«

In article <>,
"Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:

>Brendan wrote:
>>>If you buy a laptop or a brand name desktop you don't get a choice of brands
>>>of RAM or HD just like you don't get a choice of operating system.
>
>> This has nothing to do with exclusive contracts at retail outlets.
>
>nope, it is a wholesaling parallel.
>
>The ODMs get cheaper parts because they sign exclusive contracts for one
>type of Hdd/Ram/whatever.
>
><irony>Oh dear god, it happens everywhere, and we benefit by getting
>cheaper prices for laptops, wow, this is such a bad thing.</irony>

It's a good thing for hardware, not necessarily such a good thing for
software.

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:13:22 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> A lot of those controls are there to ensure that the market conforms to
> some generally politically-acceptable interpretation of the adjective
> "free".
>
> For instance, is it a "free" market if any player is allowed to engage
> in downright fraudulent practices? Many people would say no. So we have
> laws against such practices, just to ensure the market remains "free".

> In short, an unregulated market cannot be a free market.

"Free Market" is an oxymoron. At best it is simply anarchy, re-branded and
polished up.

And like anarchy, it does not actually work with humans.

The less rigorous form of 'free market' the right wing ideologues in these
news groups prattle about cannot exist on it's own merits and must be
supported by an external authority of significant power such as a
government.

Otherwise some dominant player in the so called 'free market' would quickly
gain control as they leveraged their dominance into monopoly. Net result is
a dictatorship government.

The right wing extremists like redbaiter cannot grasp this concept but
prefer to persist in their illogical fantasies.

--

.... Brendan

My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child
is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can.

Note: All my comments are copyright 6/11/2004 7:42:50 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.

In article <ldo->, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
>In article <>,
> Brendan <> wrote:
>>On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 22:58:54 +1300, Maximum Burke wrote:
>>
>>>> 1. We do not have a free market.
>>>
>>> Yes we do.
>>
>>We do not. It is controlled, regulated and taxed through various laws, as
>>with most economies.
>
>A lot of those controls are there to ensure that the market conforms to
>some generally politically-acceptable interpretation of the adjective
>"free".

Yep ... so you agree it's not free then ?

>For instance, is it a "free" market if any player is allowed to engage
>in downright fraudulent practices? Many people would say no. So we have
>laws against such practices, just to ensure the market remains "free".

Nope. That doesn't ensure free ... it might ensure "fair"

>In short, an unregulated market cannot be a free market.

An interesting idea ... and one that many here would disagree with I suspect




Bruce

------------------------------
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
dying of nothing.

-Redd Foxx


Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)