Seasons

Actually, that last bit wasn't *quite* right. A free market requires non-interference except for that interference which keeps the market free. There are destabilizing forces in economics and monopoly is one of them. I favor making Microsoft share its source code with programmers, with the caveat of course that it's infringement to build an operating system using it.

But to go to what Sir Rahz was saying, the miracle of capitalism is that underlying motives are irrelevant because the result of "greed" in a free market is a net gain for all, which you cannot guarantee in any other system we've discovered. In that sense, it is a very good thing that a corporation seeks to increase its profits, and it is an irrelevant thing whether the employees of that corporation are motivated by thirst for money, desire to make a great product, or desire to help cure malaria, or all three.

True, it felt kinda' strange talking about this sorta' thing in a bugs forum... I shoulda' taken' the initiative to reply elsewhere...

Crab, please explain how "greed in a free market is a net gain for all"...

Eugene, if Ben needs any tips as to how to go about making a web page compatible, I'm always happy to share my experience. The message on his web site is pretty provocative, crude and wrongfully misleading. If you think he'd be interested in responding to my message, feel free to send it to him. I thought of forwarding a copy to him, but soon came to the conclusion that it would be fighting fire with fire. The guy has an "ihateben" email address already set up for receiving flames - sounds like a strange character. Some people just get a kick out of pissing certain groups of people off I guess...

I understand that an absolute hands off policy leads to anarchy, but I don't know if anti-trust legislation is the best policy. I don't like a lot of things about Microsoft, but complaints about them aside, it does make a certain amount of sense to have a standardized operating system. If you have multiple operating systems, they at least have to be compatible with one another, thus conforming to some sort of standard. Or they should, so that software can be used across the board. Imagine if every manufacturer of CD players used a unique CD format.

Concerning Ben Baird, he really does believe that Netscape is an inferior product. Actually, that has been my experience as well. When I have used computers that only had Netscape on them, I have consistently had more problems. Perhaps there are other factors playing into these results; I don't know. Explorer freezes way too often as it is. But I think Ben Baird was prompted to write that message partly as a result of receiving emails from people asking why his site wouldn't render properly in Netscape. Some of these people were militant Microsoft haters who didn't believe anyone should use Explorer just on the principle of the thing. I think his motivation in setting up the ihateben address was partly to show that he wouldn't take such messages seriously, partly to sort such messages into one place (he gets a ton of email) and partly just to be funny. I will send him your message; he loves replying to them and will probably appreciate someone with an actual argument.

Incidently, he doesn't like Microsoft much either because of the changes they made in Visual Basic.

The use of the "standard" for user-technologies like the compact disc makes them easier to use and reduces the risk that the equipment will soon be worthless. That makes consumers more likely to have confidence in buying them, and if they can't be sold to consumers they won't be made, so we all benefit from such standards in theory. However the adoption of such standards grossly retards the potential of the technology, leading the industry to adopt premature or antiquated hardware for the sake of consistency. So it's a real tug-of-war for the producer between the safety of the negotiated standard and the potential benefits from a better proprietary technology. Where producers should fall on this scale has a lot to do with how awesome and unique their projected product is and also with how much money people have to spend. When the economy booms, the payoffs are higher and risks more acceptable, so more R&D is done and more proprietary technologies are introduced and purchased, which ultimately has the effect of helping the economy further. The inverse is true as well -- when people aren't spending, that safety of the "standard" is golden.

However the adoption of a standard does necessarily equal a monopoly. A standard in this case would be a standard of compatibility agreed to by Microsoft and other-OS makers, not the wholesale adoption of the Microsoft product. Companies, while striving for monopoly, must nevertheless be prevented from keeping it unless they comport themselves in trust, which Microsoft does not appear to have done.

Another message for the greed is good explanation.

"greed in a free market is a net gain for all"

The value of this statement depends on your acceptance of utilitarianism as an ethical model. If you believe, as a rational person should, that an improvement in one's standard of living is good and a decline in one's standard of living is bad, and you believe that a system encouraging the overall increase is to be favored over one encouraging the overall decline, then I think you will agree with me that greed in a free market is good.

I use the word rational advisedly because the biggest ethical competitor with utilitarianism is that of Kant, who is not irrational in and of himself but is rendered beside the point when you include the fact that resources are scarce. Because resources are scarce, it is not possible for us to provide for everyone the standard of living to which we each aspire, certainly not that to which the more demanding of us aspire.

Given scarce resources, the problem becomes one of how to allocate them. The best solution for this would be to have an omniscient and benevolent monarch with an equally benevolent staff sufficient to parcel out goods and instructions (to be obeyed without delay) to every person around the world. OK, you got me: that's not an ideal system, is it? Who calls a system ideal when you have no free will? But if we don't follow his instructions, resources which are already scarce will become even scarcer. There will be hoarding and disagreement and misuse of resources so that less is available to go around while new and better things do not get made. We are stuck in a rut. There's got to be a better way. No? I guess not. Even under those circumstances, a benevolent monarch is the best we could do. So obviously, we're going to install a benevolent monarch immediately.

OK, problem: no such thing as a benevolent, omniscient monarch. Even if we hypothesize there is one, we certainly can't guarantee that any monarch we install is one. And as they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Thankfully, economics were discovered. That is, we can measure and predict market behavior, which is production, spending, and the allocation of resources. And we discover to our delight that the most efficient use of resources in a free (read: competitive) market is the one that generates the most profit for the producer, which to our utter delight is also the one that yields the greatest benefit to the consumer.

This is very good, because we no longer have to worry about finding a benevolent, omniscient monarch. The producer can be the most miserly little squit focused on nothing but getting enough cash to fund his drug habit, and as long as he is focused on having his company make as much profit as it can (which he can only do by moving towards equilibrium or the most efficient point), consumers get what they want and the standard of living rises.

It would take a lot longer to teach economics and for all I know you've already taken quite a bit of it, but the essential point is this: we predict, test, and confirm that while it does so unevenly, the standard of living for all involved always rises over time in a free market system, which no other system (except one by accident having the same properties as a free market system) guarantees -- in fact, a free market advances standard of living at the fastest rate possible given the scarcity of resources. That's solid! The problem is one of what exactly a free market looks like (scientific) and how to employ one (political). But the fact is, for the first time in the fistory of man, we have a scientific roadmap for our system of commerce and production.

Does that help answer the question?

I'm impressed that you managed to write that whole thing without a single reference to Adam Smith. :-) I would have mentioned him in the first paragraph.

First of all, I'd like to say that I sincerely appreciate the time you've taken to answer my question Crab. Only on a web site dedicated to artificial intelligence, could a Canadian and an American discuss greed and economics without getting all defensive and stupid. I'm really enjoying this discussion and I hope you (or anyone reading) won't take anything I say in my response personally (I'll do my best to make that easy).

While I'm at it, I might as well say that I'm sure Ben Baird is a way nicer person than my first impression has lead me to believe. I obviously didn't take the time to look at all the cool stuff there may be on his site prior responding. Nonetheless, you gotta' be somewhat held responsible for what you say in public, otherwise why post it? It may not always be a good idea to share one's personal bone-picking with all of cyber-space.

Now the fun part!

First, there's the Microsoft issue! I can see that greedy bastard (you know the one) coming from light years away! I totally agree that there should be standards... I love standards. But Microsoft has absolutely no respect for standards - they've totally monopolized the computer industry and the Internet and now they're using they're power and money to show us all how easily they can do whatever they please. How could they ever give up they're source code for Windows? It won't happen! They'll do everything they can to manipulate consumers, the market, laws and - worst of all - our entire digital universe, for as long as they can.

On that note, right now the best browser available for the Macintosh is in fact Microsoft Internet Explorer. If you think Explorer for PC is good - you should see it on the Mac! It's exactly what you'd expect a browser to be! It's simple, fast, subtle, polite and it even does a perfect job of interpreting all the w3c standards! Until iCab recently became reliable enough, even I was using it at as my main browser - and I hated every second of it! Why? Because they knew that satisfying users like me was the only way they could get that share of the market. This should be a good thing right? I mean, I'm using a good browser aren't I? So what's all the whining about? I'm whining because they haven't made half the effort for Windows based computers! They don't have to because they've already monopolized the operating system, so why bother trying to make a good browser like we did for all those pretentious Mac users? Let us make a so-so app that's practically everywhere I look from the day I boot my machine! That's what I hate about Microsoft, they'll purposely make crappy applications if they can. Funny thing is, almost everyone's aware of this, yet Microsoft still rules the market. As you've mentioned, even our friend Ben Baird now hates 'em for exactly that reason. Some people are sure strange, wanting to boycott them like so (pardon the pun).

And that leads me to the next point, the one about the wonders of greed in the free market. (Hold on, I'm going to go role another one first though...)

(Ahh! mushbetter)

I have to admit Crab, I agree with a lot of what you're saying - most of it actually, but I still don't agree that "greed" in a "free-market" is a net "gain" for "all". It's true, we're living in the first system our society has developed that gives us a nice little *standard* to evaluate our progress, our expenditures and the allocation of resources. I wouldn't be caught dead saying that capitalism is a bad thing in general. But I am willing to admit that there are definitely some negative aspects to it. There's a good and a bad side to everything: life, relationships, war, the country life, Microsoft & Bill Gates, capitalism and perhaps, in some aspects, even greed.

Let's keep in mind however, that our economic system, good or bad is at may be, is just part of our evolutionary process and is inevitably going to change. It will shape itself to our level of scientific knowledge, financial freedom and hopefully wisdom. *How* our economic system will change is each and everyone of our personal decisions. Personally, I would like to leave a new system behind for our children to live in, where "generosity in a free world is a way of life".

I know what you're thinking... you're thinking that I don't know what it's like to live in the real world, that my idea may sound peachy keen, but it ain't going to happen! Why not? I'll get back to that in a bit.

For now, one of the main aspects I'd like to bring up in your message, is your genetically encoded idea that our standards of living our increasing at the best possible rate. First, what are excellent standards of living? Studies have shown that what accounts for a successful life are actually things like, love, friendship, creativity, culture and, most certainly, freedom. I think the kind of success you're referring to when you thank greed, must be something along the lines of owning a big house, a kick-ass mustang, smoking the finest chronic and spending as much time sucking back info on the net as one feels they deserve. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to feel more offended by the previous comment than myself... so don't anyone hit that panic button quite yet, k?

Here's the deal: the market isn't actually free right now (I won't scroll through all the previous posts, 'cause it's getting late and I've lot's to say, but I think you may have insinuated something along those lines yourself Crab). Our system, the best we know so far, has been ok for a long while... but I think now we can start agreeing that it's getting way outta' hand. There are a few hundred companies in the world right now that have more power than any government (even yours). These companies, are in my opinion, what's causing most of the misery around the world today. Our quality of life may not seem so great when we consider the amount of hours we work a week, the time we spend with the ones we love, the air we breath, the crap we're served on all 298 channels, our waste lines, our sex lives, our debts, the availability of social services, the time we spend on hold, the crime rate, world famine... you know the list goes on. And who exactly is "all" in that precious sentence? What about the average life expectancy rate of 24 years old in some parts of africa - is that simply "they're" fault?

Go ahead, reach for the panic button now. I have.

Don't get me wrong, I love admiring the incredible feats of engineering our species has managed to produce as much as the next guy. I buy a brand new computer every couple years (forgive me! it's for work!), I've got food in my belly, I've traveled all over the world and was offered tons of opportunity. So why is it that my little finger tells me angst, stress and depression are a choice topic of conversation?

The reason is that companies that are in it for the money, end up stacking up all the resources (land, money, workers, planet) and using them to... make money. They're not really worried about your mustang or whether or not it makes you smile. They'll just give you barely enough to keep you busy. Which is good, 'cause if you're busy, you don't go around publishing stuff like this on the Internet. Keep bringing in the cash and we'll give you a bite off this cake! Not too big a bite though, or you may not want to woek overtime!

OK, what really gets me about people who say the kind of stuff I'm saying here tonight, is that it's really negative. I'm not a negative guy. I've never thought of committing suicide and I'm very rarely depressed. The reason for this, is that I feel that there's still a shit load of hope out there! I believe in a world where creativity is encouraged and generosity is part of every "great man's" accomplishment. This is not a world that Microsoft, AOL Time Warner, General Electric NBC and the bunch would ever dream of. They want us to sit in our living rooms and consume they're product - thanx to their greed. Things like the freedom of speech, free left-wing press are illusions set up to make us feel good about riding around in a jeep cherokee while most of the real free world is falling apart. At one time, we were closer to being free, but now freedom is perversely used to sell us life insurance, cars and booze.

But I believe that there's still lot's of hope for the future. I believe that most people will "choose" the right thing. Why spend all your time waiting for something fun to happen on the Microsoft Network, listening to main-stream radio or watching another hollywood remake, when you could instead watch one of the classic silent movies, listen to non-stop original net music and spend most of your waking hours on the forge (I seriously doubt that it would be the same if it were lucrative).

Does that justify my question?

I also have a lot of simple ideas that would make our governing bodies worth while for our day and age as well as ways to encourage companies to *want* to be generous, but that'll just have to wait 'till tomorrow night!

Oh boy, I don't have time to answer all of that but here's a couple of thoughts:

It's not that greed is a good thing, although pursuing the best for one's own business doesn't necessarily mean being greedy. But the point is that in a free market, competition will cause companies to supply what is demanded. Market values emerge as the prices at which the consumers will consume as much as the producers are producing. It's Adam Smith's "invisible hand" -- Economics 101. Unless you are a Keynsian, of course. :-) In the specific case of Microsoft, I think someone needs to stop complaining about the problems with their products and produce a superior product.

But I do not agree that the misery in the world is fundamentally caused by poor business practice. If businesses are greedy it's because people are greedy -- and this is the case because human nature is not basically good.
"The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" -- Jeremiah 17:9

yeah, but how's the weather?

Cold to the locals but not to me. Okay, so we are a little off topic. There wasn't really a good forum to put this in. I guess we could take it to Dogh'd's, but there's a lot of drunk people in there right now...

*pages Eugene M* heyyz I no'ot drunnk!