Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 68 - 79 of 6,170
Posts 68 - 79 of 6,170
Ok, new mini-discussion here in this all-so-inactive Seasons forum... Messagers! Use 'em? Post your usernames. Don't use 'em? Talk about somethign else 
AIM: VA3MWL
Yahoo: MasterMWL
ICQ: 37226599
MSN: MasterMWL@hotmail.com
AIM: VA3MWL
Yahoo: MasterMWL
ICQ: 37226599
MSN: MasterMWL@hotmail.com
hey here is a huge surpise...
yahoo: paintpatricia
i have accounts on aol, and icq but i never use them, because freaks who put me on their buddy will not leave me alone!
yahoo: paintpatricia
i have accounts on aol, and icq but i never use them, because freaks who put me on their buddy will not leave me alone!
Continuing an out of place conversation from Bug Stomp...
When you refer to multiple people at VBThunder it is something of a misnomer, because it's just Ben Baird. He's a one man show. Actually he received recommendations for making his website compatible with Netscape which would be fairly easy to impliment; he just hasn't had time to update it since April 9, 2001. He is working on a major overhaul right now but probably won't finish it until this summer.
I just thought the link was funny. He loves to get e-mail from Microsoft bashers because they usually have extremely emotional and illogical arguments. I don't know how he would respond to your line of reasoning, but personally I don't know enough about the subject to coherently discuss it.
Concerning the fact that every company tries to dominate the market: It is inevitable for starters. If a business is trying to make money, it will naturally attempt to promote itself and grow as much as possible. If we boycotted every company that did this, we would have to boycott everyone. Personally, I think the correct way to topple a monopoly is via competition. At one time there were government granted monopolies; competition was outlawed. That system is inefficient. Efficiency comes from a free market. But a free market requires non-interference.
When you refer to multiple people at VBThunder it is something of a misnomer, because it's just Ben Baird. He's a one man show. Actually he received recommendations for making his website compatible with Netscape which would be fairly easy to impliment; he just hasn't had time to update it since April 9, 2001. He is working on a major overhaul right now but probably won't finish it until this summer.
I just thought the link was funny. He loves to get e-mail from Microsoft bashers because they usually have extremely emotional and illogical arguments. I don't know how he would respond to your line of reasoning, but personally I don't know enough about the subject to coherently discuss it.
Concerning the fact that every company tries to dominate the market: It is inevitable for starters. If a business is trying to make money, it will naturally attempt to promote itself and grow as much as possible. If we boycotted every company that did this, we would have to boycott everyone. Personally, I think the correct way to topple a monopoly is via competition. At one time there were government granted monopolies; competition was outlawed. That system is inefficient. Efficiency comes from a free market. But a free market requires non-interference.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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?
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar