorrect.
Not much we can do here.
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 12:09:35 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in <a53335e6-987e-c786-9ad4-2ac963f2f340@example.net>:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:22:16 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
<1da9000c-47f2-06ff-3bab-9ebad5d2e6ba@example.net>:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2024, vallor wrote:games
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:31:05 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote in
<7896d979-7348-9c9c-d5a1-db664baa32fc@example.net>:
As for the natural state of the system in a free market, it is not >>>>>> oligopoly. It is a diverse set of millions and millions of
companies.
One company governing all of earth would collapse the same way as
big governments (and I'm thinking world government) collapses due to >>>>>> inefficient organization.
The free market is self organizing and decentralised, and that is
the natural state of it, without government creating and helping the >>>>>> behemoths we have today.
We should also do away with referees on soccer pitches, because the
somewill self organize.
You have never played football without a judge? I've played plento of
self-organized football games. Some games self-organize with a judge
without.
Seriously, I have just 2 comments:
1) The bigotry from "Anonymous" was uncalled for, and 2) "free
markets" are not to be desired. _FAIR_ markets, are.
See the article I sent, that shows why 1 and 2 are wrong.
So you condone the bigotry. Ad hominem fallacy #1.
rub.You can't have a fair market without fair referees...and there's the
_Some_ regulation is necessary.
Incorrect. I've made 100s of thousands if not more without judges and
referees. Let me guess... you are not running your own company, right?
So you refer to my personal circumstances as if it had any bearing on
my arguments. Ad hominem fallacy #2.
Now, it's true that my business partner and I started a company in 1994
that is still going strong after 30 years, one with over 750 employees
last time I checked. And it's true that I speak from experience,
because we are an ISP fighting two "elephants" in the market that
continue their regulatory capture -- where we have fought for a fairer
market.
But again, referring to my personal circumstances only means you have a
loose grasp of logic, and are prone to logical fallacies.
I'll let you try again to make an argument without your disgusting
bigotry or logical fallacies -- if you dare.
And I'm not even going to approach a discussion of natural monopolies
with respect to last-mile Internet or operating system standards -- at
least, not with you, until you recognize your logical lapses.
Sorry, you are incorrect.
That is not an argument.
Not much we can do here.
This much is true. You run into an actual 1%-er -- one who
thinks you're full of crap -- and you run for the hills.
You were wrong on rasw, and you're wrong here, too.
But for someone who likes to say "we have nothing to talk about"
so much, you sure do like to shoot your mouth off, Bigot.
p.s. The article in the OP was excellent, and relatable by
anyone with a conscience.
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US
continued to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries
used the Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just ???let
the market decide???.
It's true that the cellphone companies in the US lobbied congress for
a number of regulations that stifled competition and stifled the
growth of the industry, such as the Electronic Communication Privacy
Act of 1986 which remains a stumbling block for all kinds of things.
It is a good example of capitalism in action, using capital to acquire
more capital, in this case by buying government.
D wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2024 12:28:05 +0200, D wrote:
Except that neither europe nor the US are free markets, so neither can >>>>> be used as an example.
The simple fact is that mobile phones took off in lots of countries,
reaching over 100% penetration in several of them, while the US
continued
to lag behind. What was different? Those other countries used the
Government-mandated GSM standard, while the US just ???let the market
decide???.
It's true that the cellphone companies in the US lobbied congress for a
number of regulations that stifled competition and stifled the growth
of the industry, such as the Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 >>> which remains a stumbling block for all kinds of things.
--scott
Thank you for a good example Scott.
It is a good example of capitalism in action, using capital to acquire more capital, in this case by buying government.
Why do you hate capitalism?
Dave
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 388 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 05:47:08 |
| Calls: | 8,220 |
| Calls today: | 18 |
| Files: | 13,122 |
| Messages: | 5,872,261 |
| Posted today: | 1 |